§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out the words "and on an entry certificate."
It will be in the recollection of hon. Members who were in the last House that there were few battles which caused longer controversy or longer debates than the imposition of these duties in 1927 by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). In order to carry out this duty, he imposed a system partly certificate on bookmakers, partly on premises, and partly on turnover. It will also be within the recollection of those hon. Members that in the Finance Act of last year the right hon. Gentleman repealed the duty on the turnover of the bets. At that time, he 1169 announced that, if the Government of that day were returned to power again, he intended this year to introduce another form of this duty on the telephones used by bookmakers for the purposes of their business.
Unfortunately, the election went otherwise, and the right hon. Gentleman decided not to bring in a second Finance Bill. Now he has in this Finance Bill proposed to drop the registration tax on the bookmakers. I would only say that it is curious that the only people who benefit directly under this Budget are a class which the right hon. Gentleman dislikes. But I would suggest to him that it is not really of benefit to them.
I propose to detain the Committee for a few minutes to explain why I consider this proposal is not in the interests of bookmakers or of those who bet and is not one which should be accepted by this Committee. If I were to give my private views on betting and compare them with those of the right hon. Gentleman it would be found that our views were not very different. A bet is a thing which I very rarely indulge in. It is not a matter which interests me personally, and I regard it simply as a method of getting rid of money for which I can find a better use. In that point of view, I am in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but I must own that that is a point of view that does not seem to be shared by the vast number of my fellow citizens, for most people I know, be they University professors or others, seem to have something on the 2.30 or the 3 o'clock. I dare say it brings a great deal of interest to life which would not be forthcoming otherwise. One of the things which I regard as of importance is to make sure, as far as we can do, that, when the artizan or anyone else wagers a small portion of his hard-earned wages on a horse which specially interests him, he shall have some guarantee that the bookmaker with whom he places that bet is respectable. I submit, further, that it is an asset to the bookmaking profession as a whole that its members should have a certificate of respectability, which I believe this certificate does something to give. The certificate which I propose to retain is the one for the premises used for betting. That is carefully defined in Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1926, which says: 1170The expression 'betting premises' means any premises which are kept or used for the purpose of making, receiving or negotiating in any manner whatsoever bets on credit, or which are in any manner held out as being kept or used for any such purpose.There is no bookmaker with a substantial business who is not called upon to meet an occasional heavy loss, and there is no bookmaker carrying on a substantial business who does not do so in some form of office in which he can carry on credit betting, and it seems to me that in the interests of the punter and also of racing generally the thing which we should encourage is to keep up an improved standard of bookkeeping and guarantee, so far as possible, that those who undertake it shall be respectable. It is not a profession which I personally understand, but I am bound to say that its members fulfil a useful purpose in our national life. Our object as legislators should be to see that the profession is carried on only by people who can meet their liabilities. I contend that the mere fact of licensing bookmakers will go a long way towards achieving these ends, and therefore give some security to the ordinary backer that, if his horse wins, he will get what is due to him. I also think it is in a certain sense a security to the bookmaker himself. It makes him feel his profession is perfectly honourable, a view which I share. Why should objection be taken to the small Betting Duty? Auctioneers and members of other honourable professions have to pay duties. I trust that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will explain to the Committee why he has singled out bookmakers as the only recipients of his benevolence and why there should not be this control and registration of them.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
The hon. and gallant member who has submitted this Amendment has given us a short historical sketch of the Betting Duty. His Amendment is a very narrow one. It takes, apparently, no objection to the abolition of the personal certificate to the bookmaker, but it proposes that the certificate of entry shall be retained. These certificates were instituted, when the Betting Duty was first proposed, in order that the Revenue authorities might have some power, not merely over bookmakers, but also over the premises of bookmakers, and when the Betting Duty was repealed these certificates 1171 became unnecessary, because there was no longer any necessity for the registering of bookmakers. We are removing what I described in my Budget speech as the last vestige of the inglorious Betting Duty because we strongly opposed it when it was first proposed. It was a tax which outraged the moral sense of a large section of the community. The State should not in any way have any regard for a great evil. It is not a question of money. The amount of money involved is not very great. The total cost of removing these two certificates will be about £200,000. It is not on these grounds, but on moral grounds that we are making this proposal. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the answer which I expected him to give on this matter. He prefers to regard the whole of this as a blot on the Statute book. He was also good enough in the earlier part of the discussion to say that this was a very unimportant part of the Budget. I submit that it is very important, because it involves the whole ethics of taxation on which there is very real division of opinion on the two sides of the House. I take an entirely different view on the ethics of taxation. I think the State should have regard to realities, and anybody who knows anything of the history of this country knows two things. There are two strong strains which mark the whole English character. The first is the puritan character and the second is the strain of sportsmanship. These are strains nobody will be able to destroy. This country had the opportunity of being governed in the 17th century by undiluted puritanism followed by reaction of the opposite quality. I think that the people of England disliked the Commonwealth as much as they disliked the Restoration.
On a point of Order. May I point out that for the good feeling and good temper of the Committee it would be better if supporters of the Government would refrain from offensive and irrelevant interruptions. These did not conduce to the good order of the House and are childish and foolish.
§ Mr. McSHANE
On that point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken to treat the Committee to a historical disquisition?
§ The CHAIRMAN
In reply to the Noble Lord, I have repeatedly appealed to both sides of the House not to interrupt the Member who is speaking at the time, and I think it is about time that Members on both sides of the House recognised that these interruptions are unnecessary and do not add to the general decorum of the House.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member will keep his ears open, he will hear what I say. I appealed to both sides of the House on previous occasions, and I trust that in future it will be accepted. It is unnecessary for the hon. Member to say that it applies only to one side of the House.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
It is only because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised the question of morality that I take the opportunity of replying. He regards it as unnecessary to levy these excise duties, because it is a question of morality. Because you are a Puritan there is no reason why you should be a Pharisee and pass by on the other side, and because you are a sportsman there is no reason why you should not wish to see fair play done to the public. It seems to me quite clear that in this matter the Puritan and the sportsman should come together in the protection of the public. The public is very largely at the mercy of the fraternity. They may be honest or they may be dishonest. At any rate the foolish public, the youthful public, is at the mercy of these people, and it is the duty of the State to intervene and protect them. I would remind the Committee that the solicitor has to subscribe in order to renew his certificate, and, if the solicitor did not have to take out his certificate annually, the public would not have any protection whatever. Let us take a profession which is not as creditable, I think, as that of a solicitor, 1173 and perhaps is a little lower than the bookmaker—that is of the moneylender. The public is at the mercy of the moneylender, but the moneylender has to take out his annual licence. I think these instances show that there is a guarantee to the public. Under Section 17, Subsection (3) of the Act of 1926—Any Court before which a bookmaker is convicted of any offence under this part of the Act, or otherwise in connection with his business as a bookmaker, may order him to be disqualified for holding a bookmaker's certificate for such period as the Court may think fit.In my view, that does not go nearly far enough. These duties have a significance apart from a question of morality and apart from the question of the ethics of taxation, and were the protection of the public. These duties have a revenue significance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer waived aside as of no account the amount included, £200,000, or £70,000, in these particular certificates. Hon. members opposite may consider that an insignificant sum. It may be a very small sum as compared with the whole Budget but it is still a very large sum supposing it were earmarked for some definite purpose to relieve unemployment. Is this a time to make remissions of taxation of this nature? Is this a time to abolish a source of revenue which does no harm to anybody, which protects the public, and places no direct burden whatever upon any protfiable industry? I suggest that this, the leanest of lean years, is the last time in which we should make such a change.
§ Captain CAZALET
There are two aspects from which we can regard this question—the moral and the financial. As I understand it the Betting Duty—[Interruption]—I do not interrupt hon. Members when they are speaking. Ever since I have been in this House the hon. Member for Rhondda East (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) has done nothing but constantly interrupt hon. Members on this side. If he cares on any occasion—he has never done it yet so far as I know—to address the House we are prepared to listen to him with respect, and we ask him occasionally to listen to a speech from this side.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I did not notice who the hon. Member was who made that remark, but, whoever he was, I hope he will withdraw it.
§ Major COLFOX
I am doing my best to do that if you will only listen. I am naturally starting by addressing you. If what I said is offensive to the hon. Member opposite, I will withdraw it, but surely he will not with me to suggest that he was not sober—[Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I am entitled to say that that kind of withdrawal is almost as bad as the original statement.
The remark does not in any way affect me, coming from the quarter it does.
Then I shall say no more about it. All I wanted to say was that we have resented remarks coming from the other side of the House even when some of their own speakers were addressing the House. I was making no remark when the hon. Member was on his feet except drawing his attention to the fact that there was much more noise on the other side of the House than there was on this. I have been 33 years in public life, and some of us cannot help thinking that an enormous amount of time, in this House is being wasted with the kind of discussion that we have heard.
I really must ask you, Mr. Young, whether you will pro- 1175 tect hon. Members on this side from the kind of attacks which we have had. I want to know whether it is in Order for the hon. and gallant Member to make the most offensive charge that this debate has been conducted—[Interruption.] I am not in the habit of using language of that kind. It may be used in a saloon bar, but not in the House of Commons. I ask you, Mr. Young, whether that which is more suitable to a saloon bar than to a Committee of the House of Commons is to be used in the House of Commons?
§ The CHAIRMAN
Immediately the hon. Gentleman gave expression to the remark I was going to ask him to withdraw it.
§ Mr. HAYCOCK
Mr. Chairman, you have accepted an apology from my hon. and gallant Friend. May we now have an apology from the noble Earl?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
May I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Member who raised the last point of Order spoke with his hands in his pockets?
§ Captain CAZALET
In the new atmosphere of calm and good will, I am sure I shall be able to make the few observations I desire to do to the Committee on this point. [Interruption.] These interruptions only prolong the proceedings. There are two aspects from which this tax on bookmakers may be regarded. The first is from the moral point of view, and the second is from the financial point of view. As I understand it in the Betting Duty Sections of Part II. of the Finance Act, 1926, there are two Sub-paragraphs 15 (b) and 15 (c) which refer to bookmakers. The first one imposes a duty of £10 to be taken out annually by a person carrying on the business of bookmaker. [Interruption.]
