Sitting of 30 June 1924

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Western Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],
Not amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Halifax Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
London and North Eastern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],
Not amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],
Southern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],
Not amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

EAST INDIA (BUDGET).
Address for "Return of the Budget of the Governor-General of India in Council for 1924–25."—[Mr. Richards.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    POLITICAL CONVICTS (ELECTORAL DISABILITIES).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if
    902
    he is aware that it is the intention of the Swaraj party that now controls the Legislative Council of the Central Provinces to introduce a Bill in that Council to remove the disabilities against the candidature of political convicts, as laid down in the electoral rules under the Government of India Act; and, if so, what action he intends to take in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Robert Richards):I am not aware of this intention, and I may observe that a Provincial Council has no power to override rules made under the Government of India Act.

    PROVINCIAL AREAS (REDISTRIBUTION).
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the amendment of the present composition of the Legislative Councils, which is limited to the few English-speaking members of the population, by adopting the proposal of Sir Prabashankar Pattani to recast the provincial distribution on a linguistic basis, the guiding principle as far as possible being one language one province?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I invite the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the observations on a proposal of this nature in paragraph 246 of the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms. My Noble Friend does not propose to initiate a redistribution of provincial areas.
    Sir C. YATE: Considering that the Indian Continent is, practically speaking, of the same size as Europe without Russia, with an equal population and similar divergencies of races and languages, does not the hon. Gentleman think that these races and languages should have a chance of working out their own self-government, instead of being all mixed up together as at the present moment?

    PROFESSOR GIDWANI.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the reason why Professor Gidwani is still kept in prison, although the sentence of imprisonment has been cancelled by the Government of India?
    Mr. RICHARDS: Dr. Gidwani is serving a sentence of 2½ years' imprisonment which was passed on him in September,

    903
    1923, after trial at Nabha on charges of entering the State against the orders of the Administrator and of joining an unlawful assembly. The sentence has not been cancelled by the Government of India., but it was suspended so long as Dr. Gidwani absented himself from the Nabha State, which he was ordered to leave when the sentence was pronounced. As he thought fit to return in February last, in the company of the first Shahidi Jatha, he was rearrested in Nabha territory, and committed to prison to serve the original sentence.

    MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total amount expended out of Indian revenue during 1918–21 for military expenditure in Iraq?
    Mr. RICHARDS: No additional expenditure has been debited to Indian revenues in consequence of military operations in Iraq, In accordance with the Parliamentary Resolutions of 1914, Indian expenditure on oversea operations has been limited to the normal charges that would have been incurred had the troops remained in India.

    KHALSA COLLEGE, AMRITSAR (PROFESSOR CHATTERJI).
    Mr. MILLSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has any information as to unrest in the educational centres in Amritsar as a result of the dismissal of Professor Chatterji, of Khalsa College; and if he will ascertain the reason of such dismissal?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The Khalsa College is not a Government institution, and I have no information beyond the Press reports. It appears from these that Professor Chatterji was dismissed by the responsible governing body.

    LEE COMMISSION REPORT.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Secretary of State intends to carry into effect the recommendations arrived at in the Lee Commission Report?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I would refer the hon and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson) on the 16th June.
    Sir C. YATE: May I ask what was that reply?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have it. again.

    LIQUOR SHOPS, CALCUTTA.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether all liquor shops in Calcutta have been removed from those wards of the city in which the principal colleges and schools are situated; and, if so, can he state whether the removal was due to the action of the authorities or to the action of the owners, and if the former, can he ascertain the grounds for their action?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The matter is one for which responsibility rests with the Governor of Bengal acting with his Ministers, and I have no information on the subject.

    DRUG TRADE.
    Mr. C. WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there is in India any equivalent, and, if so, what, to the Dangerous Drugs Act; whether, if there is no such Act, in view of the increased consumption of opium and cocaine in the Punjab, as revealed by the Annual Report of the Excise Administration for 1922–23, the Government propose legislation to deal with the matter; and, if so, when it will be introduced?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The drug trade in India is regulated by the Opium Acts of 1857 and 1878, the Excise Act, 1896, a number of Provincial Acts, and Rules under these Acts. The provisions of these Acts and Rules are not identical with those of the Dangerous Drugs Act, but they enable the Government of India to fulfil her obligations under The Hague Convention. The consumption in the Punjab in 1922–23, though greater than in the previous year, was only 25,494 grains, or about 1 grain per thousand of the population. This is very greatly below the rate of consumption in European countries.
    Mr. C. WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the consumption of opium as a drug has been steadily increasing in Assam; whether he can state what the consumption per head was in 1903 and in any recent year; what income is derived

    905
    by the Government from such consumption in both years; and under what Regulations is the sale of opium conducted?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The consumption per head was 85 grains in 1902–1903, and 525 grains in 1922–1923. During the year 1912–1913 the consumption per head was 1075 grains, but there has been a steady decline since that year. The Regulations are described in a pamphlet of which a copy is being sent to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer the second part of the question, with regard to income?
    Mr. RICHARDS: That part of the answer contains a number of figures, and I will, therefore, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures referred to:
    The gross revenue from licence fees and duty was 17 lakhs, seventy-nine thousand nine hundred and seventeen rupees in 1902–1903, and 35 lakhs, eighty-six thousand and twenty-seven rupees in 1922–1923.

    TRANSFERRED AND RESERVED DEPARTMENTS (EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total expenditure retrenched in the transferred and reserved Departments, respectively, in the different provinces in India?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The information asked for is being collected, and I will supply it to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    PROVINCIAL AND SUBORDINATE SERVICES.
    Mr. WALLHEADasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government contemplates the taking of any steps to improve within a reasonable period the pay, prospects, and general conditions of the provincial and subordinate services in India on lines similar to those recommended by the Lee Commission for the superior civil services in India?
    Mr. RICHARDS: As my hon. Friend is aware, no decision will be taken on the Lee Commission Report until after the September session of the Legislative Assembly. The question of extending any of the recommendations to provincial services will be dealt with at the earliest
    906
    practicable date in consultation with the local governments, who are the authorities primarily concerned.
    Sir C. YATE: May I ask what that date will be?
    Mr. WARDLAW MILNE: Is it the intention of the Government of India to set up a Commission similar to the Lee Commission?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I cannot answer that question at the present moment.

    AIRSHIP STATION.
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the site of the new Government airship station has yet been selected; and, if so, where it will be located?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): I have been asked to reply. The site has not yet been selected.

    ROYAL INDIAN MARINE.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many ships at present constitute the fleet of the Royal Indian Marine; how many officers and men are borne on the books; what is the present position of the service; and whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to its future?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The fleet at present consists of 10 vessels, excluding steam trawlers, small steamers and launches. There are 48 executive officers, 32 engineer officers, 57 warrant officers and 1,170 men. No change has taken place in the position of the service, except that the troopships are being disposed of. The future of the service is still under consideration.
    Viscount CURZON: The hon. Member says that warships are being disposed of. Are they being disposed of to any private interest, and has any communication taken place with the Admiralty on the subject?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I should like notice of that question.

    TURKISH BONDHOLDERS (DECREE OF MUHARREM).
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the security of the bondholders under the Decree of Muharrem?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): The hon. Member will find the information he requires in the texts of the Decree of Muharrem itself and of the Annex-Decree of 1903, which were laid before Parliament as Command Paper 5736 (Turkey, No. 1, 1911) and Command Paper 2407 (Turkey, No. 1, 1905), respectively.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    TREATY OF LAUSANNE (RATIFICATION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the consent of the Irish Free State has been received for the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne; if not, what is the stated reason for the hesitation of the Free State to consent to ratification; what other reasons there are for failure to ratify by His Majesty's Government in view of the fact that it has been ratified by Italy, Japan, Turkey and Greece; and if he is aware that the delay is having a bad effect on British relations and trade with Turkey?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first and second parts of the question, correspondence is still proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Free State on the matter, which, it is understood, will come before the Irish Free State Parliament early this week. In reply to the third part of the question, there are no other reasons why the Treaty has not yet been submitted to His Majesty for ratification. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the Prime Minister inform me, as asked in the second part of the question, whether there is a reason that he can give to the House why the Free State in this matter hesitate to consents?
    Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Free State has not been able to have its own Treaty, made with this country 2½ years ago, carried out yet?

