§ (2) A person shall not, either by himself or by any servant or agent, sell or have in his possession for sale by retail any tea packed ready for sale unless the package bears thereon or on a wrapper band or label affixed thereto a true statement of the net weight of the tea contained in the-package.
§ (3) If any person acts in contravention of this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence five pounds, in the case of a second offence fifty pounds, and in the case of a third or subsequent offence one hundred pounds.
§ (4) This Section shall not apply to any sale of less than two ounces of tea, which-does not purport to be a sale of two ounces or more, or to any package which contains less than two ounces of tea, and which does not purport to contain two ounces or more.
119Mr. ADAMSONI beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "any" ["sale by retail any tea"], to insert the words "package of."
The series of Amendments which are down in my name and in that of the hon. Member for South East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) cover two particular points. With the general object of the Bill I am in complete agreement, because unless some safeguard such as is here provided were introduced, the consumers of tea undoubtedly would continue to be largely taken advantage of by those who supply our necessities in that respect. Our national consumption of tea amounts to no less than 410,000,000 lbs. yearly, and it will be seen, if this Bill is not carried, that when a little is added to each quantity of tea sold—the weight of the paper —a very large sum of money indeed will be extracted from the pockets of the consumers of tea. It is absolutely necessary that the same protection as was granted during the War by the Order of the Food Controller should be continued, and that is the object for which the Bill has been introduced. It is a well-known fact that a very large proportion of the tea sold in this country is sold in large quantities, but as the Bill does not offer the necessary protection to a large section of the consumers who are in the greatest need of it, I have put down these Amendments.
The first Amendment seeks to introduce two words into the second Sub-section of the first Clause, which will then read, "sale by retail any package of tea for sale," whereas the Minister, in the Bill, has provided for "sale by retail any tea packed ready for sale." The Bill, as framed by the Minister, would only protect those who buy their tea in larger quantities, ready made up by the grocers and other retailers. It would leave out that section of the people who buy in small quantities and across the counter. At least 10 per cent. of the tea used is purchased in that way. Consequently, a considerable proportion of the consumers of tea are unprotected by the Bill as it has been introduced. These persons are the very poorest of our people, and, as the House well knows, to them tea is an important article of diet. Consequently these people stand more in need of protection by this Bill than any other class. I have no doubt, when the Minister comes to reply, he will point out, as he did in 120 Committee, that if my Amendment is given effect to there will be a great danger of that very section of the community suffering a loss instead of obtaining a benefit. When we were discussing the matter in Committee he pointed out that in all probability the price of tea would fall. Suppose, however, that it fell below 1s. 4d. a lb. say to 1s. 2d. The poorer members of the community would be in danger of losing the opportunity of getting 1⅛ oz. for 1d., instead of 1 oz. for 1d.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI fail to understand which Amendment the right hon. Gentleman is moving. He seems to be arguing the second Amendment on the Paper, and not the first. Is he moving the Amendment to insert the words "package of"? That raises a different point to the Amendment dealing with the number of ounces.
Mr. ADAMSONAs a matter of fact, I was putting the whole of my arguments for a series of Amendments which largely hang together, but I have no desire to run counter to your ideas of Order, and, consequently, I will confine myself to moving the first Amendment which stands in my name for the insertion of the words "package of."
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson)I quite appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to the Bill. I do not think there is any serious difference of opinion in any quarter of the House as to the general principles of the Bill. I quite recognise the right hon. Gentleman has put very fairly the view which he represented in the Committee. I am sorry I can only give him, I am afraid, the negative answer which I gave on the Committee stage, and I will tell the House briefly why. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's first Amendment, and I think of his second Amendment, which is consequential—the effect of the insertion of these words would be to make it compulsory, not only to put a label on every package of tea which is sold or exposed for sale already packed, but it will also make it compulsory to put the same sort of label on every portion of tea sold across the counter. There are two reasons why I invite the 121 House not to accept the Amendment. The first is that the general principle which we have followed throughout this Bill is to try and preserve the existing Order with regard to the sale of tea. That Order has been in force for five years. We have had experience of its working and know that it does work well, and therefore we feel strongly that any permanent legislation should not depart from the lines of that Order. The second reason why I suggest to the House it is undesirable to accept the Amendment is that you have already a protection for the consumer in cases of sale across the counter which does not exist in cases of sale in ready-made packets. The difficulty in regard to sale in ready-made packets is the abuse which led to the Report of the Short Weight Committee, on which the Order was founded—the abuse of having tea packed in packets in which the weight of paper or wrapping was unduly heavy in proportion to the amount of tea, with the result that when a person thought he was buying a pound of tea, he was in fact only getting 15 ozs. But in the case of sales across the counter you have the protection that the buyer sees the tea actually weighed.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONHe has the opportunity of seeing it, and if he is not alert enough to do that, if he is not quick enough to see that he gets his full weight, this provision will not help him, because the putting of the label on the package will not ensure that the full weight of tea is therein contained. The buyer's real security is in Sub-section (1) of the Bill. It is an easily operative provision which applies to all sales of this character, whether sales in packets or across the counter. Sub-section (2), the labelling Section, only applies to packets ready for sale. I suggest we had better stick to the lines of an Order which we know will work, and of the working of which we have had five years' experience.
