HC Deb 27 May 1930 vol 239 cc1109-27
Captain WATERHOUSE

I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out the word "mum."

I do not object to the word "mum," but I want an explanation as to what is meant by "mum, spruce or black beer, or Berlin white beer." Any beer which can bear a Duty which works out at 1s. 8d. per pint must be beer of a rather curious sort, and any beer which reaches a degree of gravity of 1,215 is rather potent. I have made inquiries, as far as I am able, but I have not been able to ascertain that we produce any beer in this country which approaches a gravity of 1,215 degrees, and I want to know whether we import any beer as strong as this and, if so, how much. Will the Financial Secretary tell us where it comes from, and, above all, how it comes about that with his fiscal beliefs there is in this Bill a Clause with such tremendous protection as this? The beer produced in this country pays £5 16s. per barrel on a specific gravity of 1,215 degrees, but this imported beer is to pay £24 5s. Will he let me know for my own information and the information of the Committee where this beer comes from, how much we import, and whether I am right in thinking that this tremendous protective duty is designed to protect the people of this country or the producers of beer in this country, and whether we, in fact, produce any of this beer in England?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) has not shown the usual courtesy, when putting in a manuscript Amendment, of supplying me with the Amendment in advance, and, therefore, he cannot complain if my answer is somewhat brief. It is usual in the case of a manuscript Amendment to supply to the Minister who is in charge a copy of it so that he may be prepared, but I will answer briefly the points he has raised. At the present time, there is no beer being imported under the description "mum," but there has been in the past a special kind of German beer called mum, which came into this country and which was of the same category as the black beer manufactured in this country. The form of beer which is covered by this description is not a beverage in the ordinary sense, but is of the same character as beer, and is used partly as a medicine. It has been for many years included under the Beer Duty, and it is not the intention of the Government to change the practice adopted all this time.

The reason why the word "mum" is continued is because, though actually at the present time no mum is being imported, we have to be prepared in case it should be imported, in which case, if the Amendment were carried, it would be very unfair to British producers, and would be the exact reverse of a protective duty. For that reason, I cannot accept the Amendment, and I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite who are rather in favour of protecting home-grown produce, and certainly not in favour of protecting foreign produce, will not wish to press the Amendment.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN

If the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) wishes to carry his researches a little further, and will turn to Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1924, he will find the following Subsection: In this section the expression 'black beer' means beer of the descriptions called or similar to black beer, mum, spruce or Berlin white beer"— so that German black beer appears to be white beer, as far as I can make out— and any other preparations, whether fermented or not, of a similar character, and for the purposes of this section the specific gravity of a fermented preparation shall be taken to be the specific gravity of the worts thereof before fermentation. The beginning of the Clause in that Act reads: In the case of black beer of a specific gravity of one thousand two hundred degrees or upwards, the rebate from the Excise duty to be allowed under Section two of the Finance Act, 1923, and the rebate from the Customs Duty to be allowed under Section three of that Act, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, instead of being calculated at the rates for which provision is made by those sections respectively, be in each case calculated at the rate of five pounds, for every thirty-six gallons of beer of a specific gravity of one thousand two hundred and twenty degrees, and so in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity. I do not know whether it is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes from that great county Yorkshire, but I believe it is the fact that the only part of the country where this black beer is brewed is Yorkshire, and it is a very interesting thing that in my researches into this matter I have found that the only time we have had this raised in the last few years was in the Budget of 1924, for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible. If the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester likes to borrow this copy of the Act I shall be very glad to let him have it. I believe the reason why this word is wanted here is because if it were not there it might be more easily possible for the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester and his friends to import Berlin white beer, which is really black.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

The Financial Secretary, in purporting to give an explanation of the Clause, first complained that my hon. Friend did not give him notice of a manuscript Amendment, and he seemed to treat that as a great crime.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

No.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Of course, it is not my hon. Friend who is responsible for this Bill. The Government are responsible for it, and speakers on behalf of the Government ought to know their own Bill. They ought not to complain when my hon. Friend asks a perfectly reasonable question, and asks the representative of the Government to explain the Clause.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I have no objection to the question being asked as to an explanation. I think it will be borne out by anyone who has conducted a Bill that it is the usual practice, when a manuscript Amendment is handed in, for the Minister in charge of the Bill to have notice of it before it is moved. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will bear that out.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