    GERMAN PRISONERS (OCCUPIED AREAS).
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many German political prisoners and persons not yet tried, but under detention for similar
    908
    charges, are at present imprisoned at the instance of Allied, authorities in Germany; whether any steps have been taken for their release; how many deportees, including women and children, are still under sentence of expulsion; and what steps have been taken to permit their return to the Ruhr and Rhineland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The French Government have ordered the immediate release of German prisoners, and given permission for the return of expelled persons, in large numbers. I cannot at the moment give precise figures as to persons still detained.

    ALLIED OCCUPATION.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal has been made to the French Government that the condition that the period of occupation by Allied troops of portions of German territory only commences to run from the time when Germany observes the terms of the Treaty of Versailles should be waived and the territories evacuated without insistence on the observance of the treaty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

    AMBASSADORS' CONFERENCE.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Prime Minister how long it is proposed to maintain the Ambassadors' Conference; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that questions dealt with by it shall, as soon as possible, be handed over to the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would once again refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hackney North on the 25th February, to which I have nothing to add.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the results?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will proceed to his next question.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Prime Minister what questions have been referred to or dealt with by the Conference of Ambassadors during the month of May; and how often this body met during that period?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Ambassadors' Conference met three times during the month of May. The following questions were raised: Military control in Germany, Austria and Hungary; the Memel Convention and establishment of full diplomatic relations between the Allied Governments and Lithuania; the Albanian frontiers; Polish-Czecho-Slovak frontier; Hungarian-Jugo-Slav frontier; the expenses of the German-Czecho-Slovak Boundary Commission; registration with the League of Nations of documents issued by the various boundary commissions; the allowances of members of the German-Polish Boundary Commission; the allowances of members of the Military Control Commission in Germany; disposal of funds derived from the Upper Silesian Plebiscite Commission; sale of German war material in Holland; costs of armies of occupation in Bulgaria; distribution of Anglo-Hungarian rolling stock; the accession of the Dutch Government to the modifications made in the Mannheim Convention by the Treaty of Versailles; organisation of the Inter-Allied Commission at Sofia; repatriation of Ukrainian emigrants: disposal of a powder depot in the occupied territory; rights secured by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 41 of the Treaty of Versailles; archives of the territory of Eupen and Malmedy: the share of the German Government in the Dansig Bauernbank; claims of certain Allied nationals on the gold owned by German banks and seized in Turkey by the Allied Governments, and similar very interesting subjects.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Was anything settled as a result of these discussions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In practically every one of these cases a settlement was arrived at.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand now that the Prime Minister has revised his view of the usefulness of the Ambassadors' Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not at all. I stand exactly where I stood in that respect. The Ambassadors' Conference is charged with the winding-up of a variety of small matters that issue from the application of the Treaty of Versailles, and it will be strictly confined to that business.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:: Are there any of these matters that could not be dealt with just as well by the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: When the Ambassadors' Conference is wound up, undoubtedly they could be dealt with by the League of Nations.
    Mr. MOREL: Did the Prime Minister say that the Conference has dealt with the question of military affairs in Austria?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They have dealt with the question of military control in Germany, Austria and Hungary. There are certain matters arising out of military control in these countries that have to be reported to the Ambassadors' Conference.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it from the reply of the Prime Minister that no more great questions will be referred to the Ambassadors' Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not say that. I said that no great questions of an independent character have been referred to it. Questions referred to the Ambassadors' Conference have all arisen out of the practical working of the Treaty of Versailles. They all arise owing to the unsettlement of affairs left by the Treaty of Versailles.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that this Conference has done extremely useful work?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It has.

  RUSSIA.

    ANGLO-SOVIET CONFERENCE.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House on the progress of the Conference with the delegates from the Russian Soviet Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the second part of the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 16th June.
    Mr. HANNON: Surely the Prime Minister could indicate to the House some idea of the progress that is being made with these negotiations?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman still disapprove of secret diplomacy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am rather surprised to hear a responsible Member use that argument. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, when negotiations are in progress the negotiations go on till a point is reached when it is profitable and useful to make a Report.
    Mr. HOPE: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister is surprised that any responsible Member of this House still believes in the idea of open diplomacy?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDERasked the Prime Minister what committees and sub-committees of the Anglo-Soviet Conference have been instituted; what is the subject matter of each of them; and which of them, if any, have completed their work?
    Major KINDERSLEYasked the Prime Minister the date of the last meeting of each of the committees and sub-committees formed under the Anglo-Soviet Conference, and the dates for which the next meetings, if any, have been arranged, of the committees and sub-committees, respectively?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As the reply is somewhat long, I shall, with the permission of the hon. Members, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:—
    Four committees of the Conference have been constituted as follows:
    The First Committee which has been subdivided into two sub-committees:

    A. for (1) the determination of the means for the restoration of Russian credit in Great Britain; and (2) business and other civil claims (bonds and nationalised properties).

    B. for (1) inter-governmental debts, War debts and intervention claims; and (2) personal injury claims.

    These sub-committees last met on the 8th May. No further meetings have been arranged, as the matters in question have since been handled by the plenary Conference.
    The Second Committee is drafting a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Its last meeting took place on the 5th June,
    912
    and it is contemplated that a further meeting shall take place this week.
    The Third Committee deals with the question of territorial waters. Its last meeting took place on the 16th May, but since that date the experts of both parties have been in contact and are considering the draft of a Fisheries Convention.
    The Fourth Committee deals with the revision of Treaties and the question of arbitration. Its last meeting took place on the 27th June, and it is anticipated that another meeting will take place shortly.
    None of the Committees has completed its work.
    Sir V. WARRENDERasked the Prime Minister whether the draft articles, mentioned in the official communiqué of 27th May of the proceedings of the Anglo-Soviet Conference, containing the British counter-proposals have been communicated to the Anglo-Soviet Conference or to any committee under the Conference; if so, whether they have been agreed to by the Conference: and, if not, what are the reasons for the delay in presenting them?
    Major KINDERSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the Soviet delegation adhere to the position that the claims will not be admitted of those who subsequently to 12th March, 1917, had taken an active part against the Soviet Government; whether any definition has been obtained as to what action constitutes taking an active part; by what tribunal will the quest on be decided whether individuals have taken an active part: and what is the attitude of the British Government towards this position taken up by the Soviet Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the second part of the answer which I gave on the 16th June to the hon. Member for Moseley.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Prime Minister whether full opportunity will be given to the House of Commons for discussing the results of the Anglo-Soviet conference or for considering such results as may have been achieved up to date before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I believe the House would wish for an opportunity for such a discussion before adjourning, and I propose to make a statement.
    Major COLFOX: Are there any results to discuss?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Viscount CURZON: Will a Motion be put down, or will it be discussed on the Consolidated Fund Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord had better wait and see what circumstances arise in the meantime.

    TRADE AGREEMENT.
    Mr. SANDEMANasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to comply with the request of the Soviet delegation for the repeal of Article X of the trade agreement of 1921?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Chertsey on the 23rd June.