Mr. WATERSONI am sorry the hon. Baronet cannot accept this Amendment. I do not think the arguments he has put forward meet the case advanced by the right hon. Gentleman who moved it. I want to prove to the hon. Gentleman that there is a possibility of evasion. As the hon. Gentleman says, Clause 1 deals with 122 the question of tea—not merely with the question of tea in packages, but also with tea sold over the counter. I have had some experience in the tea trade. When I was quite a boy I gained some knowledge of the inner working of it, and for two or three years was engaged in a portion of a tea warehouse where packing was carried on. This Bill deals with packages of tea sold over the counter. My hon. Friend says it is easy for an individual to see his tea weighed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has never gone into a shop to buy an ounce of tea, I hope he never will have to make a purchase of such a small amount. But when one goes into an ordinary grocer's shop it will be seen that when tea is sold in these small quantities it is not weighed in the ordinary scales by itself. It is put on a piece of paper on the scales, and the one ounce includes both the weight of the paper and of the tea. In nine shops out of ten it will be found that the paper is put on the scales first. Then the canister it taken down, and the tea taken from it and put on the paper. We want to avoid that We say that a poor person should have the full weight of his tea, even if he is buying only half an ounce, in addition to the weight of the paper. It is a very common thing in scores of shops for the tea to be already wrapped up in half-ounce or ounce packets in the canister. It is not weighed over the counter. We say it should be weighed in front of the customer, and that the paper should never be weighed with it, and that is the object of this Amendment. There is a great hardship where the individual buys tea by the seven lbs., two Lbs. or one lb. if the paper is weighed in with the tea. Paper to-day costs roughly from 6d. to 8d. per lb. The tea is sold at 2s. 6d. per pound, and, therefore, when the paper is weighed in with the tea, a portion of the sale is represented by paper at 6d. or 8d. the lb., instead of by tea at 2s. 6d. per pound. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to meet us in this matter. He will admit that during the Committee stage there was no obstruction.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONI know that my hon. Friend has had certain experience in the trade with which we are dealing, and it is due to him, therefore, that I should at once reply to what he has said. I really think his criticism was largely directed to the Amendment which I understand is going to be moved later on with regard to the sales of tea by the ounce or two ounces, and I must again repeat that that case is covered by the provisions of Sub-section (1), which enacts that tea shall only be sold by net weight and not in any other way. That applies to all sales of tea, whether already packed, or sold over the counter. All my right hon. Friend's Amendment does is to provide that a person who buys tea over the counter shall have it scooped into a bag, and that bag shall bear a label designating the weight of tea. I submit that that really affords no protection to the buyer. With regard to packets of tea already weighed up in the canister, I hesitate to give a legal opinion, but I imagine that such packets would come under the provisions of Sub-section (2).
Mr. WATERSONSuppose an ordinary grocer who deals in this commodity in quiet moments, for the purpose of doing
§ quick business in busy hours, weighs up half-ounces or ounces of tea and places them in a canister ready for the customer. Does the hon. Gentleman say that those packages must be labelled so as to give a guarantee that they contain a certain weight?
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONI have no right to give a legal opinion, but I conceive it would he held that tea sold under such circumstances would be tea packed ready for sale, and would have to be treated as such.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONThey were consulted as to the Clause generally, but as to this particular point, I can only guard myself by making the statement of what I conceive would be the effect of the Clause.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 180.