§ Captain CAZALET
It has to be taken out by the bookmaker in respect of the premises he uses. The duty is £10. These are not grave and serious charges when made upon individuals who carry on what has been, and is to-day, a reasonably lucrative profession. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) has shown that these taxes are really no appreciable burden upon the individuals who pay them, but they do provide a very definite guarantee of security to the public. When we are asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a very small and reasonable concession of £60,000 or £70,000, he finds a thousand reasons for not granting it, but when it comes to a matter of sweeping away the sum of £200,000 he treats it as if it were a mere nothing. I only hope that in future, when we are asking for some small concession, we may be permitted to remind him of the lavish way he has thrown away £200,000. He merely said, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, that many Members behind him, and many on these benches think betting is a most undesirable pastime, and one in which no one should indulge. There are a number of people in this country who do bet. It is impossible to ignore betting and it is pure hypocrisy to do so.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not wish the State to be connected in any way with racing, but the State draws revenue from the Entertainments Duty on tickets for which people have to pay to go and see racing. If it is sum an iniquitous thing that the State should not draw any revenue from racing, then surely he cannot accept that part of the revenue, and it is a very substantial part, raised on the tickets for which people have to pay who attend races in this country. It is sheer hypocrisy. Is there really any moral difference between drinking a glass of beer and having a bet, which may be well within the means of the individual making it, on a certain horse? I think it is sheer hypocrisy. As the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a previous debate, "you cannot wink at the Derby." The Derby is a national event, and the majority of the people of this country and the world take a great interest in it. To treat betting as if it did not exist, puts the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a very hypocritical position, and, if he considers it from the point of view of 1177 finance, he is needlessly throwing away £200,000 of revenue. I do not think the arguments, as put forward this evening, are sufficient to warrant his act.
§ Major COLFOX
Mr. Young—[Interruption]—I have no intention of raising my voice in competition with the noises from the benches opposite. As I was starting to say—[Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMAN
I will have to warn hon. Members that that sound must cease, or I must ask them to leave the House.
§ Major COLFOX
I consider there is more cant and humbug talked about this subject than about almost any subject that comes up for discussion in this House. We are told that there is something morally wrong in the State raising revenue out of the Betting Duty. Yet there is nothing morally wrong, apparently, in the State raising money out of the taxation of beer, or other intoxicating liquors. There are those people who argue at one and the same time that it is good to tax liquor, because, by taxing it, you reduce the consumption, but that it is wrong to tax betting, because, by the taxation, you increase the use people make of it. You cannot have it both ways. It is what I call cant and humbug. Either you decrease a thing by taxation or you do not. You cannot by taxation decrease one thing and increase another. I am not going to say that the particular form of tax which was introduced some two or three years ago on betting was the right form, or the best possible form, to achieve the object which it was designed to achieve. I do say, however, that betting is one of the most suitable objects for taxation and raising revenue for the country. It is obvious that betting will exist whether it is or is not taxed. It is quite obvious to me at any rate that by taxing it you will not increase its volume. Since nobody can say it is a necessity, and it is obviously a luxury and a bad luxury, it should, in my judgment, be compelled to contribute to the revenue of the country. Moreover, I believe that by taxing it you would do, as you undoubtedly do by taxing liquor, reduce the consumption.
It is really pitiable to me to listen to the nonsense which is talked on this subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and many others who think with him talk 1178 about the moral evil. Admitted that betting in excess is an evil, that fact does not in any sense affect the right or the wrong of a Betting Duty. I feel that it is most wrong on this occasion to give away revenue unless you are going to impose a corresponding or a greater tax on the same set of people or on the same customs and habits of the people. If, for instance, in place of this tax which is going to be repealed, there was going to be imposed another tax on betting, that would be a very good reason for repealing this tax, but, merely to repeal it and thereby lose a couple of hundred thousand pounds or perhaps more, seems to me wrong both because it is encouraging hypocrites—[Interruption]—and causes considerable loss of revenue to the country.
§ Sir B. PETO
The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out three quarters of an hour ago that the issue raised by this Amendment was a very narrow one. It does not propose entirely to do away with the bookmaker's tax, but to retain the certificate of entry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that that particular certificate involves a loss of revenue of £70,000. I regret on general principles the sacrifice of revenue by any Chancellor of the Exchequer when all the revenue we can get is obviously wanted in a year like this. I am, however, going to look at this question from the point of view of it being the last remainder of the Betting Duty. I was never a strong supporter of that tax duty, and I was always opposed to the Racecourse Betting Bill, dealing with the totalisator. The arrangement by which a share of the totalisator revenue was placed at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer now having been dispensed with, there is very little justification for leaving a portion of the tax in the form of certificates, one a personal certificate and the other an entry certificate, on the bookmaker when the operations of the totalisator are left entirely free from any contribution to the revenue.
The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) who moved the Amendment said it was very desirable from the bookmaker's point of view that he should pay a duty of £10 a year as a kind of certificate of respectability. I really cannot understand the hon. and gallant Member's reasoning, because, even 1179 if his Amendment were carried, the bookmaker would still have a certificate of respectability, the certificate left in this Clause. The argument of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment comes to this, that, if a bookmaker only pays £10 a year, he is not respectable, and that to ensure his respectability you must ask him to pay £20. I do not think the bookmakers would thank the hon. and gallant Member for that guarantee of respectability, and I would remind the Committee that there are a good many industries and professions carried on in this country where the people who carry them on claim to be perfectably respectable and do not have to pay £10 to prove that they are respectable—or rather do not pay £10 to prove that they are not respectable and £20 to prove that they are respectable. The bookmaker will thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for abolishing this duty. There is no justification for maintaining it now since the whole of the machinery has gone. The argument put before the Committee why the bookmaker should be taxed is rather a novel argument, and I only hope that this particular Amendment will not go to a Division, or I shall find myself in this matter not able to support my own friends and having to support the Government.
§ Captain GUNSTON
I am in a difficulty over this Amendment. I do not propose to take up the argument of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down. I do hope, however, that we may have some guidance from the Financial Secretary about the moral question. It is rather difficult to follow the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He tells us that the evil of betting is a cancer which is eating into the heart of the Nation, and I agree with him that it is a very bad thing. I should have thought that if it was such an evil the obvious thing would be to make betting illegal. I hope we may know in the near future that it is the intention of the Government to make betting illegal. It would certainly interest people very much in the constituency of my hon. Friend. From the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman on other issues, I have always understood that, if you put a tax on an article, you raise the price. If, therefore, you put a tax on betting you raise the odds and discourage betting. I 1180 should have thought that, if he has not the courage to prohibit betting, he would have tried to discourage it by some such duty as we have had. It is rather difficult to follow the moral arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because in this Clause he seems to make the best of both worlds. He tells us betting is a very great evil and that he is going to remove this duty and that that is going to appeal to the puritan conscience; yet at the same time he remembers the help he had at Battersea and Lanark before the last General Election, and therefore hopes to get the help of the bookmakers. I would like a little more guidance, and I would congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having successfully arranged a union between Mrs. Grundy and Mr. Douglas Stuart.
§ 2.0 p.m.
§ Major LLEWELLIN
There is one point of view which I would put briefly. In the broadcast address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the United States of America we know that he referred to certain burdens that we put upon industry in this country and used some such words as these: "With such burdens as these upon our shoulders, is it any wonder that we have suffered industrial depression as an aftermath of the war?" The burdens to which he referred were Income Tax at 4s. in the £, what he termed Super Income Tax at 6s., and Estate Duties at death. He made no reference whatever to the Betting Duty from which he got a certain amount of his revenue. It seems to me, therefore, to be very odd that that is the one tax he has remitted by the Finance Bill, because it is not a tax that bears heavily on any industry which we want to encourage in this country. It is a complete luxury trade on which it bears heavily. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) that the effect of the Betting Duty is to increase the odds, because probably it reduces them. The ordinary man who backs a horse may get rather less odds, and that may discourage people from betting. That is, therefore, a much better and more effective way of reducing betting.
§ Major LLEWELLIN
It seems to me a much more effective way of discouraging 1181 betting than the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking by his remission. It seems to me that we have no good reason at all why bookmakers should not pay an entrance fee to the State. There are many learned professions, such as that to which the Attorney-General and I happen to belong, in which we have to pay the large sum of £100 as an entrance fee. The less meritorious profession of bookmaker should also have to pay some fee to the Government, and it would give to those who deal with them some sense of security. This is one of the taxes which helps to regularise the bookmaking trade and is one that should certainly have been kept on. I very much hope that the Amendment will be taken to a Division, because this is the one year of all years in which there should be no remission of taxation, such as this, which does not bear heavily on industry or in any way affect the unemployment problem in this country. I am concerned to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is throwing away this sum of money—small though it is—which obviously does not bear on industry.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I find myself in a position rather different from that of almost any of the other speakers. I am slightly in agreement with the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and I very much object to the Betting Duty. On the other hand, since it has been introduced a different situation has arisen, and I think it is a great pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way to retain one of the two duties. I rather think it would have been better if this entry tax had been permitted, and an Amendment moved to the betting certificate, because, whereas the entry tax deals only with the bookmaker's house, the certificate applies to any man who is a bookmaker. I had a good deal of experience on the Moneylenders' Bill, as also did the hon. and gallant Member for Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan). It was found that the registering of moneylenders was considered to be strictly advisable. You canont say that moneylenders are exactly like bookmakers or that bookmakers are exactly like moneylenders, but there is a certain amount of resemblance between the two, and it is in the interest of the bookmaker and the public that the bookmaker should be registered. I have an Amendment 1182 later on to give the country an opportunity of considering this matter which I hope the Chairman will accept. I feel that I shall be able to support this Amendment, although in principle I am against the Betting Duty as such.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking a most curious and unreasonable course in depriving himself of this revenue. I believe that the revenue in question is about £70,000 on this Amendment, and £200,000 a year on the whole Clause. Let us consider what this money could be used for. Take the national theatre, or national opera, matters in which I know that hon. members opposite are very keen; or take scientific endowment; there might be extra money for light cures or radium. You have this money for nothing—no trouble whatever. The bookmakers have never objected to the tax. Just as in the case of British-made wine, the trade was quite pleased. It gave them definite recognition, a cachet, a hall mark, an imprimatur on their business.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
They were pleased, and there was the £200,000 a year. If it had been spent on the light cure or radium, then everyone might have been pleased. It seems to have been a matter where everyone could have been pleased, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has prejudice in his mind. He has the idea that he is putting down betting by singling out bookmakers alone to be favoured, when they do not ask for it and really were not worrying about it at all. This doctrine of the unclean thing really is one of the most remarkable forms of mental infirmity with which this House has been confronted. The "Daily Herald", in its early form, I know, used to give exceptional prominence to betting. This was not a case of ordinary gambling; it is gambling among comrades, really quite shocking, and look at the space given in the official organ of the Labour party, which is managed with some capitalist assistance by a Labour committee, to betting, gambling, and all those forms of the unclean thing that cannot be touched. They can touch it quickly enough when it brings in money to the "Daily Herald", but not for 1183 some worthy object. This is a form of mental infirmity, a sort of lesion of the mind from which they are suffering. The President of the Board of Trade, who is so clear headed, must, surely feel a serious irritation at this amount of revenue that is being thrown away. It is simply ridiculous, this notion of the unclean thing, while at the same time they do not mind gulping down scores of millions of revenue from the sale of intoxicating liquor.
