§ Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND
I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out "£6 14s.," and to insert instead thereof "£5 18s. 6d."
In effect this means that the extra Beer Duty as suggested is halved, and instead of an extra penny a pint, it will be an extra halfpenny a pint. I have no wish to disturb the equilibrium of the Budget, but we have all been talking about equality of sacrifice—[Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that hon. Members who wish to finish their conversation would do better to leave the House.
§ Sir W. WAYLAND
We have all been talking about equality of sacrifice, but with this extra duty I can only see a gross inequality. The duty, if this Bill is passed, will be lb times greater than it was in 1914, and we object to the fact that there has been no relief to the Beer Duty for many years, but only additions to the heavy burden now borne by a very large proportion of the working classes of this country. One can only suppose that Chancellors of the Exchequer are actuated, not only by the desire to obtain extra revenue, but by a feeling of wishing to victimise the beer drinkers. I do not remember, and I may be wrong, but not to my knowledge has a single Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1918 been a beer drinker. I believe there have been those who have been whiskey drinkers, port wine drinkers, and champagne drinkers, hut no beer drinkers, and not being beer drinkers themselves, they have had no hesitation in penalising all those who drink the national beverage. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the beer drinker has been sacrificed on the altar of teetotalism.
What are the present conditions of beer drinking as compared with pre-War? In 1914 convictions for drunkenness were 378 183,828. In 1929 they had dropped to 51,966, which are the last figures I could obtain. The consumption of beer during that time had dropped from 31,000,000 barrels to 19,000,000 barrels, which means that the consumption of beer from 1914 to 1930 had dropped by nearly a half. That proves that we can really consider this country to be a nation of very moderate drinkers. What does the teetotaller do in the way of equality of sacrifice? What burden does he bear? Precious little. If a man with an income of £400 a year has three children and does not consume alcoholic drink and does not smoke, he pays no taxation at all. That is not fair. It is absolutely unfair, and yet every Chancellor takes the first opportunity of planking another burden upon the poor consumer of the national beverage.
The Chancellor expects that he will get £10,000,000 out of this extra impost next year. I offer to bet him five to one that he does not get anything like that. Since the tax was imposed, I am informed, the sales have dropped considerably, and they are likely to drop. How can you expect the man in the street with an ordinary wage, especially in the country districts, to be able to indulge in even one and a-half pints of beer a day at the price which he has to pay for it at the present time? I have the honour to represent a constituency where a large quantity of hops is grown, and I am informed by the hop growers, who are farmers, that, in view of the fact that the consumption of beer is bound to fall, it is their intention to grub up a large quantity of land which is being cultivated for hops, and in consequence to discharge a large number of their employés. In the hop fields more labour is employed to the acre than in any other crop. The agricultural labourer gets a low rate of wages compared with other workers. The average throughout Kent is 32s. for the ordinary agricultural labourer, who consumes, say, one and a-half pints of beer per day. That means 68 gallons per annum, and he will pay in beer taxation £13 12s. a year, or 5s. 2d. per week. It will be agreed that that is not fair to him or to any other beer drinker. The agricultural labourer, like every other worker, has a right to be able to indulge in his favourite refreshment without being penalised to such an extent.
379 I believe that the Chancellor could have found other means of obtaining the necessary money. He has stated that it is not his intention to tax either tea or sugar. I would remind him that there is a difference between necessities and necessaries. Neither tea nor beer are necesssities. Sugar may perhaps be termed a necessity, but the other two articles certainly are not. To single out beer for heavy taxation and leave tea alone cannot possibly be fair. It may be said that beer causes drunkenness and the wreckage of many homes and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will base her arguments on that foundation; but it will be admitted that the wreckage of women's nerves to-day is in a great measure due to the excessive consumption of their favourite beverage, tea. Who would have felt the imposition of one penny a pound on the present price of tea, which is sold at such a low figure that, taking the average consumption for a household at one and a half or two lbs. a week, it would have meant no more than twopence per week extra. Let us take the housewife's position. She would have to bear twopence extra a week. Her husband is a beer drinker, and in many cases he will say to her: "Well, mother, I am giving you 25s. a week to keep the House, or 30s. or 40s. Now I have to pay a penny a pint more for my beer, and as I consume three pints a day, I am afraid that I shall have to deduct 1s. 9d. a week from your housekeeping money." If he did that, the housewife would be far worse off than if a penny had been placed on tea; she would have paid that extra impost and would not have felt it.
I cannot see why the Chancellor should not tax those millions of bottles of foreign mineral waters which come into this country every year. A million bottles a week come from France; we import a large quantity from Germany, and considerable quantities from Belgium and Austria. Taking them altogether, I do not think that I under-estimate the quantity when I say that probably 8,000,000 bottles a month are consumed in this country. They are consumed, not by the working classes, but by people with fair incomes and large incomes. Therefore, we could easily have placed a tax of 3d. a bottle on these foreign minerals 380 and spa waters. We should not only derive from that source a large amount of money, but give a chance to those who like Harrogate water or other water, and so give our own spas a chance of selling considerably more water than they are able to do to-day. The taxation of beer is a gross inequality, and it places a heavy and undue burden upon the working classes, and especially the class which I represent, the agricultural labourer.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HASLAM
I beg to support the Amendment, and I do so mainly in the interest of the lower-paid workers of this country, more particularly the agricultural workers. This is not the first time on which I have drawn attention to the gross inequality of sacrifice that is imposed upon the lower-paid workers by this particular tax. This tax is hallowed by tradition. It has come down to us decade after decade, even generation after generation, as the best way of causing the working-class people to bear their fair share of the taxes of the country. While in the case of the Income Tax payer the burden is being adjusted so that those with larger incomes pay mare and those with smaller incomes pay less, and that adjustment has been pursued year by year until it has now arrived at an extremely complicated system with a view of charging each person according to his means, yet when we come to the taxation of the working class, no attempt at grading whatever has been made.