    SUDAN.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has yet opened negotiations with the Egyptian Government regarding the independence of the Sudan as an integral part of Egypt under Egyptian administration; and, before doing so, whether he will take into consideration the fact that large investments of British capital in the Sudan have been influenced by pledges that the Sudan should never again be governed by an Egyptian administration, and that such negotiations would jeopardise British enterprise, particularly in cotton growing?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have been hoping that the questions still outstanding between an independent Egypt and ourselves might have been settled in the calm conditions of personal negotiations between Saad Zaghloul Pasha and myself when, by facing the realities of the situation, we might have come to an agreement which recognised the interests and responsibilities of both countries. It is essential, if this hope is to be fulfilled, that both His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government should, in the meantime, honourably and rigidly observe the status quo. I regret that statements have been made to the Egyptian Parliament, and action taken
    914
    to create trouble in the Sudan, which can only be explained as an attempt to force my hands and deprive Zaghloul Pasha of liberty to negotiate.
    I was looking forward both with pleasure and expectation to a meeting with Zaghloul Pasha and a discussion with him of the best interests and the accepted responsibilities of our respective countries, and I have desired to say nothing which would have limited the freedom of discussion which we ought to claim; but, in view of what has happened, it is necessary that I should make it clear to all concerned that I do not believe that this House would accept any arrangement which would break our pledges given to the Sudan or jeopardise the present administration and development of that country. I believe that hearty goodwill between Egypt and ourselves is of the utmost importance to both of us, and I still trust that those responsible for the governments of both countries will refuse to countenance impossibilist demands which will destroy the prospects of such an understanding.
    Mr. HANNON: Are we to understand that this is a definite guarantee for the safety of British investors in the Sudan?
    Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to define what are the pledges given to the Sudan—by what Government and when?
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not a fact that in 1899 a definite agreement was come to between the English and Egyptian Governments in regard to the Sudan?
    Mr. SPEAKER: In a matter of this kind further questions must be put on the Paper.

    CHINA (BRITISH TREATY RIGHTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by M. Karakhan, the Soviet envoy in China, promising Russian support to any steps that might be taken by the Chinese Government, with a view to the abolition of the special treaty rights of Great Britain and other Powers in China, whether any protest has been made; and if he will indicate what is the attitude of the Government on the question of the retention of the treaty rights?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A report to that effect has reached His Majesty's Government, but it has not been considered necessary to take notice of it. The attitude of His Majesty's Government in support of existing treaty rights in China remains unchanged.

    DRAFT TREATY OF MUTUAL ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he hopes to make his statement on the attitude of the Government towards the draft treaty of mutual assistance to be discussed by the League of Nations; and whether the House will have an opportunity to discuss the statement?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that it is impossible to reply at present.

    MEXICO.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Mr. Cummins is expected to arrive in this country; and whether he has any information as to what has happened in the case of Mrs. Evans?
    Mr. STRANGERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the present situation of Mrs. H. E. R. Evans, last reported as with her servant, defending themselves against attack by irregulars at her hacienda in Mexico; whether the assistance promised by the Mexican Minister of War has been sent to her relief; and whether any and what steps are being taken to obtain compensation for the loss of, and injury to, her property?
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any further assurances to the House concerning the safety of Mrs. Evans, a British subject in Mexico?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am unaware of the precise date of Mr. Cummins' arrival here, but he is on his way home. I am still awaiting information with regard to Mrs. Evans. One of the officials of His Majesty's Legation at Mexico City has been instructed to proceed to her farm to report on the situation there.
    916
    The case of Mrs. Evans will be considered when I am in possession of all the facts.
    Mr. STRANGER: What is the last news the right hon. Gentleman had from Mrs. Evans?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I communicated to the House the last news I had.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Are any units of the British Navy in the vicinity for the protection of British interests?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is very difficult to get units of the British fleet in the neighbourhood of Mexico City.
    Captain BERKELEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman decided when the Hohler Mission is to start For Mexico?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously the Mission cannot start until we get a report from Mr. Cummins and know exactly what has happened.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement made by Dr. Dillon in yesterday's Press, which throws a considerable amount of fresh light upon this question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, I have not seen these statements; but I can assure the House that if they are in any way in conflict with the statements I have made regarding what the Foreign Office has done they are not accurate.
    Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of Nationalists interned in Northern Ireland, and has he taken any similar steps to protect their interests?

    HUNGARY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made by the British administrator of Hungarian property in his negotiations with the Hungarian clearing office about the payments due to the British administrator by the Hungarian Government; will he state the probable date of a distribution upon admitted British claims; and will he, prior to the impending issue of the Hungarian loan in London, publish a White Paper on the negotiations regarding the unsecured Hungarian bonded

    917
    debt and the secured Hungarian debt, with particular reference to the secured debt British claims for the period between July, 1919, and the date of the Treaty coming into force in 1921?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. In reply to the first part of the question, the position in regard to the payment of the balances due from the Hungarian clearing office is as indicated in the reply which I gave on the 18th June to questions by the hon. Member and by the hon. Member for Fulham West. A first dividend of 1s. 6d. in the £ upon admitted British claims was made in June, 1923, and I hope it may be possible to make a further distribution before the end of the present year. As regards the last part of the question, relating to the admission of claims in respect of the State debt, I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by the action suggested by the hon. Member. The important point is that in the last few weeks these claims have been admitted to the extent of some £1,300,000 out of £2,000,000, and further admissions are coming in regularly. The question regarding the interest on the secured debt between 1919 and 1921 is under discussion between the clearing offices.
    Sir GEORGE McCRAEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has requested the British administrator of Hungarian property to notify the Hungarian Government that unpaid overdue payments due to the British administrator by the Hungarian Government must be made good out of the proceeds of the new Hungarian loan about to be issued in London?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. Under the modified arrangements already agreed upon there are at present no payments overdue; and, as stated on the 18th June, in reply to a similar question by the hon. Members for Farnham and West Fulham, I see no reason whatever to anticipate that the Hungrian Government will fail to make the payments as they fall due.

    ARMENIAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his
    918
    attention has been drawn to the Report submitted by Miss Yeppe to the League of Nations, in which it is stated that in the region of Aleppo there are still over 30,000 Armenian women and children detained in Moslem houses; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps towards securing their release, either by direct representations to the Turkish Government or through the Council of the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Although the form of the question is somewhat misleading, His Majesty's Government are aware of this Report. Every effort was made during the Lausanne Conference to provide for the continuance of the work of reclaiming forcibly Islamised women and children, which had been successfully carried out since the Armistice by a League of Nations Commission in Turkey. I regret, however, that the Allies failed to obtain any satisfaction on this point on that occasion, and I see no prospect of success if the question were reopened at the present moment.
    Mr. HARRIS: In what respect is it misleading?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In two or three respects. For instance, there is the expression "in the region of Aleppo." The Report does not say that. It says, "in the region reached by Aleppo," or "through Aleppo," or something indicating a very much wider area than the area of Aleppo.
    Captain BERKELEY: Did not the minority provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne offer any assistance in dealing with this?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will observe that we have hitherto not been able to ratify the Treaty of Lausanne.

    SUMMER TIME BILL.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will now provide facilities for the Summer Time Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The Government have decided to adopt this Bill, which they desire to see passed into law this Session.
    Sir V. WARRENDER: Why does the right hon. Gentleman give facilities to this Bill, and refuse them to the Merchandise Marks Bill, which is much more important?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that we are committed to this Bill by an international agreement.
    Major COLFOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is very great resentment felt against the Bill, particularly in the agricultural and mining districts?
    Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill is a boon to City workers?

    NATIONAL OPERA.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether, following the example of other countries, His Majesty's Government proposes to give financial assistance in support of a national opera?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative at present.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Why is this interesting suggestion thrown out by a Minister of very high authority?

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the differences between the cost of producing articles of consumption and the price at which those articles are sold to the consumer, and to make recommendations thereon?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The whole subject is under investigation, but I feel sure that a Royal Commission would not be the most effective way of attaining the object desired.
    Mr. AYLES: What does the Prime Minister think would be the most effective way of getting the desired result?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter to be considered.
    Mr. HOFFMAN: In setting up any Committee to deal with this question,
    920
    will the right hon. Gentleman secure the representation of those employed in the retail distributing trade upon the Committee?