125| Division No. 202.] | AYES. | [7.30 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hallas, Eldred | Robertson, John |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Halls, Walter | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Bromfield, William | Hayward, Evan | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hirst, G. H. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Cairns, John | Hogge, James Myles | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Cape, Thomas | Holmes, J. Stanley | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Irving, Dan | Spencer, George A. |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Kennedy, Thomas | Swan, J. E. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kenyon, Barnet | Thomas, Brig. Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lawson, John James | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Lunn, William | Waterson. A. E. |
| Foot, Isaac | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Myers, Thomas | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Gillis, William | Naylor, Thomas Ellis | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) | Nowbould, Alfred Ernest | Wignall, James |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central] | Rattan, Peter Wilson | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Rendall, Athelstan | |
| Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Amnion. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Bruton, Sir James |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W. | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Birchall, J. Dearman | Campion, Lieut-Colonel W. R. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Carr, W. Theodore |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Borwick, Major G. O. | Casey, T. W. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) | Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Breese, Major Charles E. | Coats, Sir Stuart |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert | Broad, Thomas Tucker | Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) |
| Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase | Brown, Brig,-Gen. Cilfton (Newbury) | Cope, Major William |
| Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoin) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Maryiebone) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Kidd, James | Seddon, J. A. |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Elveden, Viscount | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Evans, Ernest | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Lort-Williams, J. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| F[...]annery, Sir James Fortescue | Macqulsten, F. A. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Manville, Edward | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Foreman, Sir Henry | Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Middlebrook, Sir William | Sugden, W. H. |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Taylor, J. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Morrison, Hugh | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Gardiner, James | Mosley, Oswald | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lioyd | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Nall, Major Joseph | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Neal, Arthur | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Vickers, Douglas |
| Glanville, Harold James | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wallace, J. |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton; |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. | Parker, James | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Gwynne, Rupert S. | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Windsor, Viscount |
| Hamilton, Sir George C. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Winterton, Earl |
| Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray | Wise, Frederick |
| Haslam, Lewis | Pratt, John William | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Purchase, H. G. | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Ramsden, G. T. | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Randies, Sir John Scurrah | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Hinds, John | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | Younger, Sir George |
| Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | |
| Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Kurd, Percy A. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy. |
Mr. ADAMSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "two ounces" ["shall not apply to any sale of less than two ounces"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one ounce."
The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill seemed to think that this Amendment would affect but a very small quantity of the tea sold, but I can assure him and the House that at the present time there is a considerable sale of packets of tea, the value of which is as low as 2d., so that the Question is one of more substance than the hon. Gentleman and the House seem to think. If we are to get the full advantage of the protection of this Bill, it must be applied to the case of those who purchase their tea in very small quantities. As I have already said in connection with the previous Amendment, the section of the community that really requires protection most is the very section that is to be left outside the pro- 126 visions of this Bill—the section who buys in small quantities, like 2d. packets or even less. The value of tea to that section of the community is even greater than to the other sections who can buy in larger quantities, and it enters into their food bill to a greater extent. Consequently, we are very anxious that this poorer section of the community should have the protection provided for in this Bill.
The Bill as it stands applies to quantities down to two ounces, but we think that that is not carrying it down to the extent that is necessary, and that, if the very poorest of the poor are to be protected by the terms of the Bill, it requires to be reduced to one ounce at the most. From what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, he seemed to have the idea that if this Amendment were made it might have an effect the very reverse of what I intend. He pointed out that if the price of tea went down below 1s. 4d. per lb.— 127 say to 1s. 2d.—the poorer members of the community might lose the opportunity of getting l⅛ oz. for 1d., and that the retailers of tea would see that they got no more than their ounce. May I point out, however, that that process of reasoning is completely and entirely against our experience? If there had been that generous disposition on the part of the retailers of tea that the hon. Gentleman indicates, there would have been no necessity either for the Food Controller's Order or for this Bill. It was because of the fact that tea and paper were weighed together, and that the consumer was fleeced as a result by the retailers of tea, that the Food Controller's Order had to be made, and that it had to be followed by this Bill. We have had a reduction in the Tea Duty amounting to 4d. per pound, but there is no indication as yet of any increase on the weight so far as these 2d. packets are concerned. I think the danger is the other way. I think the danger is that the poorest of the community are not going to get the protection of this Bill, and, consequently, I hope the hon. Gentleman will give favourable consideration to this Amendment. In the course of his reply on the last Amendment, he was pointing out the difficulties which would be imposed upon the retail trade. They would have to have packages for very small quantities and the weight would require to be placed on the packages, as provided for in his ready-made packages. But already packages of tea of very low value are being sold. There is a considerable trade being done in packages of tea of the value of 2d. The tea trade will require to get these labels with the weight printed on in large quantities. They will have them available. It would impose no hardship on them. The labels could be put on the smallest quantities that were made up and I think I can assure the Minister that, if the Amendment were given effect to, instead of making it up in two ounce packages, as is the case now, the tea would be made up to a considerable extent in packages of one ounce. We seek by this Amendment to afford the same protection to the very poorest section of the community as we are giving to those who can afford to buy tea in larger quantities. The poorest section of the community is that which, in our opinion, ought to have this protection. 128 Consequently, I hope the Minister is not-going to leave them at the mercy of the tea trade. He knows what happened in the tea trade before the protection was afforded, and I hope he is going to give favourable consideration to the Amendment.