The hon. Gentleman has either got a ground for complaint or he has not. As I understood him, he made the complaint that he was taken by surprise, and that notice ought to have been given of an Amendment which was, perhaps, for the very purpose of asking him what he meant by his own Bill. Apparently he resented that so much that he did not answer at all, and had to rely upon his ally or one of his old allies—I am not quite sure whether he is now an ally, or late ally, or perhaps a future ally—to explain what this Bill really meant.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

Not at all.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

He did not tell us that this was introduced for the first time in 1924, and that it was an emanation from his own party and was following a precedent set, apparently, by his own party in the Finance Bill of 1924. I am perfectly ignorant on this subject, and I very much want to know what this means. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said that black beer was white beer, and the hon. Gentle- man in charge of the Bill appears to agree that black beer is white beer.

Mr. E. BROWN

No, white beer is black beer.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

It is very confusing to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite has been asked a perfectly reasonable question, but has not answered it. The question is, what is mum? The Section which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has quoted says that in the case of black beer of a specific gravity of 1,200 degrees or upwards the rebate from the Excise Duty and the Customs Duty shall, in any case, be calculated at £5 for every 36 gallons of beer of a certain specific gravity. If you turn a little further you will see: In this section the expression 'black beer' means beer of the descriptions called or similar to black beer, mum, spruce or Berlin white beer. The point which the hon. Gentleman made was that black beer was white beer. I do not think he is treating the Committee fairly when he simply talks of mum as though we knew what mum meant. I do not know what mum means, and I think the Committee ought to be told. It is not fair to rebuke my hon. Friend, who has asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question, namely, what mum is. The President of the Board of Trade is now in his place. The right hon. Gentleman was shy on a previous occasion or was closured by his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, but now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present he might imitate the little mice when the cat is away. He might play. He might tell us what spruce and mum and black beer and Berlin white beer are?

Mr. ALBERY

I wish to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the word "spruce" and thus to make the Amendment have the effect of leaving out the words "mum" and "spruce" instead of leaving out the word "mum" only. We have had some attempt at an explanation of the meaning of the word "mum" although the matter does not appear to be quite clear yet to everybody in the Committee. We have also had references to white beer and black beer which we understand are somewhat similar in character but nobody has attempted to explain the meaning of "spruce."

Commander SOUTHBY

I cannot help thinking that the intervention of the hon. Member below the Gangway coupled with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Westminster (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), have left the Committee in a state of doubt as to what is meant by these various descriptions in Clause 2 of the Bill. We have heard from the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that black beer is white beer.

Mr. E. BROWN

No, white beer is black beer.

Commander SOUTHBY

Then I gather from my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's that in his opinion mum is also black beer or white beer. I would ask the Financial Secretary to put the minds of the Committee at rest by telling us clearly and plainly what is mum. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Leith has been less than fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been badly served by one who may, perhaps, be described as his gallant little ally below the Gangway. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that when this question arose on a previous occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that he had personal knowledge of the taste and the uses of black beer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were he in his place now, might be able to inform the Committee whether when he had black beer in his childhood, as he said he had, it was administered as white beer or as mum. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman opposite was quite right when he mentioned that it was administered as a medicine. The words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a previous occasion must have remained in the hon. Gentleman's mind because the Chancellor of the Exchequer then informed us that in his early youth he had had the experience of having this black beer administered to him as a medicine—a medicine from which I understand he benefited considerably. My hon. Friend below the Gangway has not been given the information for which he asked, namely, where does black beer come from, and I would ask the Financial Secretary if he can tell us now whether black beer, spruce beer or mum are manufactured in England at the present time, and whether black beer is still manufactured in Yorkshire, and whether it is administered as a beverage, a medicine or a corrective. I think we are entitled to fuller information from the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Sir A. POWNALL

I am rather in doubt about this Clause, and I happen to be interested purely as a consumer in knowing if Berlin white beer and Pilsener beer are usually the same in this country?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not know whether mum is Pilsner beer or not, but it is mum with which we are dealing.