The agricultural worker with a wage, say, of 28s. or 30s. a week, even if he limits his consumption of beer to one pint a day, is a far more heavily taxed man than the worker in the town who, perhaps, has £3, £4, or £5 a week. [An HON. MEMBER: "When he gets it!"] There are workers earning that wage. The agricultural worker is taxed on exactly the same level; he is simply taxed on the amount of beer that he consumes, and while the Chancellor has endeavoured to pursue the principle of adjusting the Income Tax to the broadest backs, the only principle he seems to pursue in the taxation of the working man is to adjust the tax to the largest consumer. I have called attention to this injustice on many occasions in this House, both when Chancellors of a Conservative complexion have introduced 381 Budgets, and when my right hon. Friend introduced his Budget on these lines in previous years, and I do say, for that particular reason, there is no attempt whatever, as the hon. Mover has pointed out, at equality of sacrifice.
I would like to address one or two words to those who support this tax on temperance principles. Beer, of course, does contain alcohol to an extent, perhaps, of 4 per cent. or perhaps 3 per cent. in the case with which I am more particularly concerned, the kind of beer which the agricultural labourer drinks, and I would point out to those who believe that alcohol is a bad thing, and who believe that consumers of alcohol should bear a heavy tax because they consume it, and with the object of reducing it, that beer is more heavily taxed in relation to its content of alcohol than either wines or spirits. I believe that it was the case in Scotland, somewhere about 100 years ago, owing to the very heavy tax placed on beer, that that liquid was replaced to a great extent by spirits, and. I believe that if we continue in this House to place this very heavy tax on the beer which is consumed by the people of this country, we run the danger of replacing that harmless beverage by beverages which are obviously deleterious to health. The figures by which one can compare the amount of alcohol in the various liquids—spirits, wines and beers—are somewhat complicated, and it is not easy, perhaps, to arrive at an exact measure of the amount of tax which alcohol bears. But I have endeavoured to work out, in a simple form, these figures which, I hope and believe, are accurate, and which I will venture to put before the Committee. In the case of beer, if we take a unit degree of alcohol, the tax is 7d. The tax on wines, including a certain beverage known as "red biddy," which is a rough wine, to which has been added raw alcohol to the utmost extent which the law allows, so as to permit it to come in at the lowest possible rate of taxation, is only 5d. Therefore, a man who wants to get alcohol, and alcohol only, alcohol in the crudest form, alcohol, as it is "with a kick in it," that is to say alcohol which is intoxicating to a greater degree, if he expends 5d., he can get the same amount of alcohol as he would if he spent 7d. on beer.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
May I ask what percentage of alcohol in beer the hon. Member is allowing in his calculations?
§ Mr. HASLAM
At the moment I am afraid I have not got the basis of the figures which I gave to the Committee. I have them in the Lobby, and will be very pleased to go into them with the right hon. Member afterwards. I said just now that the tax per unit degree of alcohol in beer is 7d. and on wine, including such wine as "red biddy," is 5d. The amount of tax on whisky is 1s. 3d. That, of course, is a higher tax on that particular form of alcohol, but every Member of the Committee knows that the kind of alcohol which is put into Imperial whisky and spirit is far less deleterious to health than the raw alcohol in the immature wine which is coming into this country in ever increasing quantities and at a very low rate of tax. I desire those of us who look at this matter from a temperance point of view to consider those figures, and to consider whether it is wise to place this enormous duty on beer, and the comparatively less duty on forms of spirit which can be obtained, and which are far more harmful, and whether they are not forfeiting their temperance notions. I also appeal to a larger circle, namely, those who are interested in the health of the nation, in an endeavour to get their support for the principles I am endeavouring to put forward. Surely beer is a far, far healthier liquid than anything in the shape of "red biddy," or the deleterious stuff which is pouring into the country at a comparatively low rate of duty.
In asking the agricultural worker to make this sacrifice, we are also asking him to give up what is an important amenity in his life. In spite of the movement which has been going on for the last 10 or 15 years to make our villages More bright and cheerful, to give the agricultural worker the chance of meeting and informing himself of what is going on, the number of village institutes is still somewhat limited, and in the great majority of villages, at any rate in the Eastern counties, there is only one club, only one place of meeting, and that is the village inn. I would also point out that the village inn is not that scene of brawling drunkenness which some temperance advocates be- 383 lieve it to be. The village inn very often contains a bagatelle board and other means of recreation, and may contain a piano, not perhaps strictly of the most up-to-date kind, and even if it does not, the local vocalist, trained in the church or chapel choir, is willing to oblige with a song. The village inn is not a place where it is simply the business of the innkeeper to sell as much alcohol as he can to each individual customer. His customers have not got the money. They are limited by the very small wage they have, and, therefore, it cannot be run as a mere shop in which alcohol is let out in a stream, as, unfortunately, may be the case in urban districts.
Therefore, I say that in depriving, as we are going to deprive, the agricultural worker of his pint—I limit it to one pint, and if that is the case, he will have to cut it out—he will also be deprived of all those humble amenities which he has hitherto enjoyed. I say that that is a gross injustice. I say that some attempt should be made to equalise the burden of taxation on those who consume beers, wines and spirits. No such attempt has been made. It has all been put on to beer, and that is a great injustice to the lowest paid of our workers, those to whom the country will look to produce more food in order to save the people from starvation if this country should be called upon, as it may be in the not distant future, to face privation and even worse.
It is always very interesting to hear the point of view of various hon. Members about drink, because the drink question is not a party question at all. Every party has its wet spots and its dry spots. Sometimes the plea is made for the agricultural workers, but whoever they are speaking for they always take the point of view that we are depriving the workers of something that they want. I admit that there is a great deal of truth in that argument, but today we have to consider drink from the national point of view, and not the narrow drink point of view. We are spending now £277,500,000 a year on drink.