    WIRELESS PLANT.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that existing workable wireless plant in this country shall not be handed over to foreign private companies?
    The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): I have been asked to answer this question. It is not my intention to sell any workable wireless station in this country to any company which is not registered in Great Britain; and in the event of any station being sold, it would be on terms which would adequately safeguard the interests of the State.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is that company registered in Great Britain to be a British company controlled by British capital?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to sell any Government plant to private companies, British or otherwise?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman, by "British company," mean controlled by British capital or a company which, though registered in this country, may be controlled by foreign capital?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not think it has quite reached a singe where any very definite statement can be made.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Will my right hon. Friend reply to my question?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The Donald Committee made a certain recommendation with reference to some wireless stations.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Are the Government bound by the Donald Committee's Report?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Not at all.

    GERMAN WARSHIPS, SCAPA FLOW (SALVAGE).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Prime Minister if the Reparation Committee

    921
    agreed to the salving of the German warships at Scapa Flow; what price the warships were sold for; and who receives the proceeds?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I have been asked to reply. The Reparation Commission have not been consulted. It is not the practice to publish prices offered by firms. The proceeds will be appropriated in aid of Navy Votes.
    Sir F. WISE: Has the hon. Gentleman carefully considered what effect this will have in regard to the metal trade of this country?
    Mr. AMMON: Yes. All those facts have been taken into consideration.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it would be a great advantage to this country, in the light of economic suggestions, that the Germans should sink a few more of her ships?
    Mr. HARDIE: After raising these ships, will they be taken to the foreshore where erosion has taken place, and be sunk again in order to provide a barrier?
    Mr. AYLES: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that this is the proper place for warships to be?

    DOMINIONS PRODUCE (BRITISH MARKET).
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the important proposal that some arrangement might be made with the Dominions to have the Dominion export of foodstuffs brought to this country at cost price and distributed or sold to the British people with the lowest possible margin to cover expenses; whether this proposal has been accepted by His Majesty's Government and is being submitted for discussion with the Dominion Governments; and whether, in view of the beneficial social and Empire-strengthening effects of such a proposal, he will see that its further elaboration is expedited in every possible way?
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he intends to enter into some arrangement with the Dominions by which the foodstuffs we require to-day
    922
    may be obtained solely from them by bringing them into this country at cost price and distributing them with the least possible margin?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I presume hon. Members are referring to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition in the course of the debate on the 18th June last. In this connection I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply, except that His Majesty's Government are in communication with the Dominions as to the establishment of the Economic Committee to which he alluded.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the possibility of securing a national policy in this respect, will the right hon. Gentleman, having come to an agreement with the Leader of His Majesty's Opposition, come to an agreement with the Leader of the Liberal party, and so have a united policy?

    SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT (AUTUMN RECESS).
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Prime Minister if he can give any indication as to the date it is proposed to adjourn the House for the autumn recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present indicate a date, as this must depend upon the progress of essential business which the Government must ask the House to pass before adjourning.

    PUBLICITY OFFICER.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister for what reasons a Government publicity officer has been appointed to act under the instructions of the chief Government whip; what the duties of this officer will be; what are the terms of his appointment; and whether he will be paid from public funds?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No Government publicity officer has been appointed and there will be no charge upon public funds.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the report in the Press, which has been widely circulated, absolutely without foundation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen such report. What I am saying is exactly what has happened, irrespective of any newspaper reports coming from anybody.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government has prepared any schemes for emigration to the Colonies; and, if so, when they will be presented to this House?
    Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The hon. Member will find a statement of the schemes at present in operation in Appendix II of the Report of the Overseas Settlement Committee for 1923 which was recently issued as a Command Paper (No. 2107). I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that, since the Report was in preparation, a scheme has been arranged with the Canadian National Railways for the settlement of families in groups on land belonging to the railways; and, as I informed the House in the debate upon Empire Settlement which took place on the 28th ultimo, the Government have made proposals to the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia for a comprehensive scheme of settlement. These proposals are now under discussion with the Commonwealth Government.

  IRAQ.

    BRITISH OFFICIALS.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that complaint is made in the Report of the Bagdad Assembly of the number of British officials employed in Iraq, the salaries of whom are alleged to be a burden on the country; and whether he will state the number of officials and the aggregate amount of their salaries?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): I know Of no Report by the Bagdad Assembly containing such a complaint. The hon. Member is perhaps referring to a Report drawn up by a Committee of the Assembly, not by the Assembly itself. Under the terms of the British Officials Agreement, which has
    924
    been accepted by the Iraq Assembly, and which was published in Command Paper No. 2120, the posts specifically reserved for British officials number 18 only. The aggregate annual salaries of these posts amount approximately to £34,000.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Who pays the cost of the officials?
    Mr. THOMAS: The Iraq Government.

    AIR OPERATIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been any fighting or other disorder in Iraq since the present Government took office; whether His Majesty's Forces have been engaged and, if so, on what occasions; whether any bombings by aircraft have taken place since the beginning of this year; if so, on how many and what occasions; and what was the fighting and air-raiding which recently cook place at Sulimaniyah?
    Mr. LEACH: I have been asked to reply. In answer to the first and second parts of the question, a few disturbances occurred in Iraq during the period mentioned. The only one of seriousness was that which took place at Kirkuk on the 4th May in the circumstances explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his reply on 12th May to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. There were slight disturbances at the end of March in the Sulimaniyah region, where a chief defied the Iraq Government, but withdrew after air action on a small scale had been taken. There has also been some unrest in the Afaj district, where three native policemen were killed on 25th April. Slight air action was then taken and the leaders of the offending tribes surrendered. As regards the last part of the question, an effort was made by a disaffected chief to stir up trouble following the Kirkuk incident. No fighting took place, but as the chief refused to surrender, his head quarters were bombed after a warning had been given. The situation there again has since been normal.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What does the hon. Member mean by "slight air action"?
    Mr. LEACH: Possibly one aeroplane not dropping any bombs, but merely warning notices.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Is not the hon. Member carrying out identically the same policy as that which we carried out in this respect, and does he now repudiate the statements made by hon. Members behind him against the policy which we carried out?
    Mr. LEACH: We communicated with our military and air headquarters in Iraq in regard to the whole situation of bombing operations, and I cannot honestly say that we have made any change in the policy of the late Government.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman, when he tells us of the possibility of air warnings, tell us that no bombing has taken place in any of these operations and that there have been no casualties?
    Mr. LEACH: No, I cannot say that no bombing has taken place, but to the be; it of our information no casualties have taken place.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman's Department get information as to how many casualties have taken place and whether we are teaching the natives of this part of the world the blessings of the Sermon on the Mount?
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Were the warning notices which were dropped signed by the Under-Secretary?
    Mr. LANSBURY: That is what the Germans did with us, and we called them Huns and ours are Christian soldiers.

    IRISH FREE STATE (FISHING BYE-LAWS).
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the trawler "Lady Luck," owned by Messrs. Chapman and Lanfear, of Ramsgate, was recently boarded by an Irish Free State fishery cruiser; that the executive officer of the cruiser informed the skipper of the trawler that his craft was just inside the Irish fishery limit though outside the three-mile territorial limit; that in quiries have been made for the address of the skipper, with the assumed intention of prosecuting him; that some 30 prosecutions are pending against skippers of trawlers belonging to Milford Haven,
    926
    two of whom were recently fined £115 each; and will he approach the Government of the Irish Free State with a view to abstaining from prosecutions in regard to trawling pending the settlement of the present Constitutional question at issue between the two Governments?
    Mr. THOMAS: I must refer the hon. Member to the statement made in reply to a question on this subject by the Noble Lord the Member for Fleetwood on the 23rd June.