Sir A. POWNALL

I wish to save hon. Members the trouble of putting down a fresh Amendment by asking a question on a further point. The Finance Act of 1924 contains the following: Provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply to black beer brewed on the premises of a brewer for sale who brews on or sends out from the same premises any beer other than black beer. I would like to know what repercussions that proviso has in this matter. I would also like to know, if black beer and white beer are blended, is the result brown beer and is brown ever mum?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE

I think we require a little more explanation on this point. The hon. Gentleman has told us that this mum is medicine. If so it is a question on which we ought to have the opinion of the Minister of Health as to whether a Duty should be imposed on a medicine which may be very valuable to the people of this country. The hon. Member for Leith pointed out that it was only in the Finance Bill of 1924 when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was in office, and again in this Finance Bill, that any protective Duty has been put upon this article which happens, so we are informed, to be manufactured in the county from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes. It seems to me that while in other directions the right hon. Gentleman is sweeping away Duties to the great detriment of trade and industry, he should be very careful in putting highly protective Duties on an article of this kind.

Mr. ALBERY

Was I in order in moving an Amendment to the Amendment, and what is the Question now before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee is "That the word 'mum' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. ALBERY

Was I not in order in moving to leave out also the word "spruce"?

The CHAIRMAN

I did not accept the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. REID

Will the hon. Gentleman explain for the benefit of such persons as myself who are not skilled in the process of brewing how this Duty is to be ascertained? This proposal deals with beer imported into the United Kingdom and provides that the Duty shall be ascertained by the specific gravity of the worts before fermentation. That, ex hypothesi is a process carried out outside the United Kingdom. I can understand that in the case of beer brewed inside the United Kingdom it is possible for the Excise to keep track of it at every stage of production and arrive at a proper conclusion, but will the hon. Gentleman explain how in the case of imported beer the Excise can trace the matter back and find out what was the specific gravity at the stage of the process when the mum was worts. When we are asked to impose a duty we ought to understand exactly what we are doing. Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain to us the process by which that duty is arrived at, so that we may know exactly what we are dealing with, because I have not the remotest idea how the hon. Gentleman will arrive at the measure of duty he is asking the Committee to vote?

Sir BASIL PETO

We want to know how the duty is to be ascertained, and also bow the elaborate processes in arriving at the finished article are going to be checked and watched by the officers who are asked to decide which of these particular classes of beer is actually imported. How do they arrive at a decision whether beer is one kind or another, whether it is a genuine mum or not? Surely you, Mr. Chairman, would not put the question whether we should vote the duties or not when all the Committee at any rate on this side must be in the same state of uncertainty as ray hon. Friend the Member for Down (Mr. Reid), who has just sat down. We are entitled to a clear exposition, and I feel sure we shall get it, because no Financial Secretary to the Treasury would presume to come and ask for these taxes if he did not know how they were to be calculated.

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is dealing with the Clause, but the Question is to leave out the word "mum."

Sir B. PETO

On that point, my hon. Friend has put a very clear question to the Treasury Bench as to how this duty is to be assessed upon mum, because whether we include mum in this Clause or not depends upon whether we are satisfied that the Customs officers can properly assess the duty on that article. If the Financial Secretary has no ideas on the subject and cannot enlighten the Committee, clearly it is the duty of the Committee to vote against the inclusion of the word "mum."

Major TRYON

I have taken no part in these discussions up to now, but I wish to point out to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that for him to sit there and give no answer whatever is not treating the Committee properly. I suggest that the questions which have been put should be answered by him.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I am perfectly prepared to give an answer, but if I give an answer now to all the points that have been raised, I cannot give any further answer later on when it is a question of the Clause standing part. First of all, let me deal with the right hon. Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans). These duties were not imposed in the first instance in 1924, but go back to 1860 and earlier, though they received some modification in 1924. All these are different kinds of beer that have been manufactured from time to time. There is no import of mum, but these duties are put on to safeguard the British producer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] When hon. and right hon. Members opposite have done cheering, I will explain the position. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer put on Revenue duties, he also put on countervailing Excise duties to correspond to the Customs duties, and I used the word "safeguarding" in that sense, that we were not going to have Excise duties without any corresponding Customs duties to balance them, because that would be inverted Protection, and neither we nor hon. Members opposite would agree to that.

If the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse), and the further Amendment which you, Mr. Chairman, have not allowed, were passed, it would be an inverted Protection, because you would be protecting the foreigner against the British producer, and that is, by common consent of all parties, a thing to be avoided. With regard to the point, which at first I did not think was put seriously, but I take it now that it was, as to how you are going to settle about the worts, the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid) suggested that we could not determine the worts because we had not followed them all the way from the time they began till they became this beer, but that is all nonsense.