I will deal with the hon. Member in a moment. He would not let me interrupt him, and I did not, although I did try to. The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) said that sooner or later this country may go short of food. In that situation we have to consider whether it is wise to spend so much on drink when the workers of the country really may be going short of food. The same hon. Member drew a very pretty picture of the village inn, and if most of the village inns were not tied houses I would agree that they would not be—at least a menace to the community. All who know anything about drink know that.
As long as the village inn is a tied house the innkeeper must push his wares or get out. If he were free, or even under Government control, it would be a different thing, but as long as innkeepers are tied to the brewers, village inns are not the harmless places the hon. Member would have us believe. I do not blame the brewers. If I were a brewer, naturally I should push my goods. I should be advertising "Guinness is good for you." Who would not do so if they had to push the sale of Guinness I am not blaming the brewers, but we have to consider this matter from the point of view of the country, and not from the point of view of the brewers or any one section of the country. I agree with the hon. Member that it would be much better if we taxed "Red Biddy" and other of the stronger drinks more highly than we do. It seems an extraordinary thing to me that we do not impose higher taxes on champagne and other foreign wines. I suggest to hon. Members that we here can put a self-imposed tax on ourselves. Why do not hon. Members agree to drink only colonial wines?
Perhaps the hon. Member does not even know what "Red Biddy" is. Now is the chance for the Empire builders! Let us say: "Colonial wines for the House of Commons!" I hope very much we shall take that course. Then the hon. Member talked about the wretched nerves of the women of the 385 country in consequence of tea drinking. I do not see any signs of collapse in the nerves of our women. Women seem to get stronger and better every day and in every way. They get to Australia by air. They do not get there on beer. Miss Amy Johnson never drank beer. She drank nothing. Hon. Members need not worry about the nerves of the women. If the Government have to make a choice between taxing either tea and sugar or beer the women of the country will say with one voice, "Tax beer"; and the men would take the same line. I have too high a respect for the men of the country to think that in a national emergency they would not be willing even to give up their beer, if they felt, that by so doing their wives and children would get more food. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) said he represented a district where hops are grown. I would remind him of this: Of the 630,000 tons of barley used last year no less than 38 per cent. was imported; and 66 per cent. of the barley used in distilling was also imported. It is probable that of the £240,000,000 paid for chink manufactured in this country not more than 3 per cent. goes to the farmer or the middleman. Therefore, if the hon. Member is really thinking of his agricultural workers, he will try to persuade the brewers to use only home-grown barley and hops. I do not want to be rude, but we can all look at the facts. If we tax beer the taxation is always passed on to the consumer. The brewers are doing pretty well; I do not think there is any other trade in the country which last year made a profit of £25,000,000. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said in a speech lately:The Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise that there would be a great decrease in the consumption of beer as a direct result of their proposals, and in that way you are going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.The goose will kill itself—the goose being the brewer—if it tries to raise the price of beer too much. That is going to be the trouble.
Let us look at this from another point of view. [Interruption.] I am not saying this because I am a fanatic. [Interruption.] Sir Dennis, that has always been one of my difficulties. When anybody tackles this question of drink, the whole of the drink trade, which does not 386 get its propaganda from one side of the House only, I might say—[Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite knows that better than anybody else. It applies to Members of all parties. The Liberal party is really the least affected, but it has its wet spots. Whenever the drink question is raised, the point always comes up, Why we do not tackle the clubs? Why does no Government dare to tackle the clubs, which are one of the real dangers to the country The reason is because all political parties are in line with the clubs. An hon. Member sitting opposite is the one who defeated the Local Option Bill for Wales in 1924. What is happening in the homes, of the working people The hon. Member for Dr. Salter—
§ Mr. HASLAM
I do not know whether the hon. Lady is referring to me, but I strongly object to being called "the hon. Member for Dr. Salter."
The hon. Member knows I was not calling him anything. I was talking about the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter). Bermondsey has the highest unemployment rate in the metropolis. One in every seven of the residents is in receipt of Poor Law relief. There is no middle class population, except one or two doctors and solicitors. There is no cab rank or book shop; even the philanthropic Bermondsey Book Shop is now being closed. The amount spent on alcoholic drink in licensed premises there in 1925 was more than £1,250,000, 86 per cent. of which represented sales of beer and 14 per cent. represented sales of wines and spirits. A few licensees took over £20,000, more than 20 licensees took over £10,000, and 68 licensees took over £5,000. In 1925 the spendings in the borough were: Milk, £182,000; bread, £230,000; rates, £742,000. The total of that is less than the £1,250,000 spent on alcoholic drink. They spent nearly five times as much on beer as on milk, though nearly 39,000 out of a total population of 119,000 were children.