Mr. NAYLORI beg to second the Amendment.
I also hope the Minister may see his way clear to concede this Amendment for two special reasons. One is that advanced by my right hon. Friend, that hundreds of thousands of poor people are affected by this difference of one ounce or two. Large numbers of people purchase their tea by the one ounce rather than two, and if the Minister adheres to the terms now standing in the Bill, if he still insists that it must be the two-ounce packet to secure a guarantee, a great injustice will be done to many poor families. I am sure that has had, and will still have, his consideration. But there is another reason that ought to make him agreeable to the acceptance of the Amendment. The paper is weighed with the tea, and in many cases it is paper specially made for the packing of tea. The paper is more or less heavy, and is sometimes even weighted with lead lining, which is supposed to be for the preservation of the tea. My second reason is the effect that that shortage of weight in the retailing of small quantities will have upon the revenue. In these smaller packets the full weight of tea will not be given, because there is no guarantee, and that means that less tea in the bulk will be sold than otherwise would be the case with the guarantee in existence, and when that deficiency is multiplied some thousands of times it must mean a considerable loss to the revenue in tea taxation. I feel confident that if the experts in the Board of Trade were set to work to find out what that difference in the loss of taxation was, it would be of itself a sufficient inducement to him to meet us on this Amendment.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONI need hardly say, having regard to the attitude which the two hon. Members and the House generally have taken towards the Bill, that if I were honestly convinced that the arguments which have been put forward merited consideration I should not hesitate to accept the proposal, 129 because our objects are the same. We want, as far as we can, to see that justice is done to all classes of the community and that all classes are protected, but where I think there is a little misconception in the minds of hon. Members opposite is this. The difficulty is that when you get down to these very small quantities—and hon. Members who are interested in the subject and care to pursue their researches further will find it dealt with in the Report of the Short Weight Committee, on which the Order and the present Bill were founded—the purchaser does not really buy by quantity at all. He deserts quantity as a standard. It is not a case of a man coming into a shop and asking for an ounce of tea. When you get down to the very poor they have to balance their weekly budget by pennyworths, and they have to buy tea by pennyworths or twopennyworths. Once you grant that that problem exists and that you cannot get away from it, the fact that you have tea bought and sold by pennyworths and twopennyworths, and not by any known standard of weight at all, I think the House will recognise how very difficult it is to apply. Consider how it would work. The lowest price, roughly speaking, is, I am told, 1s. 6d. or 1s. 6id. Take twopennyworth of tea sold at 1s. 6½d. If the right hon. Gentleman had his way, and the exception in the Bill of two ounces was reduced to one ounce, see what would happen. The retailer, when a man came to buy twopennyworth of tea, would solemnly have to label the packet, "This packet contains 1832 ounces of tea." I am sure that would not convey anything to the buyer, and I doubt whether it would convey anything much to the seller. Not only is it really impracticable, but I honestly adhere to the opinion I have expressed, that it would, in fact, operate to the detriment of the purchaser. I hesitate to commit this or any future-Chancellor of the Exchequer, but you have the possibility that some day there may be a further reduction in the Tea Duty. If there is there will be a corresponding fall in the price of tea which sooner or later—I admit sometimes it takes some time before it reaches the consumer—will be passed on to the consumer. It is quite obvious that in order that tea may sell at 1d. an ounce it has got to get down to something below 1s. 4d. Exactly what 130 that point is, what the cost of packing is and what the profit ought to be for the retailer, is a matter for argument, but let us take it at the equivalent of 1s. 4d. Say the price falls to 1s. 2d. The consumer ought to be able to get the extra eighth of an ounce for 1d. The right hon. Gentleman says he will not get it. It is quite certain that if his Amendment is accepted he will not get it because it would positively be a statutory offence under Sub-section (1) to give that extra eighth of an ounce. Not only is that so but I think in these very small quantities the force of competition is more keenly felt than it is in larger quantities, and if one tea dealer in a street takes to giving an extra eighth of an ounce, within a few hours every other tea dealer in the street has to give the extra eighth of an ounce too. The reason is than when you get down to these very small quantities it is not by weight that you calculate but literally by measurement. You can visibly see how many spoonfuls go to an ounce and how many you get for the extra eighth of an ounce. Therefore it is in these very small quantities that you get competition operating and a certain advantage inures to the consumer. Those are two reasons. The first administrative, that I think it is impracticable, the second economic, because I think it would be to the detriment of the consumer. The third reason why I resist the Amendment is because we have had five years experience of the working of two ounces. We know we can work with two ounces. If in the future experience goes to show that there is a case for further reduction, when the time comes that will be considered, but I suggest that in making the Order statutory we should stick to the limits which have already been worked. Finally as regards the evidence of those engaged in the trade, I was turning up the evidence given before the Short Weight Committee and I find that Mr. Turner, Secretary of the National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen and Clerks, stated that the limit he preferred was the limit of two ounces. In questions 38 and 39, on page 73, he was asked: "Your minimum would be two ounces?" and his answer was "Yes." For these reasons I suggest, taking all things into consideration, that it would be wise to adhere to the figure we already have in the Bill.