    GRANTS-IN-AID (PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDANIA).
    Lieut.-Colonel T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the amount of the grant-in-aid, if any, payable under present arrangements, during the current financial year, by His Majesty's Government to Transjordania?
    Mr. THOMAS: His Majesty's Government have made no provision for any grant-in-aid to Transjordania during the current financial year?
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the amount of the Grant-in-Aid, if any, payable under present arrangements during the current financial year by His Majesty's Government to Palestine?
    Mr. THOMAS: £265,000 has been provided in the Middle Eastern Service Vote as a Grant-in-Aid of the Gendarmerie in Palestine during the current financial year.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Palestine Government has made provision for the payment of a grant-in-aid during the current year to Transjordania?
    Mr. THOMAS: The answer is in the negative.

    EMPIRE ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the appointment of the Permanent Economic Committee for the Empire, he will consider the inclusion of representatives

    927
    from the Crown Colonies who have had actual administrative and business experience; and when he will be in a position to inform the House of the personnel of the Committee and its duties?
    Mr. THOMAS: As I explained in this House on 17th June, the appointment of the Committee is subject to the wishes of the Dominion Governments, and I am still in communication with them. If the Committee is appointed, it is proposed that it should include representatives of the Colonies and Protectorates and the hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how and in what terms he is conveying to the various Dominions concerned the decision of Parliament with respect to the Imperial Preference proposals put forward at the last economic conference?
    Mr. THOMAS: I sent an official despatch to the Dominion Governments on 19th June, forwarding the Official Report of the Proceedings in this House on the two preceding days.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the decision of the other House also be communicated?

  KENYA.

    BRITISH LOAN.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Kenya Legislative Council authorised the negotiation of the loan of £3,500,000 floated in this country for the benefit of that colony; whether the Government of Kenya is in any way pledged to find the interest and service of the loan: and, if not, what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take to safeguard British capital involved?
    Mr. THOMAS: The matter did not come before the Legislative Council of Kenya in the first instance because it was essential first to secure the consent of this House to the Vote of £3,500,000. The loan will be regularised by legislation in Kenya and Uganda at the earliest possible date, and no difficulty is foreseen in passing the necessary ordinances.
    Mr. BLACKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Kenya Colony Legislative Council have refused to sanction the loan of £3,500,000 granted by the House of Commons; whether there is any agreement with the legislative council as to the rate of interest to be paid upon the loan; and whether there is any security that the expected interest will be paid when it becomes due?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the question of the hon. Member for Moseley. The discussion in the Legislative Council of Kenya, which has given rise to these questions, arose entirely out of a point of procedure which that council, in its regard for its own privileges, was perfectly entitled to take. There need be no doubt as to the security for the loan or the liability for interest at the rate demanded by the House and its punctual payment when it becomes due.
    Sir F. WISE: Will the interest and capital be guaranteed by the British Government?
    Mr. THOMAS: It will be in precisely the same position as all other loans in this country.

    TAKORADI HARBOUR.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when considering the serious Report which he has received from Mr. Palmer upon the situation of the Takoradi harbour, he will take into consideration the advisability of removing the construction of these works from the Department concerned and call for tenders from private contractors?
    Mr. THOMAS: Until I have received and considered Mr. Palmer's final Report, I am unable to say what action I shall take in regard to the future construction and completion of the harbour works. I shall certainly not neglect to consider any of the alternatives which appear advisable.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the further fact that this is the third harbour scheme, which has been a fiasco, conducted by the local Department?
    Mr. THOMAS: I will take all the facts into consideration, and I may say that I was so dissatisfied with this scheme that I ordered an inquiry to see if my suspicions were well founded.

    ALIENATION OF LAND.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the suggested alienation of 63,000 acres of land in Kenya Colony is land which is at present occupied by the Masai tribes: to whom is it proposed that this alienation shall be made; and whether the Commission which is about to make an inquiry into the position of the Masai in Kenya Colony will have included within its terms of reference any matters arising out of or affecting the proposed alienation?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have no information that there are any natives on the land in question and it is extremely unlikely that any natives who are there are Masai, in view of the transfer of the northern Masai to the extended Southern Reserve in 1910–11. The third part of the question does not therefore, in my opinion, arise. With regard to the second part, the proposal is that Lord Delamere should surrender 21,000 acres of farming land close to the Uganda Railway in exchange for 63,000 acres of sheep-grazing country in a more remote situation. The areas are stated to be of approximately equal value, and while the larger area, although it has been marked out for sub-division, is stated to be suitable only as a large grazing proposition, the smaller area can be broken up into a number of smaller holdings. I have already stated that this proposal has not yet been approved. The position of scattered natives on land which has been intended for alienation to non-natives has been brought to the notice of the Governor and it will no doubt also come within the scope of the Land Committee which I propose to set up.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not a fact that Lord Delamere is Chairman of the Commission that is making these proposals?
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that Lord Delamere has done an immense amount of pioneer work in that part of the world?
    Mr. LANSBURY: If the natives do not agree, shall we send a bombing expedition there?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is quite true that Lord Delamere has great interests in the country. The very fact that I have not
    930
    approved the proposal is at least the best indication that I am having it considered further. Surely, when I ask for further information, I ought not to prejudice it by a statement in this House?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is Lord Delamere Chairman of the Commission?
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to other tribes, apart from the Masai, some of which have considerable numbers in that territory?
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend is aware that that is one of the questions which I am asking the Committee to consider.

    MALAY STATES (TREATMENT OF CHILDREN).
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether reports have been received from the Federated Malay States of a system similar to that of the Mui Tsai of Hong Kong; whether his attention has been drawn to the ill-treatment of a little girl at Kuala Lumpur; whether he has evidence showing that in this case the child had only been allowed out of the house once during a period of three years; that she was compelled to begin work at five o'clock in the morning and did not finish until late at night, and that she was continually and brutally beaten; and whether any reports received by His Majesty's Government will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. THOMAS: Mui Tsai are to be found among the Chinese population in the Federated Malay States, and the High Commissioner has promised to submit proposals for dealing with the situation. I have no information as to the case of ill-treatment referred to, but I will call for a report.

    EAST AFRICAN COMMITTEE.
    Mr. PILKINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to announce the names of the members of the African Commission?
    Mr. THOMAS: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give the names of the members of the Commission which is to

    931
    visit East Africa. The House will probably wish me to take this opportunity to announce the constitution of the East African Committee, as far as it has yet been completed. I am still in communication with two or three hon. Members whose assistance I hope to obtain. I am glad to say that all parties are represented:

    The Right Honourable Lord Southborough, Chairman.

    Mr. R. N. Barclay, the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester.

    Captain R. Berkeley, the hon. Member for Nottingham Central.

    Mr. John Harris, the hon. Member for North Hackney.

    Mr. T. E. Harvey, the hon. Member for Dewsbury.

    Sir Sydney Henn, the hon. Member for Blackburn.

    Mr. E. D. Morel, the hon. Member for Dundee.

    The Honourable William Ormsby-Gore, the hon. Member for Stafford.

    Mr. H. Snell, the hon. Member for East Woolwich.

    Dr. Andrew Balfour, Sir Henry Birchenough, Mr. C. Roden Buxton, Sir Hugh Clifford, Sir H. Rider Haggard, Lieut.-Colonel F. D. Hammond, Mr. W. H. Himbury, Mr. J. H. Oldham.

    HONG KONG (MAISONS TOLEREES).
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give an assurance that legislation on the lines of the Contagious Diseases Acts will not be reintroduced into Singapore, and that the segregated brothel areas in Hong Kong and Singapore will be abolished?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would invite reference to the reply given on the 23rd of June to the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. J. Harris).