I have come back from visiting the East End. I was watching a garden or nursery school and opposite was a "pub," and one could see the people thoughtlessly going into the "pub," though the money they were spending ought to have been going into the mouths of the children. I do not want to deprive work- 387 ing men of all drink, but I do say that as a nation we spend too much on drink, and at a moment like this we ought to think about the nation as a whole. I wish there were some way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get at the brewers without the taxation passing on to the working man; but I do say this, that the working man, like every other man, has got to make sacrifices. People talk about the sacrifices of teetotallers. A man is not always a teetotaller because he does not like drink. Thousands of working men do not take drink because they cannot afford it. They are making their sacrifice for their children and their homes. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has faced up to the question of drink, and am profoundly disappointed that hon. Members opposite should oppose this tax on drink and have been willing to tax tea and sugar. [Interruption.] I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget. speech that there was a question of putting a tax on tea and sugar. However, he will answer that point. [Interruption.] I am no fanatic. I said at one of the largest temperance meetings in the country that if mine were the last vote needed to make England a total prohibition country I would not give it, because I realise that England is not ready for it. I personally am ready for it. [Interruption.] There are some on the Opposition benches who are personally ready for it—but not all. It is most unfair that some of us who are considering the drink question from a social point of view should be labelled as fanatics who just want to punish those who sell drink. That is not our object. We want to have an educational programme about drink. We want to take drink out of the hands of private sellers and make its sale a national affair, so that we should not have millions spent on advertisements. Remember that it is the only trade in the country that the Government have to control. I think it is very unfair to say that I am a fanatic on this question. As a matter of fact, the country cannot afford to spend twice as much on drink as upon education, or five times as much on drink as upon milk. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must help those who are thinking of the welfare of the poor people of this country, and particularly the poor women and children, and he should not 388 have so much consideration for those who are only thinking of their profits. No doubt if the working man had a vote upon this question he would vote in favour of drink, but I am sure that he would decide that the drink traffic should be taken away from private enterprise.
We are faced with a big and powerful trade which is always pushing the sale of drink, which has always been against the interests of working men and working women. Upon this occasion, I am pleased to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government upon having the courage to put an additional tax on drink instead of taxing tea, and sugar, and the necessities of life. I am often told that I am in favour of prohibition, but that is not so. I never speak on the subject of drink except from the point of view of the women and children and the poorest of the people, who are unable to protect themselves.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) drew a touching picture of the condition of the poor people of Bermondsey crowding into a public-house. Has the Noble Lady ever thought why they do this? It is because the poorest of the poor are driven into the public-house as a result of our present social system. I think it is utter hypocrisy for the Noble Lady to say that she is not in favour of prohibition when at the same time she is prepared to support a camouflage form of prohibition by placing additional and ever increasing taxes on the working man's beer.
I wish to address myself more particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to expose an extraordinary state of affairs in this country, and that is the way that this extra tax on beer is being exploited by the brewers who made no less than £25,000,000 profit last year, as compared with £9,000,000 before the War. This tax is already being exploited by the brewers in order to make an additional profit. It has caused so much indignation that there is likely to be something akin to a beer strike. I have had figures supplied to me which show that in the North of England 86 per cent. of the beer is sold at 6d. per pint. I will take the charge which has been made for this type of 389 beer by the brewers since the present tax was announced. The additional tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed upon beer is £1 0s. 8d. per barrel, and the brewers have put on an additional charge of £1 4s. per barrel. This shows that the brewers are making an actual profit on the tax of 3s. 4d. per barrel. I suggest that that is a scandalous state of affairs.
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will excuse me saying so, has been most negligent in not insisting on the brewers paying their fair share of this tax, and in allowing them to exploit the tax in this way against the interests of the public. This passing on of the Beer Duty to the consumer has caused something like a beer strike in certain cities, and if only the people were able to boycott by giving up beer and spirits and tobacco they would very soon be able to bring down this heavy taxation. There is an Amendment down to leave out Clause 1, and it is understood that the general discussion on this question should be taken on the Amendment now moved by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland). I hope those hon. Members and their friends will vote for their own Amendment, which I will do in any case. [Interruption.] It makes no difference whether there is an election or not. Hon. Members opposite can vote safely for this Amendment. The people who decide now when there is to be an election or not are the bankers of the City of London and the New York bankers, and not the Tory party. I agree with a remark which has been made by an hon. Member opposite who said that the country might be reduced to starvation on account of the policy being adopted by the Government, and that the agricultural labourers can do much to save us. I agree that the agricultural labourer deserves better treatment than he is receiving under the present Government, and I agree that this Government will ruin the country if it remains in office.
I wish to make one or two suggestions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to do something to deal with the way in which beer is being diluted, and he ought to insist upon the specific gravity of beer being stated on the barrel in which it is sold. We have no means of knowing 390 whether the brewers are profiteering still further in this way, and in order to secure the consumer against this danger the gravity of the beer should be marked on the barrel. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division made her usual attack upon working-men's clubs, but I doubt whether she has ever been in one of those clubs. May I point out to the Noble Lady that if a working man goes into his club he need not drink at all, but if he goes into a public-house he must drink something.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated that I made an attack on the working-men's club, but I did nothing of the kind. I know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman is using that argument—he is afraid of the members of working-men's clubs.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
If you increase the tax on beer you also increase the tax on workmen's clubs. I think it is a great advantage for working men to belong to these clubs. [Interruption.] Some time ago when I supported local option I had the whole power of the brewing interest against me. I would like to say that I am a. temperance reformer, and I supported the Chancellor' of the Exchequer upon local option. I support the club movement, because it is not necessary for a working man who joins a club to drink and because these clubs are doing valuable social work. I agree with the Noble Lady in one remark she made that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have found a far better means of raising revenue. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not raise the tax on French wines and French brandy? Was it for the same reason that the cut in the unemployment wage was insisted upon by the American financiers? Was it because he had been put in the power of these foreign financiers? This additional tax has been placed on beer in order to support the policy of the Tory party, and I hope it will prove to be the beginning of the destruction of the present Government. For these reasons, I shall vote for the Amendment.
§ Mr. BEAUMONT
In common, I am sure, with the rest of the Committee, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Com- 391 mander Kenworthy), and I am sure that we all look forward to seeing him as the English Gandhi, suitably arrayed, with goats supplying his milk, and possibly the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) playing the part of Miss Slade. In spite, however, of that happy vision, I cannot join with the hon. and gallant Member in his support of this Amendment, although I am a believer in the value of drinking beer, and I am going to make an appeal to my hon. Friends who have introduced this Amendment to withdraw it.