§ Mr. SPENCERCan the hon. Gentleman tell us—he has given us the exact weight for a penny—what will be the price of two ounces at 1s. 6½d.?
§ Question put, "That the words 'two ounces' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes 46.
131| Division No. 203.] | AYES. | [8.0 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Pratt, John William |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Purchase, H. G. |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Gilbert, James Daniel | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Ramsden, G. T. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Goff, Sir R. Park | Randies, Sir John Scurrah |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Rankin, Captain James Stuart |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Haslam, Lewis | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Samual, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Birchall, J. Dearman | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Hills, Major John Waller | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hinds, John | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hogge, James Myles | Seddon, J. A. |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Holmes, J. Stanley | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hurd, Percy A. | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Bruton, Sir James | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Buchanan, Lieut-Colonel A. L. H. | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Cotonel A. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Sugden, W. H. |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Kidd, James | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Casey, T. W. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Taylor, J. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Lort-Williams, J. | Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley' |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Macquisten, F. A. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Cope. Major William | Manville, Edward | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Davidson, J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Middlebrook, Sir William | Vickers, Douglas |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Moreing, Captain Aigernon H. | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Morrison, Hugh | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Mosley, Oswald | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Elveden, Viscount | Nall, Major Joseph | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Evans, Ernest | Neal, Arthur | Windsor, Viscount. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Winterton, Earl |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Wise, Frederick |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Foot, Isaac | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen. C.) |
| Foreman, Sir Henry | Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William | Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Parker, James | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Pease, Rt. Hon, Herbert Pike | |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Pilditch, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gardiner, James | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) | Robertson, John |
| Ammon, Charles George | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Grundy, T. W. | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Hal[...]as, Eldred | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bromfield, William | Halls, Walter | Spencer, George A. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hayward, Evan | Swan, J, E. |
| Cairns. John | Hirst, G. H. | Waterson, A. E. |
| Cape, Thomas | Kennedy, Thomas | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kenyon, Barnet | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Lawson, John James | Wignall, James |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lunn, William | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Myers, Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gillis, William | Naylor, Thomas Ellis | Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. |
| Glanville, Harold James | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Walter Smith. |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Mr. WATERSONTo some extent we appreciate the attitude of the Government towards the question of giving the consumer some protection. The attitude of the Government in introducing the Bill was justified by the Report on Short Weight. We feel exceedingly aggrieved, however, that the Government have not met us on the Amendments we have put forward. The loss to the consumers will, I understand, be very severe. I am speaking particularly of the poor consumers. I have in my possession one or two facts, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen, and I trust that between now and the time when the Bill is discussed in another place he will review the whole position, in order that some Amendment may be made in another place. On the general question of the Bill I am advised that, taking the annual national consumption at 410,000,000 lbs., if this Bill had not been carried, and the trade had reverted back to the old system prevailing some years ago, weighing tea and paper together in the package, the loss to the consumer would be £3, 587,000—that is why we support the Government, and we only regret that they cannot go further—with a corresponding gain to the wholesaler, who would be selling paper at 2s. 6d. per lb. which only cost him 6½d. per lb.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.