    TANGANYIKA (BOUNDARIES).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the recent holding of public meetings in Kenya and Tanganyika territory with the object of pressing the Home Government to agree
    932
    to the incorporation with the Colony of Kenya of certain areas in the mandated territory of Tanganyika; and whether the Government intend making any alteration of the boundaries of the mandated territory of the nature indicated?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am aware that reports of such meetings have appeared in the newspapers. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    EXPORT CREDITS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what amount of credit has been applied for and granted during the last six months under the export credits scheme; and what are the names of the first six principal countries to which goods have been exported under this scheme during the last six months, in order of importance, but without giving the amounts of the business done under the scheme for each country?
    Mr. LUNN: The credits for which application was made under the export credits scheme during the six months to 16th June, 1924, amounted to £1,631,801, and credits to the amount of £700,568 were granted. The bills actually guaranteed during this period (including renewals) amounted to £2,004,174. The six principal countries, or groups of countries, to which goods have bean exported under this scheme during the last six months, in order of importance, were Portugal and Portuguese Colonies, France, Poland, South Africa, South American Republics and Italy.
    Sir F. WISE: What rate of interest was charged?
    Mr. LUNN: I do not know that that is in the question, but if my hon. Friend will put it down I will try to oblige him with an answer.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will make further inquiries with regard to the number of accidents requiring hospital treatment which have occurred in the amuse-

    933
    ments park at the British Empire Exhibition; whether he will call for a return of the number of cases which have been treated by the Red Cross station at the exhibition; and whether he will consider the desirability of insisting upon a closer inspection of the apparatus used in the amusements park?
    Mr. LUNN: With regard to the first and third parts of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend on the 23rd instant. As regards the second part, I am informed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that the records of cases treated at the Red Cross station at the exhibition numbered 2,899 to the end of May. These figures include every class of accident and illness which may occur throughout the whole exhibition.

    HOUSING (ABBOTSMEAD ESTATE, BARROW).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will issue orders for a change in methods in connection with the sale of houses on the Abbotsmead estate at Barrow over the heads of the existing tenants so as to bring it into accordance with the Government policy that existing tenants shall not be dispossessed?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): The Government policy with regard to the sale of houses is applied uniformly on all the estates under my Department. It was determined in consultation with the Treasury in February, 1923, to sell the houses on all the housing estates constructed or acquired for war-time purposes, and I am unable to reverse this decision, because I am advised that owing to the passing of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Acts my Department is legally bound to endeavour to sell the houses on its housing estates. Neither on the Abbotsmead nor on any other estate has my Department dispossessed tenants in order to effect sales with vacant possession.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that I can send him an actual case where a tenant was evicted and the house sold over his head?
    Mr. JOWETT: No such case has been passed by me, and I am informed that none has been passed by the Department.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring in any proposals to repeal the Act to which he has referred?
    Mr. JOWETT: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    ROYAL PARKS (SEATS).
    Mr. PENNYasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that he is unable to increase the number of free seats in the Royal Parks this year, and that no reduction in charge for private chairs in the parks can be made in the existing contract before the 1st April, 1925, he will approach the holders of the contract to see whether they will, as an act of grace, reduce the charge to 1d. from 12 to 2 p.m., so that it will apply to the lunch hour; and whether he will inform the House the figure obtained by his Department for the contract of providing seats in Kensington Gardens, St. James's, the Green, and Hyde Parks?
    Mr. JOWETT: I regret that on account of the considerable difficulties involved in varying the contract, I am unable to make any change in the charge for chairs in the Royal Parks at the present time. I understand that between the hours of 12 and 2 on weekdays the 500 free seats provided in Hyde Park are by no means fully occupied. A reduction to an all round penny charge would mean a loss of £4,000 per annum to the Exchequer. I am not prepared to make this sacrifice at present, but, as stated in my reply of the 23rd instant, the question will be carefully considered in consultation with the Treasury when the present contract expires. A sum of £11,500 per annum is being received under the licence for the letting of chairs in the whole of the Royal Parks.
    Mr. PENNY: In view of the desire of a great number of people in all parts of the House for this popular penny movement, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the contractor so that he will receive some Members of Parliament on this matter?
    Mr. JOWETT: The contractor has been sounded as to whether he was willing to make the concession.
    Mr. HOFFMAN: Is this a case of being penny wise and pound foolish?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: What profit per annum is made by the contractor out of these chairs?
    Mr. JOWETT: The contractor has not informed me.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it a fact that there is a popular penny movement?

    REGISTERED COMPANIES (BONUS SHARES).
    Mr. BAKERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue a Return, arranged by industries, showing the number of bonus share distributions made by companies registered in Great Britain in each year since 1895?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Whenever a company limited by shares makes any allotment of its shares, the company must, within one month, file with the Registrar of Companies a Return of the allotments, but a company is not required to indicate what shares have been issued as bonus shares. In these circumstances it is not possible to supply the information asked for. The matter has been noted for consideration when the next revision of the Companies Acts is undertaken.
    Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is it not a waste of Parliamentary time to put a question of this kind on the Paper when it is impossible for any Minister to give a reply?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot always know that that will be so.

    PENSION (MR. H. Q. PENROSE, DEVONPORT).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. H. Q. Penrose, 14, Admiralty Street, Devonport, whose total service counting
    936
    towards pension is 13 years, 354 days, which entitles him to an allowance of 7s a week, which is included in his present pension; whether he is aware that if this man had served 11 days longer, making a total of 14 years, his allowance would have been increased by 1s. per week; seeing that the Ministry have failed to count four days for leap years, bringing him within seven days of the qualification for an allowance on the basis of 14 years' service, whether he can see his way to increase this man's allowance by 1s. a week; and whether he will state the basis upon which such allowances are granted for broken periods of time, and, if he has no power to consider fractions of a year's service, will he take power to do so?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Mr. J. W. Muir): The scale of allowance for service in the case referred to is common to the Ministry with the Service Departments, and my right hon. Friend has no authority to vary its application in individual cases coming before his Department. The scale is based on completed years of service, and does not admit of the recognition of periods of service of less than a year. Cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member must, I fear, inevitably occur whatever were the precise period selected as the basis of award.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to approach the Service Departments with a view to the abolition of this iniquitous system?
    Mr. MUIR: It would not make any difference, as any alteration made would still leave cases similar to the one raised by the hon. and gallant Member.

    ADMIRALTY (CLERICAL CLASS EXAMINATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the reason why ex-registered boy clerks in the Contract and Purchase Department are allowed to sit for the Admiralty Departmental clerical class examination according to Section (K), paragraph 3, of the special Regulations governing this examination, whilst temporary ex-service men in the same Department, with the necessary qualifying service, are not allowed to sit?
    Mr. AMMON: In view of the outlets within the Admiralty open before the War to these boys who have passed a Civil Service Examination, they have hitherto been regarded as forming part of the unestablished staff with a prospect of continued employment. When it became clear on reorganisation that automatic establishment could not be given it was decided to treat them as Boy Writers, entered after the outbreak of War, who are eligible to compete at the examination irrespective of the department in which they might be serving.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why ex-service men are barred from going on to the establishment at this examination?
    Mr. AMMON: As a matter of fact, ex-service men have the largest percentage of reservations.