§ Mr. BEAUMONT
The hon. and gallant Member may be able to prevent its withdrawal, but I can at least try, as several hon. Members sitting with him have done not so very long ago in similar circumstances. The hon. and gallant Member stated, as I understood him, that the drinking of beer was confined to the poorest classes. I do not know if he meant to give that impression, but that is practically what he said, and it is, of course, absolute nonsense. The drinking of beer, I am pleased to say, goes through every class. I join with my hon. Friends who are responsible for this Amendment in regretting that it was found to be necessary to put this tax on beer, and I regret that it was not put on tea, because I believe that if there were more beer and less tea drunk in this country, the country would be a better place. [Interruption.] That is my firm and considered conviction, and, in spite of the fact that the Noble Lady does not agree with me—I did not expect her to do so—I still hold it. I should like to see the hon and gallant Member for Central Hull and the Noble Lady enjoying a tankard together in the smoking-room. It would be a noble sight, and I feel that possibly they might both be the better for it.
I agree with what has been said about the effect of this tax on the working man, and the real hardship which the increase in the price of beer is going to inflict upon him. If the figures given by the hon. and gallant Member are correct, I agree that it is a most iniquitous thing that a profit should be made by the industry out of this tax. Although I am strongly opposed to what is called temperance 392 legislation, I have no connection whatever with the brewing industry, and I have no interest in their making any profit at all. Certainly I have no desire that they should make profits out of increased taxation, and I hope that, if that is done, the Government will do anything that they can to prevent it. With all that, and with my realisation of the hardship that the tax is going to entail, I again appeal to my hon. Friends to withdraw their Amendment, and for this reason. We have heard a great deal during the last few days about equality, or inequality, of sacrifice. Personally, I pay very little attention to what is said about that, because I have always believed that there has never been any such thing as equality of sacrifice. The patriotic people, the good citizens, will always pay more than the bad citizens. But I am sick and tired of hearing the squeals and screams that go out from people who have to pay anything, and I do say that there is at least one patriotic section of the community, namely, the beer drinkers, who bear their sacrifice without complaining. Therefore, I venture to express the hope that my hon. Friends will withdraw their Amendment.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSON
I listened with somewhat mixed feelings to the, shall I say, harrowing remarks of the Noble Lady, the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). She seems to know so much, but gives us very few facts indeed. She knows that I am connected with the working men's clubs of this country. I have the honour to be the President of that organisation, as I have been for some few years, and as I hope to continue to be. May I tell the Noble Lady that I know the working men's clubs of this country? May I say that in 1901, when there were very few clubs in the county of Durham, the convictions there for drunkenness were 135 per 10,000, while to-day when there are two, three and four clubs in some of the larger villages, the figure is less than 20?
Does not the hon. Gentleman know as well as I do that it is much more difficult to convict in clubs than it is in public houses?
§ Mr. RICHARDSON
I want to combat that statement by telling the Noble Lady that the amount of alcohol consumed in 393 clubs is very much below that consumed in public houses. May I inform her that in my own county the average expenditure per week per man is something between 2s. and 2s. 6d.? They have had to pay 6d. for a pint of beer in the past, and it will be 7d. in the future—[Interruption]. The Noble Lady has had her fair say, and I am sure she will allow me to continue without interruption. I want to tell her that the members of our clubs are respectable members of society, that they are good citizens of this country, that they do the best they can for their children, and that they would not take a pint of beer if a bairn wanted a pint of milk; and, when we find that the crime of drunkenness is decreasing so rapidly, I cannot help thinking that the Noble Lady is living in the latter part of last century. Things have altered, although she cannot see it.
Undoubtedly, the drink bill has gone up, but why? There was a time, in 1913, when the tax on a standard barrel of beer was 7s. 9d. No wonder the drink bill was lower then than it is to-day, when the tax is £6 14s., less the drawback of £1 which the present Lord President of the Council, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, granted to us because he thought that the worker who drank beer was being asked to pay more than his share. I know that a considerable percentage of the miners of this country drink beer, but I hate and detest the idea of any of them getting drunk. I have, however, an easy conscience on that score, for the brewers are seeing to it that the beer is pretty well watered, and they will continue to do so in the future. The figures given by my hon. and gallant Friend were taken from the books of a co-operative brewery, which, I may remark, comes as near as possible to the Noble Lady's suggestion that the whole thing should be nationalised. I am with her there, and will support her right through. Of the beer consumed by the workers in Durham, about 86 per cent. is of a gravity of 38 or 40; only about 5 per cent. is higher, and the rest is lower still, so that in that case the brewers get an even greater profit on the transaction. They have taken the Chancellor's figure of £1 16s. per standard barrel, and have passed it down and down until it is £1. 4s. on a barrel of a gravity of 38.
394 I wish that the Chancellor would follow my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, and make the brewers declare the gravity of the beer. That is a very important point. Then I should like the Noble Lady to understand that the clubs are not tied to any particular brewer; they can make the best bargain that is possible with the brewers, and in that way they are able to get from the brewers something back for the consumer; but when the brewers are making 3s. 4d. on every barrel because of this tax, I say that that is infamous, and I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister that there is to be a Bill to stop all this profiteering out of the people of this country. If that is done in regard to beer, we shall thank the right hon. Gentleman more than enough. There are other people also who make these profits. Those who bottle the beer—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid it is nearly time I reminded the hon. Member that he is now dealing with matters which do not come under this Amendment.