Mr. REID

I asked the hon. Gentleman to explain how it was to be done. I did not suggest that it could not be done.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I am coming to that. It is clear that when you are given a finished product, you know how much of any particular article is required in order to produce that result. That is the way it has to be done with all these beers. We have dealt with this question very fully, and I have given a full explanation, and so I would appeal to the Committee to let me have, not only the rejection of this Amendment, but the passage of this Clause.

Captain WATERHOUSE

The hon. Gentleman spoke about countervailing duties, but is it not a fact that in this particular case the Customs Duty is £24 5s. and the Excise Duty is only £5 3s. 6d.?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The position put by the hon. and gallant Member is not correct. There is an exactly corresponding Excise. It is a question of gravity.

Mr. REID

I asked the Financial Secretary a specific question. I asked how the duty could be ascertained. He has not answered my question. I ask him now, how can he ascertain the duty? Will he explain to the House how he follows the process backwards? Why does he not put a duty on the finished product, so that we shall know all about it? Why does he go back to a remote past, which he says that he understands but which nobody else appears to understand?

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

Sir A. POWNALL

In order to save time, I asked a question about Berlin white beer. We have had no explanation on this subject. It is common knowledge that a large quantity of lager and Pilsener beer is consumed in this country, and that a considerable amount of lager beer is now brewed in this country by several brewers. I want to know whether Berlin white beer is brewed as lager and, if not, under what heading does lager come, in order to be sure that there is no chance of lager brewed abroad coming in at a lower rate of duty than lager brewed in this country. I should also like to have an explanation on a rather technical question regarding the words "fermented or not fermented." I was not aware that there was any beer, so-called, which came into this country which was not fermented. Perhaps the Financial Secretary can tell us what is the reason for putting in the words "not fermented," whether any beer comes in that is not fermented and whether from the medical point of view it is safe for beer to come in which is not fermented. I should imagine that evil effects might arise from beer which is not fermented.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

I should like to ask whether any beers come in from the Empire. Can the Financial Secretary tell us whether mum comes in in the imperial pint or whether any spruce or any other form of black beer comes in from the Empire, and, if so, whether there should be any form of Imperial Preference on the beers coming in from the Empire.

Viscount WOLMER

The Financial Secretary said that there was nothing protective in these duties. It is exceedingly difficult for the layman to understand this matter, and I should be very grateful if he would explain the point. He assures us that so far as gravity is concerned, the Customs Duty proposed in this Clause corresponds with the Excise Duty. I suppose he relies for that statement on Sub-section (3), which states that there shall be For every thirty-six gallons of an original gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees the drawback of £5 3s. 3d. That exactly corresponds with a similar Sub-section in the previous Clause, but if we look at Sub-section (2) we see that it provides for a duty of £5 3s. 6d. for every 36 gallons, whereas the analogous Excise Duty is only £5 3s. Therefore, it appears that this duty is giving a protection of 6d. on every 36 gallons, that is, a standard barrel. In defending the Clause, the Financial Secretary said that it was a Safeguarding Measure. He was careful to point out that he used the word "safeguarding" in a limited sense, but it rather looks from the figures that I have quoted that perhaps there was more safeguarding in it than the Committee realises. I should be glad if the Financial Secretary would explain why foreign beer is apparently being taxed an extra 6d. per standard barrel. In that case, I welcome it as a sign of the conversion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the direction of Safeguarding.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The right hon. Member who has just spoken put into my mouth a good many words which I did not say.

Viscount WOLMER

On a point of Order—[Interruption].

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The point with which I was dealing was the accusation that there was an entirely different scale of duties for Customs purposes for spruce and black beer. There is no foundation for that at all. The hon. Member thinks he found in a quite different part of the Clause a loophole for the suggestion that there is a protective tariff on the importation of beer. There, again, he is not correct. There is a perfectly specific reason why there is this 6d. variation between the Customs and the Excise Duty.

Mr. REMER

On a point of Order. Not one of the Members in this part of the Committee can hear a word.