    PASSIVE RESISTERS AS MAGISTRATES (MR. A. E. DENT).
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. A. E. Dent, of North Cave, Yorkshire, who has been called upon to resign his position as Justice of the Peace by reason of his being a passive resister; and whether the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): Mr. Dent was appointed to the East Riding Bench on the 25th July, 1923. On the 5th April, 1924, at the Borough Petty Sessional Court, he was summoned by the overseers for non-payment of rates, and orders to pay the rates were made against him. Distress warrants were subsequently issued, and were executed on 19th April. Mr. Dent has been offered the option of undertaking to comply in future with the law under which the rates are payable or of resigning from the Bench. The necessity for any further action must depend upon the attitude adopted by Mr. Dent with regard to this offer. The Lord Chancellor thinks that Mr. Dent's fellow Justices are put in an embarrassing position when dealing with the cases of those who refuse to pay their rates, if the persons summoned are able to reply that members of the Bench are themselves refusing to comply with the law.
    Mr. LINFIELD: Has there ever been any other case similar to this case?
    Mr. BLACK: Is it not a fact that hundreds of men in similar conditions—magistrates all over the country—have taken up the same attitude and have not been dealt with in this way?
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Why has it been left to this Government to penalise conscientious objectors?
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Was it not perfectly well known that Mr. Dent was a passive resister when he was placed on the Bench last year?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know which of the Supplementary Questions I am to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "All.'] As to the first one, namely, whether this is the first case, I understand it is not. As to whether there have been hundreds of cases, I do not know; as to whether it was known that this Gentleman was a passive resister, I have not the faintest idea and the remaining question I have forgotten.
    Mr. LINFIELD: May I further ask whether Dr. Salter, who recently sat in this House, is a Justice of the Peace, and whether he has been in prison for the same offence?
    Mr. H. H. SPENCER: May I ask the Government whether they will undertake to mete out the same treatment to those Members of the Government who, as conscientious objectors, also broke the law?
    Mr. LINFIELD: I beg to give notice of my intention to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss this question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Attorney-General aware that the magistrates on this Bench approached Lord Cave under the last Government and nothing happened? They were rebuffed, and why has it been left to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Government to initiate this procedure?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if the answer he has given has not been given on behalf of the Lord Chancellor who is, and for a number of years has been, an ornament of the Liberal party?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Are we to understand that conscientious objectors are to be allowed to make the laws of this country, but not to administer them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Government does not control the choice of the electors.

    MACHINE GUNS (EXPORT).
    Sir K. WOOD(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Home Affairs whether he can make any statement concerning the smuggling of a large number of machine guns from London to Russia; whether he can state the number of guns so consigned, the method by which they were conveyed to Petrograd and what steps he is taking to prevent further machine guns being dealt with in a similar manner?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Such a transaction would involve an offence under the Fire Arms Act. The police are now investigating the matter with a view to proceedings. I think it would be contrary to the interests of justice in these circumstances, for me to make any statement at present.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal if there is any change in the order of business for to-morrow, and at the same time, how late he proposes to keep the House sitting to-night?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): On Thursday last I announced certain items of business which were then prepared for to-morrow and to that list we propose certain additions. May I say we regard most of these additions as departmental, and, we hope, non-conversial and they ought not to take very much of the time of the House to-morrow. The complete list, including the items previously announced, is as follows:

Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill, Second Reading.

Old Age Pensions Bill, Second Reading.

Post Office (London) Railway Bill, Second Reading.

County Courts Bill, Report.

940

Auxiliary Air Force and Air Force Reserve Bill [Lords], Report.

Government of India (Leave of Absence) [Money], Resolution in Committee.

Telegraph [Money], Resolution.

Pacific Cable Board Bill, Lords Amendment.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill [Lords], Report.

Administration of Justice Bill [Lords], Report.

As to to-night's sitting, it will depend upon the progress which is made. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not propose to ask the House to sit unduly late.

PASSIVE RESISTERS AS MAGISTRATES (MR. A. E. DENT).
Mr. LINFIELD: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the threat of the Lord Chancellor to remove the name of A. E. Dent from the Commission of the Peace on the ground that the magistrate in question is a Passive Resister."
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a Motion which I can accept under Standing Order No. 10. Any criticism of the action of the Lord Chancellor can take place only on a Motion duly tabled, after proper notice, not under the procedure of Standing Order No. 10.
Mr. LINFIELD: May I, with respect, submit that this Motion is not connected with the Lord Chancellor's judicial functions but with his departmental and administrative work. I have recently had an opportunity of looking up the matter and I find that so long ago as 1908 Mr. Swift MacNeill addressed a question with regard to the Lord Chancellor's duties in respect of departmental and administrative action apart from judicial action. In that case, the Prime Minister himself said that he thought he was responsible. I would like to point out that this is not a judicial function, but administrative and departmental.
Mr. SPEAKER: I also have looked up the record, and have not found any trace whatever of any allowance, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for a criticism of any action of the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. PRINGLE: May I submit that in this particular matter of the regulation of the Commission of the Peace, questions have been raised and discussions have taken place in this House, though not under Standing Order No. 10, and if it has not arisen under Standing Order No. 10, it has only been due to the fact that in none of these cases has urgency arisen But may I remind you that during the Parliaments of 1906 and 1910 the action of Lord Chancellor Loreburn in regard to the appointment of Justices of the Peace was frequently discussed in this House? If, therefore, a case of urgency can be made out in this case, because there is an immediate threat to remove a Justice of the Peace from the Commission of the Peace, surely in these circumstances the House will be entitled to have the matter discussed on the Adjournment Motion.
Mr. SPEAKER: I was here at that time, and I remember what occurred. There were general discussions on the number of Justices belonging to the different political parties, but that was not under Standing Order No. 10. This is a question of the removal of a Magistrate, and that, I hold, is a matter which can only be discussed, if the Lord Chancellor is to be criticised, on a direct Motion.
Mr. MAXTON: In the very exceptional circumstances in which we are placed today, in which a Liberal Lord Chancellor, sitting in a Labour Government, puts through a policy which a Conservative Lord Chancellor has never deemed necessary to put in operation, is it not desirable that in these circumstances, irrespective of the precedents, this House ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion?
Mr. SPEAKER: Those complications do not interest me.
Mr. PRINGLE: May I be allowed to make a further submission? As I understand your ruling, it is to this effect, that
942
the Lord Chancellor's action can only be dealt with in this House under a specific Motion, By the admission, which I understand you have made, the action of Lord Chancellor Loreburn was, in fact, discussed in regard to the Commission of the Peace without a specific Motion, and, if that were so, if it could be raised on the Vote, for example, for the Prime Minister's salary, as the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Linfield) would suggest, if a case can be made out for urgency, surely under those circumstances it would be appropriate to deal with the matter under Standing Order No. 10?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) is, I think, suggesting that I admitted something which I did not say, and certainly which I did not intend to say: The rule of the House is very general and wide, and under it the action of the Lord Chancellor can only be criticised on a direct Motion, after due notice given.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Aberdare Canal Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Cyril Cobb to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Arbitration Clauses (Ptotocol) Bill [Lords]); Mr. Turton to Standing Committee D (in respect of the China Indemnity (Application) Bill) and Sir Cyril Cobb (in respect of the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill [Lords]); and Sir George McCrae to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Guardianship of Children (Scotland) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Duty on tea.)
    Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at end, to add the words
    "or twenty-five per cent. ad valorem, whichever may be the lesser."
    As will be seen from the Finance Bill, although the duty on tea per pound has been reduced, it still remains the same upon the cheap teas, mainly used by the poorer people, as upon the more expensive teas, mainly used by the better-to-do and wealthier classes of the community. The effect of this flat rate of 4d. per pound is that 8d. tea pays, roughly, 50 per cent. duty, 1s. tea 33 per cent., 2s. tea 17 per cent., and 9s. tea 8 per cent. Hence my Amendment, which I hope will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, because it would produce, in my opinion, a more equitable taxation. If it be accepted, 8d. tea will then only pay a duty of 2d. a pound, 10d. tea will pay a duty of 2½d., tea will pay a duty of 3d., 1s. 2d. tea a duty of 3½d., and it is only when the value of the tea comes to 1s. 4d. a pound or more that the present rate of 4d. a pound will be imposed. I think every Member of the House must be acquainted with the arguments in this matter, and, therefore, I do not propose to waste any time in making a long speech on the subject, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the Amendment.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Sir J. Pennefather) upon having introduced a certain novelty into what has been termed a hardy annual. The Committee will observe that the purpose of the Amendment is to leave the maximum duty on tea at 4d. a pound, but to impose a duty of 25 per cent. upon the value of tea, provided that the duty should not in any case exceed 4d. a pound.
    Sir J. PENNEFATHER: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? I did not go into the question of what the duty might be on the higher priced tea, for the simple reason that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I should have been out of order if I had proposed any additional taxation.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: But the hon. Member's Amendment means that the duty would be 4d. a pound, or 25 per cent. of the value of the tea, whichever figure may be the lesser. Therefore, I think I am correct in saying that in no case would the duty exceed 4d. a pound. This question of an ad valorem duty on tea has been raised times without number in this House. I would remind the Committee that about 100 years ago there was in operation an ad valorem duty on tea, but it was speedily repealed, because it was found to be not only inequitable in its operation but impracticable in its working. On the face of it, it would appear reasonable that the duty upon tea should bear some proportion to the value of the article, but whatever strength there is in that demand is derived from the idea that the rich man's tea ought to pay a higher rate of duty than the poor man's, and I shall have occasion to show that, however cogent that reason may appear on the surface, as a matter of fact, in practice, there is little or nothing in it. It is a mistake to suppose that the working people of this country consume wholly cheap tea. As a matter of fact, the working people of the country have discovered that cheap tea is not economical. I have had figures collected, and they confirm the statement that I have made just now. Half the tea which is sold by the co-operative societies, the largest retailers of tea, is of a better quality, and I am told that their experience is probably the general experience.
    Let us see how the hon. Member's Amendment would work out. The price of tea, as hon. Members know, fluctuates rapidly and considerably. I believe that the price of tea to-day is something like 1s. 4d. or 1s. 5d. A short time ago it fell as low as 4½d. No Chancellor of the Exchequer could possibly budget upon such a fluctuating basis. It would be quite impossible for him to estimate what the yield of the duty would be. For instance, supposing he assumed the average price