§ Mr. RICHARDSON
I am only trying to answer the arguments that have been put from the other side. I know I must not follow all that has been said, but I should like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an extra 8d. or 10d. per dozen is being charged for half-pint bottles, which gives the bottlers something like 9s. a barrel. I told the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last occasion that, if he had come to us, we could have given him valuable information. Here are the facts which show that, every time any tax is levied, the brewers take out of the tax a good deal of the hard-earned money of the workers. I am putting these arguments to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the large number of working men who are members of our working men's clubs. I agree that more will probably be spent on beer during next year, but I want to tell the Chancellor that this is just about the last straw on the camel's back, and that he may find that this tax will not realise what he set out to get. It is too much to ask of the worker, when you remember that he is in a worse position to-day than when he was given the rebate of £1 a barrel. I agree that this Amend- 395 ment would do something, but I should like the Chancellor to tell the brewers that they must play the game fairly as regards increasing the price of beer to the consumer; to see to it that they do not make a profit out of the tax, as they have done on every occasion in the past; and, most important of all, to make them declare the gravity of the beer that they supply, because I think it will be found that they have been making money from that source also.
I make no apology for what I said the other day. I do not want to see any tax on tea, or sugar, or anything of that kind. I am against any indirect taxation whatever, and in that regard I had the Chancellor of the Exchequer for my teacher. I would go where the money is—to those people who have broad enough backs, not only to bear the increased taxation that has been imposed this year, but a good deal more. They ought to give something back, so that we may have, not equality of sacrifice only, but equality of existence in this country. Wages have gone down beyond all knowledge. As a result, beer has suffered, milk has suffered, everything that the worker wants in his home has suffered. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer turn to the method of taxation which he himself has expounded many times. In that way he will do what is right by the poorest of our citizens, and will be playing the game as it ought to be played. I agree with the Movers of this Amendment, and I shall support it.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. BECKETT
I want also to support the Amendment, because I think this tax is one that should have been scrupulously avoided at a time like this. We are told that the whole basis upon which this very heavy extra taxation has been put on the nation is a sudden crisis which demands the Government doing a very unpopular thing. No speaker on the benches opposite has pretended to like imposing all this extra taxation. The whole case has been that, much as we dislike it, it was essential to call upon the nation to bear it under the special circumstances that have arisen. You can only ask the nation to accept very heavy extra sacrifice if you can persuade it that the taxation is being 396 imposed in a completely fair and impartial spirit. Directly the nation gets the idea that a small group of people are able to get their ideas considered in the ordinary way, are taking advantage of a crisis to ride their particular hobby horse and get the advantage of their own particular fad, you get a feeling of resentment, however just your primary call for sacrifice may be.
One of the most likeable characteristics of the party opposite has been their good natured tolerance of any social custom which did not interfere with their own vested interests, and it is an extraordinary thing to find that, just as the worn-out and dead hand of an effete Liberalism crippled these benches for many months, directly it has moved over to their ranks we find the Conservative party supporting a tax on the innocent recreations and customs of the people. If hon. Members had been told three months ago that they would be supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another of his fantastic attempts to interfere with the life of the people by devious means, they would have been the most surprised Members who could possibly have been found. Certainly I shall be surprised if even the peculiar ties that bind the present Front Bench are going to take them into the Lobby in support of this proposal. I oppose it because it is a most unfair way of interfering with the people's life. I do not agree but I can respect and sympathise with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) who, believing that beer is a poison, would desire to prevent anyone being able to obtain it, but I cannot understand the attitude of mind which says, "This is a dreadful thing, beer is an inequity; therefore let us get a little more money out of it for the public Exchequer."
It is not at all fair of the Noble Lady—I do not think she can have meant it seriously—to suggest that we who are opposed to this tax would like to see the money raised out of tea, sugar or other necessities. There are many ways in which it could be raised. It might be raised from a tax on expensive headgear. It could be raised by a tax on luxuries. It could be raised by a tax on a great many things which are less essential to the ordinary life of a very large majority of the people. This is not an equitable 397 tax, and it is not an equitable way of meeting a national crisis. It is not my business—and I hope hon. Members will not resent it—to suggest to them methods of carrying out their policy, but I think they have been very misled in their psychology and have departed very much from ordinary Tory tradition and custom and precedent when they precede the cut in the standard of living which the Government desires by making beer, tobacco, and entertainments dear. That is a very bad way to get the working-class into the mood that the Government and their supporters desire them to be in. This tax is a very unwise one from that point of view. It is very unfair, because it penalises the innocent recreation of a very large section of our people. It is not a question of money. You could put a much larger tax on expensive seats at the opera and raise money in that way. There is just as much harm in having a taste for going to the opera as in having a taste for going to the local club or public-house and discussing things there with your friends. When we can afford to subsidise opera for people who like it, I do not see why we should tax beer for people who happen to like that.
This is not a tax that runs on party lines. Some Members on this side are strongly in support of it and others are against it. Even the small group with whom I usually act is divided on this issue. We have had an international clash between Scotland and England. While united on the question of a revolution, we are disunited on the question of beer. Therefore, I speak as a completely solitary voice. I know the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject. I have no hope that anything that we may say will dissuade him from the attitude that he takes, but I do not see why any party should be tied to his particular and peculiar view upon this issue. All parties are in disagreement on it. The way we troop into the Lobby for things that we heartily disapprove of because someone on the Front Bench tells us is an abominable disgrace to an elected assembly. [Interruption,] My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) often leads the way into it. We are sent here as free men to represent the electorate, and on this proposal we ought to have a free vote to decide 398 whether we are going to do this very mean thing to a very large and very good section of the community.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot)
May I appeal to the Committee. We are working under a limitation of time. [Interruption.] It is the decision of the House and not of any single Member. I ask the Committee whether it would not now be possible to come to a decision. The point that has been raised has, unfortunately, been befogged by a wrangle between temperance and non-temperance advocates, into which I do not intend to allow myself to be drawn. The country is short of revenue. Revenue has to be raised. There is always a feeling of injustice on the part of anyone on whom the burden is laid. Of all those who have spoken I sympathise more particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont), who said that he was sick and tired of the squeal that comes from everyone when his particular line is touched, and he hoped the beer-drinking population would stand up and take the burden that was laid on them for the good of the finances of the country. There is no other reason behind the introduction of this proposal.