I am sorry that the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has gone to bed. It would have been interesting to see her relative reaction to the unclean thing in drink and the unclean thing in betting and their competitive priority. There is no logic in the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I am glad to see, has returned to the House properly refreshed and able, I hope, to give further guidance and advice to the Committee. I would be grateful if he would address his mind to this question: Why should he refuse £200,000 a year which he can get without the slightest trouble? What is the object? I believe his party keeps a tipster on the "Daily Herald" and are well informed on these matters. This is not the only side to his policy. There is the totalisator. There was a substantial revenue which could have been got without difficulty from this machinery year after year which would have inured to the public well-being. But the right hon. Gentleman is above that. This £200,000 would have paid the salaries of His Majesty's present advisors. It would have been almost poetic in its similitude that Members of His Majesty's Government should have defrayed their salaries by a continuance of these duties on bookmakers.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has studied too attentively the sporting columns of the "Daily Herald" instead of devoting himself to the more serious political matters which are, I believe, treated of in some other parts of the paper. The right hon. Gentleman has needlessly aggravated his difficulties in refusing this revenue—small though it be it is still considerable—and still more in failing to 1184 utilise the 2 per cent. on the totalisator. He has done it because of some irrational quirk of his intellect, some twist or knot or gnarl in his mental structure. It seems to me that the Debate we have had on this subject is a very fitting commentary on his inconceivable folly and his gross financial improvidence.
§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I wish to address a couple of questions to the Government, which, I hope, will be answered with candour. I would first, however, inform my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench that the tipster to whom he referred has the eloquent name of "Temple Gate." When this particular Clause was under discussion in 1926 the hon. Gentleman who moved its rejection, and who is now the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ammon) said:As I see it the result will be to increase betting among poor people in a very much worse form than is now the case, and it will lay them open to very much greater disaster so far as their domestic finances are concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 2000, Vol. 196, 14th June, 1926.]I ask the Financial Secretary if there is any conceivable evidence on that point? This was a definite prophesy by one of his colleagues, and I would like to know if it is so, and if that is why it is being taken off now. Much the same sort of question arose in the speech made by the present Secretary of State for India (Mr. Benn) the same evening in the discussion on the same Amendment to leave out this Clause. I do not know if he was then a Liberal or a Socialist. But on 14th June, 1926, he said:I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the view that the granting of this certificate will not confer some sort of prestige on the individual, and I think that that really is the gravamen of the charge against this paragraph.… Although the Government deny it, to turn the agent of this particular transaction, which all agree is anti-social and should be restricted as much as possible, into a Government agent, and there is no doubt at all that in doing his trade he will advertise that he is a licensed bookmaker or a Government bookmaker, holding a Government licence, or use some other words associating himself with the Government of the country, which will give him a prestige he did not possess before." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1926; col. 2004, Vol. 196.]Is there any evidence of that? Is there any evidence that the bookmakers who paid for these certificates have gone about saying that they were in some way asso- 1185 ciated with the Government of the country, and that, as a result, they have acquired a certain prestige? If so, is it because of that prestige that the Government are modifying this Clause in the Bill? Do they want to bring the bookmakers down from their exalted position and reduce them to the common ruck of ordinary people? Those are the two questions to which I wish to have a reply, for they are definite expressions of opinion by Members who are now on the Front Benches. It was stated that the certificates, if they were granted, would lead to an enormous increase of betting among poor people, an argument which it is almost impossible to understand. I should like to know whether the experience has shown that to be the case. It seems a very curious thing that they should, as a quid pro quo to those who intervened in the fortunes of the Government in the by-elections, take off the tax and at the same time reduce their prestige. Some people might prefer the prestige.
We should like to have more real explanation from the Treasury Bench. With regard to the point of the great moral evil which has been so fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend and so little answered by the front bench opposite, I think the Financial Secretary should give us some reply in order to clear up the position. There is to-day the connection of the State with the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and there is the connection with the State through the Entertainment Duty. Incidentally, I understand race meetings generally involve a certain amount of refreshment from which the State derives revenue, and there is also the revenue derived by the Post Office Department. There is also the setting up of the national stud from which an income was derived from letting out horses for people to run. All this happens now. Unless the Government are going to sweep everything of that kind away, it is rather idle to come down and to say that this small amount is not going to make any difference in the attitude of the Government. The sum of £200,000 could so well be spent on so many different objects for the productive industries of this country rather than giving this relief to the bookmakers. I ask the Financial Secretary whether he has any evidence at all that these book- 1186 makers' certificates really increase betting amongst poor people or whether it gives them any prestige at all.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I should like to ask whether the bookmakers are to be the only people to benefit from this Budget. Why are the bookmakers singled out for this special treatment? They may be a very honourable and useful body of men, but I do not see why they should have this special treatment. My suspicious mind goes back to a year ago when the bookmakers gave very special assistance to the Socialist party at certain by-elections. I should be very sorry to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen from his very high estate and was reducing this taxation for that reason.
§ Mr. EVERARD
I should have thought that if there was this £200,000 to be distributed there were other ways of distributing it than by giving it back to the bookmakers. The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly take it that he is doing some great moral good by giving back this £200,000 if he considers betting is a bad thing. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a lot of cant and hypocrisy. Every man has a right in this country to spend his money as he likes, and, if a working man likes to put a shilling on a horse, there was no reason why he should not. I cannot understand why there should be one law for the rich in betting and one for the poor. That sort of thing is not, in my opinion, the English way of carrying out what we believe to be justice in this country. There must be some reason for all this. I think my hon. Friend who spoke last put his finger upon the spot. It is, of course, this. Shortly before the last General Election the bookmakers came very much to the assistance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends. He was only too pleased to receive their support at that particular time, and he now turns round and tells us that he will have nothing to do with what the country should not tolerate for one moment. If you are dealing with luxuries, you must expect to put on certain taxes, and there is nobody in this House who can stand up and say that betting is not a luxury.
It is one of the greatest luxuries there is in the country to-day, and, being a luxury, it is something which ought to pay a tax to the Exchequer.
1187 There is, of course, also the question of the amount which may be paid for entrance to various other forms of sport. Personally, I cannot see why a man should be taxed for making a bet any more than he should be taxed for going into a football match. The two things are exactly on an equality. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this is something to be avoided, because it is unclean. Why does he to-day take an Entertainments Duty on other places where betting takes place? The whole thing is hypocrisy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that it is not at all a question of whether it is morally right or morally wrong. He knows perfectly well that he made a bargain in times past over this particular matter, and at the present time he is asked to carry out the bargain, and it is not for the welfare of the Labour party that the bargain should be carried out.
§ Major COLVILLE
Only about a year and a half ago one factor that contributed largely to the success of my opponent was the fact that he had the strong support of a concentration of bookmakers, and I remember very well seeing placards at the time with "Vote for so and so the Sportsman's Friend." I quote from the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:I propose now to repeal the duties on certificates, so that the Statute Book will once more be entirely free from the blemish of Measures that ought never to have appeared upon it." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, col. 2671, Vol. 237.]The Pharisees could strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, but the Pharisees might well watch with admiration the performance of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. W. S. MORRISON
I should not have intervened if we had had at any time from the Treasury bench an explanation of the real reasons for this remission of taxation, and I think the Committee must agree that strong arguments have been adduced against the remission. We have to consider that we are hard pressed at the present time for money, and that we are in this budget taxing revenue which in the opinion of many hon. Members must react very disastrously upon trade and industry. At such a time, the Committee ought to consider with very great care and sus- 1188 picion any attempt to remit taxation unless it can be shown that such remission will improve industry and employment. This is the background which the Committee ought to have in mind in considering the proposal. If it had been shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this one remission of taxation contained in the Budget was for the purpose of encouraging a struggling, productive industry, the Committee would have been with them. But when we are considering that this one industry which is receiving a bounty is an industry which in their opinion confers no benefit on the people of this country but is indeed destructive of their happiness and carries a bad effect to thousands of homes we must indeed wonder very seriously why it is that this one industry is singled out as the recipient of their bounty. The only argument we have had put before us is that in some way the imposition of this tax has given a cachet or sort of hall mark of some kind of respectability to the bookmakers. If it were indeed the fact that the imposition of this tax had in some way conferred a benefit on the bookmakers you would have expected to find them up in arms against any suggestion for the remission of the tax. But the very reverse is the case. The bookmakers do not regard this tax as conferring a benefit on them and they have never expressed an opinion that they regard it as assisting them in carrying on their business. If it was thought that the tax helped the bookmaker in his business and encouraged persons to indulge in the practice of betting the bookmaker would be the first person to welcome the tax and do his best to secure its retention. When we find that the whole influence of the trade is directed to securing the removal of the tax we cannot but deplore the unholy alliance of the bookmakers on the one side and persons of an unduly narrow view on the other combining to secure this one remission of taxation. Then again, if we care to leave the hard realm of figures and soar into the more rarefied atmosphere of ethical considerations—
§ The CHAIRMAN
We cannot have a disquisition on the ethical point of view of taxes. Ethics only come in so far as the taxes are concerned with gambling.
§ Major ELLIOT
The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself defended the remission of this tax on the ground that it was a tax which had outraged the moral sense of a large portion of the community, and my hon. Friend can surely rebut that argument.
§ Mr. MORRISON
May I say at once that in order to keep within your ruling, as I am always anxious to do, when I used the word "ethical" I meant a consideration which is surely relevant to this topic—the good of the people as affected by this tax and its remission. I do not propose to consider the tax from any metaphysical point of view. I submit, with respect, that, when we are considering the remission of this taxation, we ought to consider whether it will encourage or retard betting in this country. I think the experience we have gained from other forms of taxation in this country—taxation applied to other industries and to drink—justifies us in opposing the remission of this taxation. It is the case that the high price and taxation has discouraged the use of drink. We who are against betting, and regard it as dangerous in the body politic, ought to think whether we are working in the best interests of the people of this country in asking for the remission
§ of this taxation. No reply has been supplied to the arguments from this side of the House. Unless there is some other reason, which we have not heard, it seems incredible that we should throw away a considerable sum of revenue and gain no appreciable benefit from it. For these reasons, I do support this Amendment.