The CHAIRMAN

I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should impress on his friends, and also on those on this side, that they should not talk so loudly, so that other hon. Members may bear the Financial Secretary.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a great many questions, and I am trying to give him a courteous reply. It does not tend to promote the courtesy, which I always try to show, to be interrupted. I was explaining that the apparent discrepancy of 6d. is made up of two threepences. One is a counterpart of the Brewers' Licence Duty, and the other is the counterpart of the special Excise restrictions which fall on the home producer. That 6d. for a long time past has been a differentiation between the Customs and Excise Duties in order to snake up for this. With regard to Pilsener beer, of course all these sorts of beers do not come under this special description in Clause 2. They come under the general description of the second Sub-section, and there, again, they have a precise equivalent Excise Duty imposed under Clause 1, with the exception of the 6d. which I have already explained.

Viscount WOLMER

I am obliged to the Financial Secretary for that explanation, but can he tell us why it applies only to standard barrels, where the worts thereof were before fermentation of a certain specific gravity? In the next Subsection he will see that for every 36 gallons of the original gravity of 1,055 degrees, the Customs Duty is precisely the same as the Excise Duty in the previous Clause and, therefore, in regard to a certain class of beer, bite right hon. Gentleman is giving the home producer an advantage of 6d. per standard barrel which, as he points out, is not Protection at all, but merely compensation for certain other charges which the home consumer has to pay. That does not apply to the beer referred to in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. Surely these two threepences of which the hon. Gentleman spoke apply to the home producer of one beer just as much as to the home producer of the other. Why is there any differentiation in that case?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has read the Clause. He speaks of the Customs Duty proposed under Sub-section (3). If he will read the Clause, he will find that he is not speaking correctly. Sub-section (3) is a drawback, which is an entirely different thing. The Customs Duty proposed in Sub-section (2) is the additional 6d. to which I have already referred. There was one other point put to me, regarding fermentation. [Interruption.] I do not wish to reply if hon. Members do not want to listen. I understand that in certain cases beers come into this country when fermentation is not complete, and, in order to cover that, the point is included in that particular Subsection.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS

Certain of my hon. Friends were endeavouring to acquire information as to what was the meaning of the word "mum," and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) endeavoured in an Amendment to include the word "spruce," which you, Mr. Young, properly refused to accept. I do not think that the Committee should pass this Clause while some of us are in ignorance as to what this liquor is. Can the Financial Secretary inform us what it is, and what it is used for? There are some of us interested in afforestation in the Eastern Counties, and it might help us in selecting certain trees for our forests if we could be assured that the spruce tree would be one which would produce a liquor from which the Treasury would receive a certain amount. I presume that under a Free Trade Government we would have a duty upon the produce of our own trees the same as on that which comes from the Baltic. I should like to point out to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that, as far as I can ascertain, this liquor was formerly much in use on the shores of the Baltic as a remedy for scorbutic and other complaints. It does seem a pity, if it is a remedy for complaints of this sort, that it should be taxed so highly when it is brought into this country. Can the Financial Secretary tell us if it is the view of the Government that this is a medicinal concoction and whether it is one which it is desirable to import; and also will he be good enough to tell us whether it can be produced from the spruce trees which some of us desire to grow in this country?

Mr. LEIF JONES

"Mum" is a very old English word for beer, at least as old as the 14th century, and probably earlier. If runs through English literature, and certainly appears in some Statutes as far back as 1594. All the trouble arises from the fact that this is described as beer. That is a word which has a very singular effect on hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. The mixtures dealt with in this Clause are not beers at all, in the true sense of the word. It is really, as the hon. Member who has just spoken said, an old-fashioned remedy of the 17th and 18th centuries. I think that it was imported from Brunswick, and was called "Brunswick beer." I suggest that it would avoid the difficulty if in future its name were changed. I understand that the duty put on is in direct proportion to the strength of the beverage. The Opposition have made a great argument about the 6d. Excise, and some of them have taken objection to the allowance of 3d. which is made on the export beer. I have for a good many years been objecting to that allowance, which is made to the brewers of this country as a kind of sop to them on account of their difficulties, and if hon. Members are opposed to it, I will go into the Lobby with them.

Major COLFOX

I cannot pretend to have such an intimate knowledge of beer as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) because I know that his knowledge of intoxicating liquor is very minute. I have noticed with considerable displeasure that no less than three times in this Clause the expression "in lieu of" is used. Although Acts of Parliament are not set up as examples of good and carefully phrased English, surely we have a right to expect the Government to use English expressions instead of these foreign importations. There is a perfectly good expression in English, which dates back even further than the word "mum," and that is "instead of." "Instead" is very much better and more English than "in lieu." "In lieu" ranks in my mind with the expression "prior to" which is now common parlance for "before."