We want to get £40,000,000 this year to square our annual Budget. This is 10 per cent. of that proposal, Is that an unreasonable thing? Undoubtedly, it is a burden particularly upon the people in the agricultural districts. But I am certain that my hon. Friends recognise the difficulty in which the country finds itself. They recognise, as the whole country recognises, that, whoever is called upon to make sacrifices, is not making sacrifices because he wishes to do so, but because he has to do so. It is a call that has been sent out to all sections, and we ask all sections to respond to the call. The Amendment would involve a loss to the revenue of something like £1,750,000 in 1931–32 and of £4,000,000 in a full year. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett) to say he knows plenty of other ways in which it could be raised. I do not think it is treating the Committee with full respect to suggest a tax on hats.
§ Major ELLIOT
I am only taking the suggestion that the hon. Member brought forward. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested, among other things, a. higher tax on French wines. It would be quite impossible to raise the necessary revenue by that means. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not increasing the duties on these things, because it would not bring in the revenue. The governing factor in the situation is what tax will most swiftly bring in the revenue with the least injury to the fabric of the life of the nation as a whole. I can imagine the indignation on the benches opposite if the Chancellor proposed to tax tea and sugar. The welkin would have been rent with complaints as to the increase in the cost of living, the poor child who could not get sugar in its tea and the working women who would have to drink hot water instead of the fluid that cheers but not inebriates. The Opposition have made their case, and I appeal more particularly to hon. Members on our own side. They have difficulties, because they say they opposed these taxes in the past when they were put on by whatever Chancellor. Having made their protest, could they not now see their way to withdraw the Amendment and allow the Committee to pass on to the other important business that lies before us?
§ Sir W. WAYLAND
Having listened to the Financial Secretary and having registered a very strong protest against what I still consider to be an iniquitous tax against a section of the community, I beg, in the circumstances, to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Colonel GRETTON
The tax is obviously only an emergency tax. Fortunately, it lasts only for six months. [Interruption.] Please do not interrupt; it will only waste time. I intend to say what I want to say, and I shall say it as briefly as possible, so I shall be glad if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will desist from interrupting. It is a tax which runs until the next Budget. I am going to support it, because it is an emergency tax and on no other ground. On every other ground I should have to oppose this tax and protest against it. If hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite go to a Division, I shall vote for the 400 Government. I assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a tax which is greatly resented. I am not speaking for the brewers but for the brewers' customers. There is a great deal of dislike. It seems that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money quickly and that he wrote down in haste "£4,500,000," "31s." and "fourpence a pint," but he forgot that there were other sources of revenue.
The Debate to-day has been a little indecent in one respect. It is surprising that all the total abstinence advocates have made use of this occasion and have urged that some additional burden should be imposed upon those against whom they are opposed on this question. That is not acting in a national or patriotic spirit. Perhaps I am not really surprised, because these faddists always take every opportunity of calling attention to the expenditure upon drink. An hon. Member opposite talked about the brewers being unreasonable, and apparently based his assertion upon a co-operative brewery, but I trust that he will not associate the general body of brewers with that assertion.
§ Mr. RICHARDSON rose—
§ Colonel GRETTON
No, I am not going to give way. I am going to say a few words about the attitude of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He made assertions with great volubility. He gave no foundation for his statement that the brewers are making a profit out of the duty. There is nothing in it. I am sure that he has made a mistake. He has got hold of some figures which are wrong. My experience in regard to the matter is that the brewers with whom I have talked are very hard put to it to make both ends meet in regard to this tax. There is no profit in the tax. There is nothing but loss staring them in the face unless they can make both ends meet. When everybody is making sacrifices in the national interest, when we require the money to meet the emergency during the financial year, I think that even those who carry on a vendetta against brewers on every occasion, reasonable or unreasonable, nearly always unreasonable, might refrain from attacks upon them.
§ Mr. MUGGERIDGE
I wish to make a few observations about this tax because of the plea that was put forward by the Financial Secretary. He said that the agricultural population who are very largely affected by it, as well as the general working-class population, would be quite willing, owing to the fact that they realise that there is an emergency, to accept this tax as a patriotic duty. That is not exactly the position. You may remove your opposition to a tax of this kind, but it does not follow that in your private capacity you will drink the beer upon which the tax is levied. The right hon. Gentleman is relying upon the expectation that the working-classes will drink the beer. They may accept the extra tax, but they will not pay it unless they drink the beer. It is quite conceivable that a large number of people may not drink the beer, and that the tax may not produce what it is expected to produce.
It is very remarkable that a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has been identified so closely with the temperance movement should now be relying upon very plentiful drinking by the working classes of this country. He is expecting to balance his Budget by getting the workers not to diminish, but to continue their drinking habits. The more steadily they drink and become unsteady, the steadier becomes the pound sterling. This tax is deliberately based upon the fact that the working classes will continue to drink and that a patriotic duty impels them to drink even more heavily than before. The mere passing of the tax does not bring the money into the coffers of the State, and it is very remarkable that a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been so distinguished for his advocacy of teetotalism, should be relying now upon expectations based upon the continued drinking habits of the people. In the circumstances, I hope that the Amendment will not be withdrawn. If you are going to put on the tax, make it a tax that will encourage people to drink, and not one that will discourage them. I imagine that the Amendment to reduce the tax would encourage the people to drink and would therefore carry out the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and bring in a greater sum to the revenue.