§ Major HARVEY
I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I must protest against the cavalier treatment by the front bench opposite. I have been listening for an hour and a half, and we have had practically no answer at all, except the original statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have had really no explanation whatsoever. I have heard hon. Friends on my side of the House ask specific questions on specific points, and there has been no attempt on the part of the Government to reply to these points. I can hardly find any reason which should keep them so silent. I have been searching in my mind to find if there could be any possible reason, and the only thing I can find is that, if they were to rise to explain the situation, they would possibly be giving away the unholy bargain that they have made with the unclean thing.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 205; Noes, 89.1191
|Division No. 313.]||AYES.||[2 45 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Chater, Daniel||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Clarke, J. S.||Gray, Milner|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Cluse, W. S.||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Cocks, Frederick Seymour.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Compton, Joseph||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Arnott, John||Cowan, D. M.||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Daggar, George||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Dalton, Hugh||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Dickson, T.||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Barr, James||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Harbord, A.|
|Batey, Joseph||Dukes, C.||Hardie, George D.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Duncan, Charles||Haycock, A. W.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Ede, James Chuter||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Benson, G.||Edmunds, J. E.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Herriotts, J.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Egan, W. H.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Bromfield, William||Foot, Isaac||Hollins, A.|
|Brooke, W.||Freeman, Peter||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Brothers, M.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Gibbins, Joseph||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Burgess, F. G.||Gill, T. H.||Johnston, Thomas|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Glassey, A. E.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Cape, Thomas||Gosling, A. G.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Gould, F.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Charieton, H. C.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Moses, J. J. H.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Kinley, J.||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Lang, Gordon||Muff, G.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Lathan, G.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Oldfield, J. R.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Lawson, John James||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Sorensen, R.|
|Leach, W.||Palin, John Henry||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Penny, Sir George||Strauss, G. R.|
|Lees, J.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Sullivan, J.|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Lindley, Fred W.||Potts, John S.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Price, M. P.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Quibell, D. J. K.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Longden, F.||Rathbone, Eleanor||Toole, Joseph|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Richards, R.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Lunn, William||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Wallace, H. W.|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Ritson, J.||Watkins, F. C.|
|McElwee, A.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W, Bromwich)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|McEntee, V. L.||Romeril, H. G.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|McKinlay, A.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|McShane, John James||Rowson, Guy||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Marcus, M.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Markham, S. F.||Sanders, W. S.||White, H. G.|
|Marley, J.||Sandham, E.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Marshall, Fred||Sawyer, G. F.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Mathers, George||Scurr, John||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Matters, L. W.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Messer, Fred||Shield, George William||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Middleton, G.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Mills, J. E.||Shillaker, J. F.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Shinwell, E.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Morley, Ralph||Simmons, C. J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Sinkinson, George|
|Mort, D. L.||Sitch, Charles H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Albery, Irving James||Eden, Captain Anthony||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Purbrick, R.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Balniel, Lord||Everard, W. Lindsay||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Ford, Sir P. J.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Bracken, B.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Savery, S. S.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Butler, R. A.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Somerset, Thomas|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Long, Major Eric||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Muirhead, A. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Dalrympie-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Mr. Marjoribanks and Captain|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Peake, Captain Osbert||Bourne.|
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Major ELLIOT
Do the Government intend to give us any answer to the questions asked about the Clause on the Amendment? The point brought out by my hon. Friend was that, at the moment 1192 when we are trenching so deeply on our resources for taxation, it seems a strange thing that we should remit taxation to the extent of £200,000 per annum. That, it has been calculated, would at 5 per cent. pay the interest on a loan of £4,000,000 which would give employment to some 1193 16,000 men. Of all forms of productive employment on which the labour of this country could be employed just now, it is not the most useful that it should be employed on the race tracks of the country. The question whether, if remission of taxation is to be made, remission of taxation to the bookmaking fraternity would minister to the success of the citizens of this country is one on which we might reasonably expect some further reply from the Government. The question of the objects to which this money could be devoted has been brought up, but not deeply examined, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but, even without dwelling upon the possible alternative uses of this money, why should any remission of taxation be made at this moment and particularly to the bookmaking fraternity? An hon. Friend of mine, who was defeated at a by-election, told me his defeat was largely due to the Labour placards carried round saying "Vote for.…, the Labour candidate. Vote for..…, the sportsman's friend." That argument would not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at all. He does not desire to be regarded as "the sportsman's friend." The reason he gives for this remission is that the tax outraged the moral sense of a large portion of the community. It was ruled at an earlier stage that we must not go into the ethics of the question, so I cannot go into that aspect further. We must conclude that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen on its merits the bookmaking fraternity to make to it a remission of taxation.
§ Major ELLIOT
What do the citizens of Glasgow and the electors of my hon. Friend say? What will they say when I tell them that the only remission of taxation was made to the "bookies"? What will be said when I tell the women of his constituency, as I shall, that the only remission he voted for was not on food taxes, not on taxes upon industry or any other tax that bears heavily upon the community, but for a remission of taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, finding that he had £200,000 to distribute, handed over to the "bookies"?
§ Major ELLIOT
The opinion of the Church Presbytery, though important, is not so important as that of the women electors represented by my hon. Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the only justification for this is that the tax was a blemish on the Statute Book and outraged the moral sense of the community, and for those reasons he desires to remit it. Surely, if it would justify the remission of this taxation, it would infinitely more justify the remission of the taxation on intoxicating liquor. Yet he does not propose to remit taxation on that, but to increase it. The moral argument does not seem to hold water at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beer!"] It may hold beer, but it does not hold water. With the present strain on our financial resources, any remission of taxation must be jealously examined. This is an unproductive community, a sport, and a luxury which has been singled out, and there seems no reason for this remission at the present time. The argument about morality does not seem to be a very good one in view of the fact that no remission, but rather an increase, of taxation is being sought from what is admittedly a more harmful trade, the trade in intoxicating liquor. [Interruption.] I am speaking from my own point of view entirely. Is this the time, when the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal is struggling with adversity and is seeking where he can raise revenue to guarantee this expenditure in order to employ people in productive work in this country, that we should part with a sum which would meet the annual expenditure on a loan that would employ no fewer than sixteen thousand persons? For all these reasons, it does seem that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might give us some further explanation of the reasons why at this moment of all moments they have chosen to make this remission of taxation.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I, too, want to reinforce the arguments of the plea that has come from the front bench on this side of the House as to either the unwillingness or the inability of the Government to offer any satisfactory reply to the numerous points put up in this debate. There are two questions which I should particularly like to ask again. One is, how does the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconcile the bringing in of moral argu- 1195 ments into the formation of his opinion as to how he should impose the taxes of the year? We should, secondly, like a definite answer as to whether there was any agreement with the bookmakers in return for the services they gave at the election. Clause 4 contains four lines which read as follow:The excise duties chargeable under section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1926, on a book-maker's certificate and on an entry certificate shall cease to be charged after.…a certain date. The first point I wish to ask about this legislation by reference is this. The Clause refers to the Excise Duties and mentions two, referring to a Clause in the Finance Act of 1926, but it does not take the trouble to define which of the Sub-sections of that Section 15 are being repealed.
Clause 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, begins as follows:There shall, on and after the first day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, be charged, levied and paid the following duties of excise, that is to say:Then comes paragraph (a) which, as I read it, was the paragraph repealed in the Budget last year. Then comes paragraph (b) which says:On a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as "a bookmaker's certificate") to be taken out annually by a person carrying on the business of a bookmaker, a duty of ten pounds:Then comes paragraph (c):On a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as "an entry certificate") to be taken out annually by a bookmaker in respect of the entry for any betting premises kept or used by him, a duty of ten pounds.Now these two paragraphs are specifically referred to in the Clause which we are now discussing, but the Clause begins by saying "the Excise Duties" and only those two. There is a third section which, as I read it, raises another duty which comes under the Excise. Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, Sub-section (3) reads as follows:Betting duty shall be payable by the bookmaker with whom the bet is made, and every bookmaker (other than a bookmaker who has made an arrangement approved by the Commissioners for furnishing returns of all bets made with him and has given security up to an amount and in a manner approved by the Commissioners for the payment of the betting duty thereon) with whom a bet is made shall immediately on the making of the bet issue to the person by whom the bet is made a ticket (not before used) in 1196 the prescribed form denoting that the proper betting duty has been paid (in this Part of this Act referred to as "a revenue ticket").Is that repealed? If it is not, the following Sub-section imposes a penalty on the bookmaker for not carrying out Subsection (3) of the Act. In Sub-section (4) this is the penalty imposed:Any betting duty not paid by means of a revenue ticket shall be recoverable from the bookmaker with whom the bet was made as a debt due to the Crown—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not quite follow the hon. Member. This Clause only deals with the abolition of duties on book-makers' certificates and entry certificates. These are the questions under discussion and not the Betting Duty.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
The Clause I am reading now is Clause 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, Sub-section (4), which directly refers to a Betting Duty, and I was pointing out that the penalty—
§ The CHAIRMAN
This has nothing to do with the Betting Duty. The Betting Duty, I understand, has been abolished. This matter which we are discussing now abolishes the certificates.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Surely, this is the foundation on which we are repealing the certificates, and on that all these questions of revenue turn.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I have not looked this matter up to-night, but two days ago, and it only points out the extraordinary difficulties of legislation by reference. I will not pursue the point, but will only ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury definitely to look at Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, and tell us if and when Clause 4 becomes law, how much of Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, will be left, how much repealed, and, if any is left—[Interruption]. This is not easy to explain to the Committee. The whole afternoon we have been subjected to this long fire of animal noises from the other side and I do protest against it. We are trying to quote numbers of Sections and Sub-sections in different Acts. I want the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us—[Interruption].
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
It is quite impossible for hon. Members below the Gangway to hear what the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) is saying on account of interruptions on the Government benches, and we ask for your protection.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I did not think the interruptions were of such a character as to require intervention on my part. But I must appeal to hon. Members not to raise points of Order in such a way as to imply that these interruptions come from only one side of the House.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The decision given by my predecessor does not arise on the point of Order raised now.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I happen to have friends who are bookmakers. There are black sheep in every profession, and there are some in the profession of the bookmakers, but I would also say that there are some of the most honourable men in it to be found in any walk of life in this country. The big men in their profession do business running into hundreds and thousands of pounds with clients without any writing, but by word of mouth only, and men with whom you can do business of that kind must be honourable men. I have been asked to raise this question: If Clause 4 of the Bill is passed in the form in which it now stands, how much of Section 15 of the 1926 Act will be left? Will any of it be left, and, if so, what part? May I also ask what agreements have been come to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before introducing Clause 4 of this Bill?