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot see what that has to do with the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major COLFOX

The Clause cannot stand part unless the words in the Clause also stand part. If I can have an assurance that the words to which I object will not stand part, I will withdraw my objection, but that is an assurance which even the Government can hardly give me, because, if the Clause is to stand part, part of the words which compose part of that Clause must stand part also.

The CHAIRMAN

We must have some regard to what the Clause means. If we go into the meaning of every word, we shall find ourselves in endless discussions.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I am bound to say that I listened with very great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) which shows him to be possessed of a wealth of information on this subject which, if it came from any other Member of the House but himself, would be, to say the least of it, highly suspicious. The facility, the command, the variety of his knowledge, its compendiousness, its completeness, its almost exhaustive character, astonished and delighted us. For the first time, we know accurately the distinction between all these various kinds of beer. It is remarkable how some people get their pleasures. I win warrant that the right hon. Gentleman has in his life derived more pleasure from studying these very wicked drinks for the purpose of preventing their consumption than almost any individual has got through the ordinary indulgences of daily life.

Mr. LEIF JONES

Not wicked drinks; foolish drinks.

Mr. CHURCHILL

At any rate, he has derived from them an inverted pleasure. No one can deny the thoroughness of his information. We have had a perfunctory statement from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a very polite, very careful very guarded statement, but compare it with the full fresh enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend! There is the object—and there the shadow, the mere reflection! Upon this Clause, which deals with the Customs Duty, we have had a debate which has certainly added a great deal to the knowledge which hon. Members have of the subject on which we are voting and deciding. It is not our intention to divide against this Clause. Undoubtedly, some of these beers when imported have a definitely medicinal quality. I have never been brought into contact personally with that aspect of the trade, though I can quite readily believe, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, that in cases of scorbutic disease these beers may exercise a most valuable and beneficial influence and effect. However, having thoroughly explored this subject we do not propose to put the Government to the trouble and labour of a Division, and we hope that this forbearance on our part will bring from our colleagues on the opposite benches similar consideration when other matters which raise more sharply controversial issues come forward.

Sir B. PETO

I should not venture to address the Committee after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman if it were not for the fact that he has overlooked a very important consideration on this question of the Clause standing part. He is quite right in saying the Committee were illuminated by the wonderful speech of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) out of the great knowledge he possesses on this subject, but the whole point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that these liquors are not really beer at all but are a medicinal concoction which have acquired the name "beer." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the last occasion when he occupied his distinguished position, repealed the whole of the duty upon herb beer. The spruce tree may not technically be termed a herb, but if there is a Concoction made out of spruce which the right hon. Member for Camborne tells us is not really beer but is a medicinal concoction, what is it but a herb beer?

I am Shocked to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer after four or five years of quiet reflection on the Opposition bench and after having repealed the herb beer duty, should ask us to pass a Clause which places an enormous duty upon this perfectly harmless concoction which we are told ought not to be regarded as beer at all. That is a consideration which surely comes into the question of whether this Clause ought or ought not to stand part. I think the debate conclusively shows that it ought not, and although the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said he was not going to trouble the Committee to go to a Division I am extremely exercised in my mind as to whether the Government have any justification whatever for putting a Customs duty upon alcoholic drink imported into this country under the guise of medicine, after having repealed the whole of the duty upon herb beer. In the circumstances, although I think we ought to divide against this Clause, I am ready to follow the course which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and allow the Clause to go through with a Division.

Mr. REMER

I should not have intervened in this debate but for the remarks which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). The right hon. Gentleman has stated that certain beverages are non-alcoholic, and reference has been made to cocktails and ginger ales. One of the most important people who gave evidence before the Royal Commission which dealt with this subject said that ginger ale contains far more alcohol than beer.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee correcting the hon. Member's statements, but I would like to say that I do not accept any of his misimaginings.

Mr. REMER

What I have stated is a fact. I am quite prepared to fall into line with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has said, and what has been stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who have advised us not to divide against this Clause. All I wish to say is that the speech which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne is about the most deplorable speech that has been delivered in this House for a very long time.