§ Mr. RICHARDSON
I should like to make an explanation in reply to what was said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). The breweries I quoted have in the past always given a gravity of two degrees higher than the gravity of the ordinary brewery, and at the end of the half-year have returned 8s. dividend to those who purchased from them. I wonder whether the right hon. and gallant Member can now say that breweries do not get the money. There is an indication that you can make at least 10s. profit upon a barrel. Bass, Ratcliffe and Gretton have passed on every penny of the tax, and Worthing-tons as well. It has all been passed on, and nothing has gone to the benefit of the consumer.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
It would have been a very effective demonstration of patriotism and love of Empire if the brewers had undertaken to meet this extra taxation. Figures have been presented here in the presence of representatives of breweries that they actually made, in the midst of all this depression of the general trade of the country, as much as £25,000,000, and they are still taking their miserable portion of this taxation which a temperance Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks fit to impose. The deliverances which generally come from the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) are evidence of the travesty of all this talk from a temperance standpoint. If beer is a legitimate commodity it ought to be relieved of all taxation. If it is a requisite commodity and it is considered advisable that it should be provided, why put upon it taxation which we know will be taken from the general body of the working people? If, on the other hand, it is not considered advisable—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not consider it advisable, because he has declared from temperance platforms in the country over and over again what a tremendous national wastage it involves—why does the right hon. Gentleman sit there absolutely helpless and proceed along the same old line of exacting revenue from it? Notable economists are having their deliverances circulated showing the immense benefit that would be acquired if the whole demoralising business were brought to a standstill instead of taking this taxation. 403 Why pursue this wretched plan of taking revenue out of what is perfectly well known to be a prolific source of infamy and a business into which no man with self-respect and with the highest ideals of Empire and people would enter. To stand up in public assembly and defend it and to proceed to take the money under present conditions shows the
§ absurdity of the whole thing. It is a disgrace for a National Government with a temperance Chancellor of the Exchequer to try and get more money out of the wretched Beer Duty.
§ Question put, "That '£6 14s.' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 180.407
|Division No. 503.]||AYES.||[5.29 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cranborne, Viscount||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Albery, Irving James||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. sir William (Armagh)||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Horne, Rt. Hon. sir Robert S.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Inksip, Sir Thomas|
|Atkinson, C.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Jones, Llewellyn-, F.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Balniel, Lord||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Dixey, A. C.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Knight, Holford|
|Berry, Sir George||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Edge, Sir William||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Blindell, James||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Elmley, Viscount||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||England, Colonel A.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)|
|Boyce, Leslie||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Bracken, B.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Long, Major Hon. Eric|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Ferguson, Sir John||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Broadbent, Colonel J.||Fielden, E. B.||McConnell, Sir Joseph|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Fison, F. G. Clavering||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Foot, Isaac||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Ford, Sir P. J.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Buchan, John||Forestler-Walker, Sir L.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Butler, R. A.||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Marjoribanks, Edward|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gillett, George M.||Markham, S. F.|
|Caine, Hall-, Derwent||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Millar, J. D.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Granville, E.||Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Gray, Miner||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Chadwick. Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N, (Edgbaston)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Nail-Cain, A. R. N.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Church, Major A. G.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hammersley, S. S.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George||Hanbury, C.||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Harbord, A.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Harris, Percy A.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Hartington, Marquess of||Penny, Sir George|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Savery, S. S.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Power, Sir John Cecil||Scott, James||Train, J.|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Purbrick, R.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Pybus, Percy John||Simms, Major-General J.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Rathbone, Eleanor||Skelton, A. N.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Remer, John R.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||White, H. G.|
|Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||Smithers, Waldron||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Somerset, Thomas||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Rothschild, J. de||Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)||Wood, Major Mckenzie (Banff)|
|Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.||Stuart, Hon, J. (Moray and Nairn)||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Salmon, Major I.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Thompson, Luke||Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr.|
|Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Glassey.|
|Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Morley, Ralph|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Mort, D. L.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Murnin, Hugh|
|Ayles, Walter||Hardie, David (Rutherglen)||Naylor, T. E,|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)||Hayes, John Henry||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Palln, John Henry|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, W. W. (Middx,, Enfield)||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Herriotts, J.||Palmar, E. T.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hicks, Ernest George||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Potts, John S.|
|Bromfield, William||Hoffman, P. C.||Price, M. P.|
|Bromley, J.||Hollins, A.||Ouibell, D. J. K.|
|Brooke, W.||Hopkin, Daniel||Raynes, W, R.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Horrabin, J. F.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Buchanan, G.||Isaacs, George||Ritson, J.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Jenkins, Sir William||Romeril, H. G|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Rowson, Gay|
|Cameron, A. G.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Cape, Thomas||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Kelly, W. T.||Sexton, sir James|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Chater, Daniel||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Clarke, J. S.||Kinley, J.||Shield, George William|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kirkwood, D.||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Simmons, C. J.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Compton, Joseph||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Cove, William G.||Lawrence, Susan||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Daggar, George||Lawson, John James||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Sorensen, R.|
|Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||Leach, W.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Day, Harry||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Dukes, C.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Strachey, E. J. St. Los|
|Duncan, Charles||Leonard, W.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Sullivan, J.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Logan, David Gilbert||Sutton, J. E.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Longbottom, A. W.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Longden, F.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lunn, William||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Gibbins, Joseph||McElwee, A.||Tillett, Ben|
|Gill, T. H.||Mansfield, W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Gossling, A. G.||March, S.||Toole, Joseph|
|Gould, F.||Marcus, M.||Tout, W. J.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Marley, J.||Turner, Sir Ben|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||Marshall, Fred||Vaughan, David|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Mathers, George||Viant, S. P.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Maxton, James||Walkden, A. G.|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Mille, J. E.||Walker, J.|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Milner, Major J.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Montague, Frederick||Watkins, F. C.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col D. (Rhondda)||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah||Wilkinson, Ellen C.||Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Wellock, Wilfred||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|West, F. R.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)||Mr. Robert Richardson and Mr.|
|Westwood, Joseph||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)||Muggeridge.|
|Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.