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
I can answer the hon. Member's question in one sentence. The only things that remain of the original betting legislation are the two certificates, the personal certificate, and the entry certificate, and, if the Clause under discussion is passed, nothing whatever will remain.
§ Mr. OLIVER STANLEY
I apologise to hon. Members opposite for intervening for a short time. While the right hon. Gentleman has satisfactorily cleared up an important point put by my hon. 1198 Friend, there is another matter to which I wish to refer. It appears to me to be an extraordinary case of self-deception. I do not object to self-deception among Members opposite—it is the only political thrill they have left—but I object to self-deception at the public expense, and that is the effect of this Clause. Betting is a grave question which divides people of the country into two camps. I recognise two schools of thought. There are Members on one side who think that betting on a moderate scale meets the ordinary needs of humanity, but they recognise that it is an evil if indulged in to excess. They believe, however, that it is better for a human being to learn for himself to curb his tendencies towards excess rather than that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should attempt, and probably fail, to do it for him. Hon. Members who take that view believe the bookmaker has the right to be recognised, and that, as he only appeals to a luxury instinct in the population, it is only fair that he should contribute a part of his earnings to the general service of the State. Members on the other side, with equal sincerity, take the entirely opposite view, that dealing in any form of betting is an evil thing which should be stamped out, and they are prepared to take the only logical course, and that is to render betting wholly illegal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a middle course between these two. He makes no attempt to place the pains and penalties of the law upon bookmakers, but at the same time he refuses to recognise the bookmakers and to take a share of their profits for the State. The right hon. Gentleman has treated us on several occasions during these Debates to what I believe are popularly known as wise cracks. [Interruption]. The right hon. Gentleman gives no reason for his refusal of this income.
The right hon. Gentleman refuses to touch this unclean thing; yet at the same time his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General places all the facilities at his command at the service of these unclean people. He tries in every way to meet their demand and secure from them a larger revenue for the right hon. Gentleman. But even more flagrant is the case of the Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly prepared to recognise the bookmaker as a profession and to recognise the profits which 1199 the bookmaker makes as assessable for Income Tax, and let me point out to hon. Members the difference between revenue raised in this Bill and the revenue raised under the Income Tax Act. It seems to me an extraordinary piece of self deception that the Chancellor should be able to come down to the House and inform it that he is refusing this money because it is not right that the State should accept anything from the bookmakers. He may have a very deep hidden desire, and it may be his intention to kill the book-makers by kindness, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the book-makers of this country are a tough race, and if they are to be killed at all, they are not to be killed by kindness.
I think it would be hard to find a better example than that which has been followed of a very unpleasant feature of the British character, and that is hypocrisy. Here we have a situation in which, as my hon. Friend for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) has pointed out, we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepting from the book-makers of the country—or rather taking from them—in the form of Income Tax a proportion of the profits which they make in this "unclean" trade, and then the right hon. Gentleman coming down to this House and making a speech in which he says this is an immoral trade. Nor is that the worst of the situation. Some years ago this House passed an Act by which betting in the street was made illegal. At the same time, the House has never attempted to deal effectively with betting in other places. It is well known that gambling in this country is on a larger scale than in any Continental country, and in the effects it has and the amount of money it takes out of the pockets of the people it has probably the same result as the drink traffic.
Yet we know from the right hon. Gentleman on that evening when he has placed a heavy tax on the licensed trade a declaration that he is not willing to ask the Committee to tax bookmakers because he looks upon theirs as an unclean trade.
I would go as far as to say that there is no other country in the world where such an hypocritical argument would be put before the legislative assembly and 1200 where the Minister could get away with it. I have no doubt that argument will be acceptable to some of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, but I think this Committee should pause before accepting it. There is a definite justification for our asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to rise and say how he reconciles the extremely high moral principles he adopts in some parts of his Budget with the extreme willingness he shows in another part of his Budget to take money from what he regards as an unclean quarter.
§ Captain CAZALET
I think the answer, if I am right, is to be found in the schedule. I see that the whole of Part II of the Finance Act, 1926, is repealed and that includes all the Sections—15, 16, 17 and 18—which dealt with the whole question of the taxation on betting. There is this point: I had endeavoured at an earlier stage to move a manuscript Amendment to alter the date in this Clause from the 31st day of October to the 1st of August, but that was in some way out of order, and I was not able to move it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the Committee a few minutes ago, in answer to my hon. Friend that if this Clause was passed, then the whole of Section 15 of the 1926 Act would be repealed, but, under this Clause itself the duties are being raised until the 31st of October, therefore, surely there must be an error of drafting in this Schedule. I do not wish to arouse any member of the Government to take an interest in this matter, but honestly, I think the point is one of substance and deserving of some slight attention. I have examined this Schedule with great care, to ensure that I was not wasting the time of the Committee in raising the point. If hon. Members look at Part IV, the last item of the third Schedule, they will see that a certain Section of the 1926 Act is repealed, and then, under the paragraph which shows the extent of the repeal, there are these words:Proviso (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 (except in relation to the year 1929–30).Under the Clause the duties are continued to be raised until 31st October.
§ Captain CAZALET
I have not only read the Clause, but also the Schedule. If I have overlooked some point—and that is the object of my getting up—I am asking for information. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should resent my raising this point, and, if the answer is satisfactory, we shall be very grateful indeed to receive it. There is another point that has not been raised. Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider that there is any moral difference between those who speculate on the Stock Exchange and those who speculate on the race course? He is perfectly willing to accept a revenue in Stamp Duties from those transactions which take place on the Stock Exchange, and it is the greatest hypocrisy to refuse to accept revenue from betting.
§ Mr. EVERARD
On a point of Order. Is the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Mr. W. J. Brown) in Order in lying full length on the benches?
§ Captain CAZALET
Having read the Clause again and again I am still of the same opinion as when I read it at first. The words of the Clause are:The Excise duties chargeable under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, on a bookmaker's certificate and on an entry certificate shall cease to be charged after October, 31st, 1930.But we have just had an assurance that if this Clause is passed this charge will become inoperative.
§ Captain CAZALET
If that is the case, why is it that the duty is not to be repealed at an earlier date? I was concluding my argument by asking why the right hon. Gentleman should consider that there was any difference between people who gambled on the Stock Exchange and those who bet on horses. I want to put another point. If Part II of the Finance Act, 1926, 1202 is repealed, is it to be understood that we stand in this country exactly in the same position as regards betting in its legal aspects as we did before the Act of 1926 was passed? Are we to go back to the hypocritical stage that we sanction, allow, and permit betting inside certain buildings, but that it is illegal for the same thing to take place outside? I think that all parties agreed that the Act put an end to that hypocritical situation. Are we to go back to the old hypocritical stage that we sanction with our right hand what we proceed against with our left? I only hope that on the day when a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer again produces a Budget he will not hesitate to reimpose the duty along these lines and take from that section of the community a sum of £200,000, and that he will take more if he can towards the revenue of the country.
§ Major TRYON
I rise to deal with an interruption which took place from the other side of the House, and I call noon hon. Members to justify it in their speeches. From this side a reference was made to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer described these duties as a blemish on the financial system of the country. I went to the library of this House the other day to look at the "Daily Herald." I went to ascertain what the unemployment returns were, and I found that they were suppressed. Instead of the unemployment returns, I found seven columns devoted to horse racing and betting, and four of those columns were a direct encouragement from the Labour party's official organ to bet. I looked at the "Daily Herald" to-day, and I found that not only were there seven columns directly encouraging people to bet, but—
§ Mr. McKINLAY
On a point or Order. Are we debating horse racing in general? I understood that the Question was "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Major TRYON
I was discussing the question of the morality of betting, and I say it is hypocrisy for a party which pays part of its funds to encourage a newspaper which recognises betting to cheer a suggestion that betting is a blemish.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWN
I was called to Order for supporting my feet on a, bench; 1203 is it in Order for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to support their feet on the Table?
§ Commander SOUTHBY
As representing a constituency in which there takes place annually a gathering which necessitates the largest concentration of bookmakers and a gathering which does so much to increase and sustain the circulation of the "Daily Herald" whose information I believe, though not from personal observation, is extremely good, I would like to say a few words to the Committee on this subject. I would remind hon. Members opposite that the very class of bookmakers who are so derided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer serve a very useful purpose to many hon. Members, not only on this side of the House, but on the other side also. Gratitude to bookmakers for services rendered in their official capacity and also at election times in the past might at least constrain the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be less scathing in his remarks.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWN
By what process of logic is it held that, if one puts one's feet on a bench, one is out of Order, while one who puts his feet on the back of the bench in front of him is in Order?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am afraid logic is not the determining factor; it is largely governed by precedent.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Chair is always anxious to prevent a waste of time. A waste of time takes place with unnecessary points of Order, but there are other ways of wasting time not unknown to the Noble Lord.
§ Commander SOUTHBY
The Committee will realise how difficult it is to make a connected statement when one is 1204 subject to interruptions. I had hoped the silence of the Committee earlier was prompted by a desire to hear what information I might have to give it. It is common knowledge that the bookmaking fraternity are always willing to bear their share of the national burden, and it is rather cavalier of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have relieved them of taxation, and at the same time to have held them up to execration by saying that their business was an evil and wrong business. There is no doubt his party has accepted the help of the bookmakers at by-elections. If this relief was to be made, surely he might have made the relief earlier, so that it could have come into operation before the events of a week's time. It would have been a kindly thing to have done, seeing he has made so many strictures on bookmakers—these men who in the main are pursuing a particularly fair and honest business. There should be some answers to the questions raised on this side of the House. These men are not mischievous in any way. They are not dishonest men. Although I hold no brief for the bookmakers, at least their name should be cleared, and there should not be these perpetual references to them as if they were something unclean.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Before the debate ends, is the right hon. Gentleman not going to make some reply to the arguments addressed to him? After all, it is the right hon Gentleman's wish that this discussion should proceed in the small hours of the morning. When he took that position and attained the ratification of his will and authority over the House, it was to be assumed that he intended to take an intelligent part in out discussions; that he intended to make the necessary contributions to our debates and answer the points raised. Some of the points have been very clear, and I should have thought that it would have been very unpleasant for the right hon. Gentleman to sit there apparently incapable, for some reason or other, of giving an answer. He is raising money from the Income Tax on the profits of bookmakers, and yet saying that he cannot be responsible for the unclean thing by raising money by the taxation of their licences. Surely he has got some answer. Everybody has some sort of answer.
1205 Then take the question of sweeping away this loathsome blemish—but apparently only after 1st November. Up to then he is prepared to obtain the proceeds of gambling and put into his pure and orthodox coffers money which is gained by his direct and intimate association, in his public capacity, with the trade which he has told us is built up from day to day on the ruin of countless homes. He is going more deeply into this business with every step he takes. On the one hand, there is his connection with the "Daily Herald," the official organ of his party. If it were not for the exertions of the "Daily Herald" he would not hold his position on the Treasury Bench. He would not have been there, probably, but for the valuable "Daily Herald." It is all very well to take their aid and assistance and be supported by their active journalism, and then brush it aside as an unclean thing.
Really, for the right hon. Gentleman's own sake, I would advise him to try to make some answer to the arguments. It is not the slightest use sitting there and maintaining a stoney silence. For three or four hours he has contended himself with barking out one single sentence. [Interruption]. If it is objected to that I should say "barking," I will say snapping out one single sentence with a, peculiar canine inflection. I do not wish to say anything to hurt the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am anxious that he should have some chance of making some reply. He should be inspired with some desire to distinguish himself in the Debate instead of sitting there with a look of unutterable weariness and boredom on his expressive countenance. It is really quite painful to see. It is his wish that we should debate this now. He sits there unable to answer and unwilling to allow anybody to go to bed. He is forcing us to remain here and he is adding nothing to our discussions. It is unworthy of the great responsibility committed to his care. I ask him to answer the various points raised in the Debate.
§ Mr. SKELTON
Before the Government replies, I would like to add one or two words. I have noticed with great interest the dilemma my hon. Friends seem to be in with regard to the Chan- 1206 cellor of the Exchequer's motive and view with regard to the repeal of these taxes. My hon. Friend from Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) seems to think that there is some difficulty in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in calling this an unclean thing and then relieving the individual. He seems to have never heard of the maxim "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." The position the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken up is that betting is a sin, but you must show the greatest love and zeal towards the bookmaker. But the publican is such a sinner that you cannot do anything for him. There is just the proper degree of sin about the bookmaker that makes it possible to love him while you detest the sin he has committed. My right hon. Friend on the Front bench has remarked with surprise that the tax will continue until 1st November. Surely it is clear that it marks the determination for moral and fiscal purity that he has selected Halloween as the day for the tax to cease—31st October. I think both my theology and my calendar are correct. I know that if they are not I will be corrected when I finish. If I am wrong in thinking that the 31st October is Halloween and that Halloween has something to do with All Saints, then of course I shall be corrected.
§ Mr. SKELTON
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument. I shall not put it to him again, because I am quite satisfied that everyone in the Committee has followed it, and, reinforced as I am by the assistance of the little Oxford Pocket Dictionary provided by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), I am in a position to say authoritatively—when I have found the place—that we are both right. All Saints day is the 1st November and Halloween the evening before that day, now doubly holy—
§ Mr. SKELTON
I hope in a Parliamentary life a little longer than that of my hon. Friend I have never made any 1207 observation so clearly out of Order as this dragging into a discussion on betting the question of the Druids. On second thoughts I am not so sure that my hon. Friend was so far away from the point. Am I right in thinking that in my early youth, in those distant days, one of the most famous tipsters was called "The Druid"? I believe the memories of his early youth must be struggling through the mind of my hon. Friend as he takes a comfortable repose on the benches opposite. It is all very well to attempt to explain the Chancellor's action by the well-known saw, "Hate the sin and love the sinner." But, when one comes to look at this repeal of taxation, was there ever such a piece of utter fraud and humbug? How impossible it is to find any fiscal, moral, or logical justification for selecting, out of all the persons who have to pay duties in order to carry on their trades in this country, the bookmakers alone! Why should not the licences of the publican also be removed as one of the sources of revenue? We hear a great deal from hon. Members opposite about the necessity of raising the social standard of the people, but can anyone doubt that that matter can be seriously discussed even at this early hour of the morning and that, if you are anxious on that point, a far greater harm is being done to the people of this country by drink than through betting? If you are judging the thing from that standpoint, if you are looking for the most unclean thing, surely in a test of uncleanness, drink must win against gambling. In uncleanness I have no doubt that the whisky of Scotland will take a far lower rank in the degree of uncleanness than the beer we have been discussing.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I would remind the hon. Member that repetition of other people's arguments is equally as much out of Order as a repetition of his own.
§ Mr. SKELTON
I will do my best to observe that essential but often broken rule. I shall not expatiate on that, although it is the most outstanding feature that this selection should be made for this remission of taxation. The Committee is so impressed with that that it will be widely asked, and asked with 1208 force, why this particular remission has been made. What is the point of it? Why, first of all, make an elementary error in your scale of uncleanness, selecting the wrong thing as the most unclean, and then, by a most illogical method of dealing with it, help the people carrying on the unclean trade to carry it on without any financial burden at all? What a farce! What a humbug! What a contemptible misuse of the fiscal power now entrusted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer! It is made doubly mischievous in one who himself has been trained up in the office of the Treasury, who himself has been an expert tax collector, who knows from the beginnings the whole method of taxation, who is not a mere outsider put into the position, but who has been a tax collector from his youth upwards. How can he bring himself, knowing how terrific are the burdens of taxation, how severe a weight of taxation presses on the people of this country, while he adds to the taxation of everybody else, to reduce the tax of one class, the class carrying on this most unpleasant trade?
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
I would say, in reply to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that, when I spoke four hours ago, in that speech I anticipated and answered all the arguments put forward in this debate. I beg to move, "That the Question he now put."
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Is it in Order, and, according to precedent, for a right hon. Gentleman to move the Closure at the conclusion of a speech which he himself has made? I have always understood that that is contrary to the Rules of this House and that that Motion could only be made by another hon. Member.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman has not acted contrary to the Rules of the House. A member may move the Closure whenever he wishes, and if the Chair thinks proper it can accept it.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
This innovation of a Member making a speech and then concluding with a Motion for the Closure would carry us very far. A most provocative speech might be made, and then, by concluding with a Motion for the Closure, any answer or rejoinder might 1209 be prevented. Some very damaging statement might be made, and then the Minister might finish up by moving the Closure which would leave that statement uncorrected. In all the 25 or 30 years I have sat in this House, I have never known a Minister of the Crown conclude his speech by moving the Closure, and I submit that matter to your attention.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
On that point of Order, may I call attention to this fact, that before you came back to the Chair and while the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair we persistently put questions to the Government to which no attempt at an answer has been made. The only answer we got was about ten words, and the Closure was moved.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Chair obviously cannot dictate to Ministers or to Members when or when not to move the Closure. That must be left to the discretion of the Member moving it. It is left to the discretion of the Chair whether to accept it. All I can say is that the discussion has lasted nearly three hours on this particular Clause. In exercising my discretion on a debate that centres round a particular point, I feel perfectly entitled to accept the Closure.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 84.1211
|Division No. 314.]||AYES.||[4.3 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Gould, F.||McElwee, A.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||McEntee, V. L.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||McKinlay, A.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Gray, Milner||McShane, John James|
|Alpass, J. H.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marcus, M.|
|Arnott, John||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Marley, J.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Groves, Thomas E.||Marshall, Fred|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Grundy, Thomas W.||Mathers, George|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Matters, L. W.|
|Barr, James||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Messer, Fred|
|Batey, Joseph||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Middleton, G.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Harbord, A.||Mills, J. E.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Hardie, George D.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Benson, G.||Haycock, A. W.||Morley, Ralph|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Hayes, John Henry||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Mort, D. L.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Moses, J. J. H.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Herriotts, J.||Muff, G.|
|Bromfield, William||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Brooke, W.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Brothers, M.||Hoffman, P. C.||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Hollins, A.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hopkin, Daniel||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Horrabin, J. F.||Palin, John Henry.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Cape, Thomas||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Charieton, H. C.||Johnston, Thomas||Potts, John S.|
|Chater, Daniel||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Price, M. P.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Compton, Joseph||Kennedy, Thomas||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Cowan, D. M.||Kinley, J.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Daggar, George||Lang, Gordon||Ritson, J.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lathan, G.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Dickson, T.||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Rowson, Guy|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lawrence, Susan||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Dukes, C.||Lawson, John James||Sanders, W. S.|
|Duncan, Charles||Leach, W.||Sandham, E.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Scurr, John|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lees, J.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Shield, George William|
|Egan, W. H.||Lindley, Fred W.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Foot, Isaac||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Freeman, Peter||Logan, David Gilbert||Shinwell, E.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Longbottom, A, W.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Longden, F.||Sinkinson, George|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Gill, T. H.||Lunn, William||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Glassey, A. E.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Gossling, A. G.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Toole, Joseph||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Vaughan, D. J.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Walkden, A. G.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wallace, H. W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Sorensun, R.||Watkins, F. C.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Strauss, G. R.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Sullivan, J.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Thurtle, Ernest||Westwood, Joseph||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. William|
|Tinker, John Joseph||White, H. G.||Whiteley.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Savery, S. S.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Butler, R. A.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Somerset, Thomas|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Long, Major Eric||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Lymington, Viscount||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Courtauid, Major J. S.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Muirhead, A. J.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Penny, Sir George||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Ramsbotham, H.||Major Sir George Hennessy and|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."1212
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 77.1213
|Division No. 315.]||AYES.||[4.10 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Compton, Joseph||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Cowan, D. M.||Harbord, A.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Daggar, George||Hardie, George D.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Dalton, Hugh||Haycock, A. W.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hayes, John Henry|
|Arnott, John||Dickson, T.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Dukes, C.||Herriotts, J.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Duncan, Charles||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Barr, James||Ede, James Chuter||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Batey, Joseph||Edmunds, J. E.||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hollins, A.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Benson, G.||Egan, W. H.||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Foot, Isaac||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Freeman, Peter||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Gibbins, Joseph||Johnston, Thomas|
|Bromfield, William||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Brooke, W.||Gill, T. H.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Brothers, M.||Glassey, A. E.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Gossling, A. G.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Gould, F.||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Kinley, J.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lang, Gordon|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Gray, Milner||Lathan, G.|
|Cape, Thomas||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Charieton, H. C.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Chater, Daniel||Groves, Thomas E.||Lawson, John James|
|Clarke, J. S.||Grundy, Thomas W.||Leach, W.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Lees, J.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Palin, John Henry||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Lindley, Fred W.||Paling, Wilfrid||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Sorensen, R.|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Potts, John S.||Sullivan, J.|
|Longden, F.||Price, M. P.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Lunn, William||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Tinker, John Joseph|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Toole, Joseph|
|McElwee, A.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Vaughan, D. J.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Ritson, J.||Walkden, A. G.|
|McKinlay, A.||Romeril, H. G.||Wallace, H. W.|
|McShane, John James||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Marcus, M.||Rowson, Guy||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Marley, J.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Marshall, Fred||Sanders, W. S.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Mathers, George||Sandham, E.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Matters, L. W.||Sawyer, G. F.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Messer, Fred||Scurr, John||White, H. G.|
|Middleton, G.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Mills, J. E.||Shield, George William||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Morley, Ralph||Shillaker, J. F.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Shinwell, E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Mort, D. L.||Simmons, C. J.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Sinkinson, George||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Muff, G.||Sitch, Charles H.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. William|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Whiteley.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesail)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Savery, S. S.|
|Butler, R. A.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Somerset, Thomas|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Long, Major Eric||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Lymington, Viscount||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Courtauid, Major J. S.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Muirhead, A. J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Penny, Sir George|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Captain Bourne and Mr. Smithers.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have had four hours of discussion since the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided we were to continue. During that time we had a very strenuous sitting which has clearly produced a marked effect upon the strength of the Minister in charge of the Bill. For reasons with which I sympathise and respect he has practically ceased to take an active part in the debate. He has simply sat there, hour 1214 after hour, with a look of sour disapproval on his face. But we are now coming to the most important Clause and we have disposed of four Clauses and have made a remarkable inroad into the Bill. We are now approaching Clause 5 at five o'clock in the morning when the debates are not followed at all by the country, because the reporting staffs are reduced. We are not at all afraid of our work being reported, but I quite understand that others may not have the same with and this question of Safeguarding is the most controversial question of the present day. It is the key 1215 question at by-elections, and probably it will be the most important point in the forthcoming general election. In every part of the country, the question of Safeguarding is exciting the greatest interest. The Liberal party and other free traders are marshalling their forces and sharpening their weapons. The Labour party are in considerable doubt as to what their course should be. Are we really to assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants this important matter discussed at a moment when the country will not be able to receive any reports? Is he really so alarmed about this topic that he does not wish it to be entered on by Parliament at a proper hour?
In any case, it seems to me that we have now reached a point where we ought to break off our discussion. This Clause, I warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is one of an extremely controversial character, and I cannot possibly suppose that it can be easily or simply disposed of. This is like talking to a stone wall. I am not going to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because we know the futility of that. Nor am I going to suggest any sort of Parliamentary bargain with him, because, as we well know, the last arrangement made with him was made the ground of an accusation of bad faith against those with whom he entered into the arrangement. Consequently, we are unable to come to an arrangement with him. He has placed himself in a special position different from any other Minister. He is a sort of political pariah for the purpose of our Debates, only, of course, from that point of view, and we are unable to enter into any arrangement with him. But the mere fact that we are precluded from making such an arrangement makes it all the more necessary, and, indeed, indispensable, that he should himself regulate these Debates so as to conduce to proper discussion. He is a little smirched perhaps by the Coal Bill; somewhat smutty from the coal hole, but still orthodox, and I should have thought that it was the very topic that he would have been specially anxious to bring forward at a time when the country would be waiting to hear him.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
As far as I can ascertain this Clause does not 1216 deal with Safeguarding at all; it deals with dumping.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
There is Safeguarding against dumping. This was the part introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when Prime Minister, and it is only three or four weeks ago that the right hon. Gentleman said he would introduce legislation to prevent dumping even in the case of food stuffs, arriving too cheaply.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I was only meeting the point that perhaps in referring to this as Safeguarding I was not sufficiently accurate in my description of the subject and I should have said Safeguarding against dumping. There is a lot to be said about dumping. I hardly know another subject on which more general interest prevails, even among all parties. I should like very much to enter into battle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, but why cannot we have it at a reasonable hour? Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer want to smuggle it through at this dim hour of the morning when the pale dawn is just illuminating the monstrosities on the Thames Embankment. I do suggest that he would better consult the dignity of his office, the efficiency of his administration, the smooth and orderly progress of his Bill if, instead of endeavouring to burke this question by relegating it to a period when no record of our proceedings can reach the public, he discussed it at a moment when he is more fit to do himself full justice on his own subject. He would be well advised to accept the Motion which I make, which is not without consideration for the right hon. Gentleman and the progress of his Measure.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
The only contributions which the right hon. Gentleman has made to our Budget debates are insolence and buffoonery [Interruption]. If the right hon. Gentleman is capable of making a reasonable contribution to our debates, the House will be ready to hear him. He is quite mistaken in his sympathy. I am quite prepared to stop here until to-morrow evening with the right hon. Gentleman, and he will find that I 1217 am as fresh to-morrow night as he is. He was particularly offensive when he said—[Interruption]. He is incapable of being otherwise [Interruption]. The right hon. Gentleman was particularly offensive when he said I had sat here for hours and taken no part in the debate. I have spoken upon every Amendment that has been moved during the long sitting. It is not my business to waste the time of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends are quite capable of doing that. They have shown their capacity to do it. I shall certainly not accept this Motion. The House will sit until the end of Clause 6. I said at 12 o'clock that, if the hon. Members opposite curbed their loquacity, we should rise at one o'clock. I told the Committee that if we could not rise then we should have to continue until the trains were running, and my hon. Friends were able to get home. I said we should go on to the end of Clause 6, however long it takes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), when he last spoke, ended upon a defiant note. He said: "We are prepared to fight you." Where are three-quarters of the Tory Members of the House now? [Interruption.] Are they in the fighting line? I suppose it is that kind of fighting the right hon. Gentleman had in mind—running away. For four hours since 12 o'clock [Interruption]. I repeat it is not for me to waste the time of the Committee. There are hundreds of Amendments on the Order Paper, and if I spoke for an average of five minutes on each, I should occupy about 20 hours. I shall leave it to the Opposition. [Interruption.]
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member continues his interruptions, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The Amendment in which the right hon. Gentleman is so 1218 much interested could, if hon. Members had shorn the profuseness of the Debates, have been reached at a time when his racy statement could have got that prominence in the daily Press which appears to give him so much satisfaction. When any question of safeguarding arises, however, he always walks consistently out and leaves it invariably to another person to put the case.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
On several occasions, I have taken an active part and spoken in the Debate. I know perfectly well what I said in the Debate. Naturally, I left the omnibus measures to my right hon. Friend. If the right hon. Gentleman proposes now to quit the Chamber when this matter is under discussion what becomes of his taunt of "running away."
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The right hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what I do. The right hon. Gentleman has been out of the Chamber for three-quarters of an hour. I have been out an hour and a half altogether. I shall leave the conduct of the Debate to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in whose province it appropriately falls. I shall not consult the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether I sit on the bench beside my right hon. Friend. I shall not, first of all, ask the permission of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
I must confess that, personally, I prefer the tone and temper of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 12 o'clock to his tone and temper at 4.30 in the morning. If there were another argument needed to support the proposal which my right hon. Friend beside me has just made, it would be amply supplied by the temper in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to the perfectly reasonable and natural request which has been made. At 12 o'clock the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to indicate that, if he could not finish by 1 or 1.30, he would wish to go on in order not to get more business done, but in order to keep the House sitting until the trains began to run again. [Interruption.] The business of this House is no longer conducted with a view to getting things done, but with a view to getting home. If we cannot finish by the time the trains cease to run, we must continue our discussions until the trains begin to run again.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The right hon. Gentleman must know he is grossly misrepresenting me. [interruption.] I made two statements. I repeated them just now. One was that I hoped we might be able to get through the business by one o'clock or so. The other statement was that, if we could not get through the business by one, I hoped we would continue until the trains ran again. A further statement was that in any case we should have to go to the end of Clause 6.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
The speech which the right hon. Gentleman made at that time was a speech which began in excellent fashion and ended in excellent fashion. He hesitated and balanced. He was obviously debating with himself, even while he was addressing the Committee, what course he should take, and whether he should make any kind of proposal for the Committee or not, and he went so far as to admit that it would be unreasonable to ask us to take Clause 5 at a later hour of the night. Everything up to the last sentence pointed to the fact that he would have been satisfied if he had got Clause 4.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
If he had finished on the note he began, we would have got home, but in the last sentence he changed his mind, and since then he has been obstinate. He has now two purposes in view, one is to occupy his friends until the trains run again, and the other is to punish the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman used language to the Committee—[Interruption.] I have had a longer Parliamentary experience than the hon. Member who interrupts me.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
I did not notice the interruption of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I noticed an interruption from the back bench.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
I do not remember ever to have heard a Minister leading the House talk to it in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to adopt to-night. There is no attempt at persuasion. There is a sharp, shrill menace with an obvious 1220 desire to be disagreeable if he cannot have his own way in the exact form he proposes. That really destroys the comities of the House. Whatever be the result, it does not promote the conduct of Government business generally, and I venture to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the way to facilitite the passage of this Bill. He is trying the Committee too high. Does he doubt it? Why, since I spoke last, an hon. Friend of mine has put into my hand a passage from a speech of the Prime Minister reported in yesterday morning's papers.There never has been a Session in the House of Commons where more work has been done than this.That is admitted. What cause have you to complain? The Prime Minister goes on:I am willing to confess that sometimes we are working the House too hard.This is one of the occasions on which the Government are working the House too hard and not from any necessity for public business, but out of spite on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Sir H. CROFT
I trust that hon. Gentlemen who are supporting the Government will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow and read the exact words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and ask themselves whether the adjectives applied to those remarks by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are justified. I would remind him that venom and bitterness are not necessarily characteristics of a great Chancellor of the Exchequer. I rise to beg the Government to remember that there is a very large section of persons in this country, more especially in the trade union movement, who are deeply exercised about this subject which it is suggested we should debate now. The right hon. Gentleman himself will not dispute my facts when I say that whole trade unions have begged the Government to stay their hands, that 14,000 persons in one trade out of 15,000—
§ Sir H. CROFT
I bow to your Ruling, but would I not be in order in pointing out to the Chancellor at this stage the extreme anxiety among a large number 1221 of persons in the country and then ask him whether it is really fair to this vast number of persons interested that this vital question should be discussed at five o'clock in the morning? I understand that shortly the whole of these industries, which are affected by this principle, are holding a great demonstration together. What will be the opinion of those persons, so deeply concerned, if it shall then be said that the only occasion we had of discussing this vital question, on which the next election is going to be fought, was at this hour. This is a matter which deeply moves people throughout the country. Might I not make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? He knows the sincerity of some of us on this question. If we are going to treat the question in this manner, when unemployment is going to be up to the 2,000,000 mark before Christmas, when masses of persons in organised labour in this country are changing their views and demanding fair play and fair discussion—if he has not realised this, then we have reached a grave situation in this House, and people will see that we are mocking the whole question of industry and unemployment by treating the question like this. I appeal to the Government—I know there are no newspaper reporters and no Press here—to let the House rise now and to say that they are not prepared to run away from this question and to refuse to have in the newspapers a fair report showing the people outside what has happened. Forgive me if I have spoken warmly on this subject. I can only say that if we do really feel the condition of these 3,500,000 souls—who may soon become 5,000,000—who may be affected by this question, and if we do feel that we are not fighting a party battle, let us adjourn and discuss this question at a reasonable hour.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE
I was present at 12 o'clock when the right hon. Gentleman made his declaration, and I only regret that the Prime Minister was not present to hear the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He deplored taking legislation at this time and went on to say that, unless he could get it by one o'clock, he would go on till half-past five, when the trains began to run. The country will, therefore, I think, realise that the interests of good legislation, of 1222 the taxpayers of this country, and of the people employed in the industry are going to be subordinated to the comfort of Socialist Members of Parliament. If this is to go on night after night, why cannot they out of their funds hire chars-à-bancs and so prevent this scandalous misuse of Parliamentary time?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. William Graham)
I appeal for only one minute to point out that the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) must be under a complete misapprehension regarding this Clause. In point of fact, this does not raise the issue of safeguarding, except as applied to dumped goods, and relates to Clause 3 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. No question of employment comes under that section of the Act, which has never been applied, and, I hope later in the debate to show, never could be applied. That is all the issue before the House.
§ Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I should not have intervened but for the statement very courteously made by the President of the Board of Trade to point out that I think the right hon. Gentleman himself really is under a complete illusion, or misapprehension, as to the scope of the issues raised by the proposal which we are going to be invited to discuss. What is proposed by this Clause is complete repeal of the whole of Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. It matters not whether these powers were used by us or not. If you propose to repeal that section it inevitably raises the whole question of dumping, and you cannot put that on the Order Paper without raising the whole question. In addition, you raise the question that took months to debate in this House before, relating to depreciated exchanges. The object of the Clauses relating to depreciated exchanges was to meet unfair foreign competition created at that time largely by a bounty through exchanges and involving a comparatively different cost of living. The President of the Board of Trade says that only a very small point is raised and that he would not propose to use these powers, but actually what he is repealing is the whole of this chain of powers for dealing with dumping and unfair foreign competition. If he wishes to repeal seven Clauses of a very important Bill, he 1223 must inevitably raise these very important issues, and we shall claim to discuss them to the full. If we must take this debate at five o'clock in the morning, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will meet us fairly, as he always does. But let the House be under no illusion as to the scope and magnitude of the operation we are about to undertake.
§ Mr. GRAHAM
I feel bound to say that I adhere to every word I have said. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into a very serious error. That part of the Act of 1921 relating to depreciated exchanges expired in 1924. I am compelled to add that there is not a single amendment on the Order Paper that would revive that part.
§ Captain CAZALET
It is rather amazing to us why the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to be so angry with us. He started this discussion with a threat. We realise that this matter is going to be discussed in the early hours of the morning. We have to face that issue, because discuss it we must. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not really believe that this is a most vital matter in the country to-day, he lives in a world of illusion. There will soon be available the result of an election that has been fought entirely on this issue. The party opposite may prefer that this discussion should take place before that result is known, but in the interests of the country as a whole the result of that election should be known before the discussion. We are prepared to discuss this question with perfect good will, because we believe that it is a question above all others that interests the country at the present moment. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take up any other attitude, is, to quote his own words, grotesque and ridiculous.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
May I draw your attention to the fact that there is now again beginning the very same practice of organised disorder which gave trouble at an earlier part of the sitting; and may I also draw your attention to the fact—[Interruption.] May I ask you for protection for my hon. Friend? [Interruption.] The trouble is not being created on this side of the House.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
May I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know it is difficult at this time in the morning to keep Order in Debate.
§ Sir P. FORD
I would like to point out that you dealt rather severely with me for saying "Hear, hear!" You laid down no ruling as to whether that was in order.
§ Major COLFOX
If this interruption dies down, we shall be able to save a great deal of time in discussing this Bill, but clearly the longer the animal noises continue—[Interruption]. I rise to support the Motion.
§ Major COLFOX
Perhaps they would like it better if I said they were making bird-like noises. My object is to support the Motion moved from the Front Bench below me, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." A number of good reasons for supporting that have already been advanced from this side, and I do not intend to repeat them. I want to support the Motion on humanitarian grounds. [Interruption.] I have been sitting, on this side all the evening and Members opposite have not been in the position that I have been in to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His appearance at this moment and throughout the whole night is a sufficient argument 1225 for supporting this Motion to adjourn the proceedings now. His dejected and morose appearance indicates that he is not feeling well, and, if any further evidence to that effect were needed, we had his extreme bad temper in the last few utterances which he made. When you couple his gloom with his morose appearance—
§ Mr. THURTLE
On a point of Order, is it in accordance with the rules of debate that one Member should take the opportunity of reflecting upon the physical appearance of another member?
§ Major COLFOX
Another reason, equally humanitarian, and I would like to advance is that, on the last occasion when the Chancellor of the Exchequer vouchsafed a few remarks, in his snappy manner he told us he was going to ask the President of the Board of Trade to deputise for him. The President of the Board of Trade is the most courteous and also the hardest worked man in the Government.
Every nasty job that has to be done for the Government he is asked to do. The extraordinary thing is that he has not been given, in addition to his own job, that of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to clear up that mess. Both right hon. Gentlemen are obviously in need of sleep and rest, and I appeal to
§ their friends and supporters to give them the opportunity for rest by agreeing to their Motion. There is another reason—[Interruption.] We are about to embark upon the discussion of a Clause which is—[Interruption.] May I ask for your protection, Mr. Chairman?
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
On a point of Order, may I draw your atttntion to the fact, Mr. Dunnico, that the supporters of the Government have relapsed into their former bad habits?
§ Major COLFOX
I really must ask for your sympathy and support. If the worst comes to the worst, I feel certain that you, Mr. Chairman, will protect me—[Interruption.]
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee proceeded to a Division—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must warn the hon. Member that whistling is continuing in spite of my call to order.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 183; Noes 82.1227
|Division No. 316.]||AYES.||[5.11 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Daggar, George||Herriotts, J.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dalton, Hugh||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Dickson, T.||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Arnott, John||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hollins, A.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Dukes, C.||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Duncan, Charles||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Ede, James Chuter||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Edmunds, J. E.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Barr, James||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Batey, Joseph||Egan, W. H.||Johnston, Thomas|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Foot, Isaac||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Freeman, Peter||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Benson, G.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Gibbins, Joseph||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Gill, T. H.||Kinley, J.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Glassey, A. E.||Lang, Gordon|
|Bromfield, William||Gossling, A. G.||Lathan, G.|
|Brooke, W.||Gould, F.||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Brothers, M.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Gray, Milner||Lawson, John James|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Leach, W.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Groves, Thomas E.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Cape, Thomas||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lees, J.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Charieton, H. C.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lindley, Fred W.|
|Chater, Daniel||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hardie, George D.||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Cluse, W. S.||Haycock, A. W.||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hayes, John Henry||Longden, F.|
|Compton, Joseph||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Cowan, D. M.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Price, M. P.||Sorensen, R.|
|McElwee, A.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Strauss, G. R.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Sullivan, J.|
|McKinlay, A.||Ritson, J.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|McShane, John James||Romeril, H. G.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Marcus, M.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Marley, J.||Rowson, Guy||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Marshall, Fred||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Mathers, George||Sanders, W. S.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Matters, L. W.||Sandham, E.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Messer, Fred||Sawyer, G. F.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Middleton, G.||Scurr, John||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Mills, J. E.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Shield, George William||Westwood, Joseph|
|Morley, Ralph||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||White, H. G.|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Shillaker, J. F.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Mort, D. L.||Shinwell, E.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Simmons, C. J.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sinkinson, George||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Sitch, Charles H.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Palin, John Henry||Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.|
|Potts, John S.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Salmon, Major I.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Graham, Fergus (Camberland, N.)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Savery, S. S.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Butler, R. A.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Somerset, Thomas|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Lamb, Sir J. O.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Long, Major Eric||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Lymington, Viscount||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Muirhead, A. J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Sir George Penny and Captain|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Ramsbotham, H.||Wallace.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."1228
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 83, Noes 184.1229
|Division No. 317.]||AYES.||[5.25 a.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Long, Major Eric|
|Butler, R. A.||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Lymington, Viscount|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Marjoribanks, E. C.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Ford, Sir P. J.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Penny, Sir George||Savery, S. S.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Skelton, A. N.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Smithers, Waldron||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Somerset, Thomas||Womersley, W. J.|
|Ross, Major Ronald D.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Salmon, Major I.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)||Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain|
|Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Wallace.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Moses, J. J. H.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Hardie, George D.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Arnott, John||Haycock, A. W.||Palin, John Henry|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Hayes, John Henry||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Potts, John S.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Herriotts, J.||Price, M. P.|
|Barr, James||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Hoffman, P. C.||Ritson, J.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Hollins, A.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Benson, G.||Hopkin, Daniel||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Horrabin, J. F.||Rowson, Guy|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Sandham, E.|
|Bromfield, William||Johnston, Thomas||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Brooke, W.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Scurr, John|
|Brothers, M.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Shield, George William|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Kennedy, Thomas||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Kinley, J.||Shinwell, E.|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Lang, Gordon||Simmons, C. J.|
|Cape, Thomas||Lathan, G.||Sinkinson, George|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Charieton, H. C.||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Chater, Daniel||Lawrence, Susan||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lawson, John James||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Leach, W.||Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Cowan, D. M.||Lees, J.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Daggar, George||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Sorensen, R.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lindley, Fred W.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Sullivan, J.|
|Dickson, T.||Logan, David Gilbert||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Longbottom, A. W.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Dukes, C.||Longden, F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Duncan, Charles||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lunn, William||Walkden, A. G.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Egan, W. H.||McElwee, A.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Foot, Isaac||McEntee, V. L.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Freeman, Peter||McKinlay, A.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McShane, John James||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Marcus, M.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Marley, J.||White, H. G.|
|Gill, T. H.||Marshall, Fred||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Glassey, A. E.||Mathers, George||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Matters, L. W.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Gould, F.||Messer, Fred||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Middleton, G.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Mills, J. E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gray, Milner||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morley, Ralph||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Mort, D. L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.|