    963
    of tea would be 1s. 4d., and he estimated that he could get an average yield of 4d. per pound. Supposing the price fell to 8d. or even to 4d., then three-quarters of his revenue would disappear altogether. That is the destructive argument from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment would not gain even the object which he himself has in view. He referred to tea at 4s. per pound. There is a small quantity of tea at that price, and even so his proposal would put only a duty of 4d. a pound on that tea, and it would also put a duty of 4d. on the tea at is. 4d. per pound. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment, therefore, I submit, would not realise the purpose which he has in view. Moreover, it is impracticable, however desirable it might be if it were practicable, to impose an ad valorem duty upon tea, because tea now is sold generally in blends before duty is paid, and all kinds of qualities go into the blend. The trade is unanimous that it would be impossible to work such a scheme. How are you going to ascertain what is the value of tea for the purpose of imposing the duty upon it? Probably the two largest retailers of tea in the country, the Co-operative Wholesale Society and a company whose name I will not mention, are also growers of tea. Therefore, it would be necessary in these cases for the Customs and Excise Authority themselves to fix the value of tea. I might advance other reasons, but those which I have submitted are sufficiently destructive and show the utter impracticability of the Amendment.
    Sir J. PENNEFATHER:: I admit that the arguments which have been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman are very cogent and strong, but I confess that I think they fall with greater severity upon hon. Gentlemen who sit beside him and behind him than upon myself, because I was converted to the view expressed in my Amendment by speeches made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front bench opposite.
    Mr. SNOWDEN:Not by me.
    Sir J. PENNEFATHER:I did not say by the right hon. Gentleman, but I think there are very few Members behind him who have not from time to time expressed
    964
    indignation at the fact that a poor person's tea is taxed as highly as a rich person's tea. I have in mind a speech made by the Lord Privy Seal at Harpurhey just before the General Election. He waxed really most eloquent on the point, and when he was interrupted he took up his interruptor with some heat. In fact, it was reading that speech of the right hon. Gentleman that led me to make some remarks upon the subject. They were followed by a question as to whether I would be prepared to support his policy, and in an unguarded moment I gave a pledge that I would do so. Therefore, I am fulfilling my pledge, but I think I am entitled to point this out, that in fulfilling my pledge I have elicited the fact that all the criticisms which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite made of their predecessors on this point were not justified, and that the promises of those of them who inferentially said that if they got into power they would do what others have found impossible were piecrust.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. H. H. SPENCER:: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert the words
    "The provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall be applied to tea from China and from the Dutch East Indies."
    I feel sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give this Amendment his great sympathy, because it is one after his own heart. It provides for a reduction of taxation that I know is as dear, if possible, to the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as it is to my own. It is an Amendment which will only rob him of a very small amount of revenue. I think, upon last year's figures, it would probably amount to £90,000, but that amount would go straight into the pockets of the consumers. I move this Amendment, because I feel that of the whole of the countries of the world China and Holland are the two countries which treat us best in tariff matters. Let me give an instance on this tea question. China levies a duty on our goods of about 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. Holland levies a duty on our goods of 5 per cent., and not only that but Holland is an exception to the whole of the other foreign countries of the world in that the Dutch people treat the English people just as well as they treat their own people in the Dutch

    965
    East Indies. There is no preference given by Holland to their own traders over the English traders in the Dutch East Indies. That is a very strong argument for extending the same reciprocal treatment to the Dutch and the Chinese.
    There is a stronger argument still against penalising the Chinese tea growers. China is one of the few nations in the world which has not complete fiscal freedom. We have given, and given freely, to our own Colonies the right to exercise the very widest freedom in their own fiscal affairs, but by means of various Treaties the Chinese have not that right, and I say that to impose upon China a limitation in the right or power to increase her own tariffs and then in return to put a higher tariff on Chinese goods is calculated to leave the Chinese suffering under a very great sense of injustice. Hon. Members will agree with me that our Colonies impose very much higher tariffs on British goods than the Dutch or Chinese. India has just gone in for a 15 per cent. all-round tariff on British goods against the 5 per cent. which the Chinese put on. India does not give us any Preference. The Chinese are a sensitive nation. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that three or four months ago the Chinese, suffering under what they regarded as unjust treatment by the Japanese, imposed a very rigid boycott upon Japanese goods. I want to take away this feeling of injustice from the Chinese. The whole British Colony in China to-day is enthusiastically in favour of this small measure of justice being done to the Chinese. The total extra duty that was collected last year on China tea was only about £63,000. At the present rate of duty it would amount to about £32,000. I am asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the sake of the sentimental feeling between China and this country, for the sake of the strongly expressed desire of all the British Colony in China, and for the sake also of the fact that China is one of our very best customers to give us this small concession.
    The Assam and Ceylon tea people do not require any preference. I have just been looking through a list of the profits that they have made. I have a list of about 30 or 40 India and Ceylon tea companies. I will just read a few. I see that the Ceylon Tea Company's last dividend
    966
    was 40 per cent., the Jokai Assam Company 30 per cent., the Alliance Tea Company 40 per cent., the Nediem Tea Company 35 per cent., the Doom Dooma Tea Company 30 per cent., the Derby Tea Company 40 per cent., and the Pabbajam Tea Company 60 per cent. Those were the profits distributed. All prudent companies put something to reserve. This claim that our Colonies need these niggling preferences and doles will not bear looking into. Let me just give an example to show how they do not need it. I would like to bring before the notice of the Committee a prospectus that I saw in the "Times" this morning. It is that of a company which has some very distinguished directors. There are two members of the House of Lords, one of whom has the additional honour and distinction of being the husband of a Noble Member of this House. This prospectus gives an estimate of the profits to be made by this Colonial company. The calculation is that the cost of production of sugar by this company is going to be £10 per ton, and that at a price of £20 per ton, which is £5 less than last year's price, this Colonial sugar company is going to make 100 per cent. profit on the cost of production. That is as stated in the prospectus, and it makes no allowance for fresh preferences although the present preferences are to be further extended. I want to press for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sympathetic consideration of this matter. I know he wishes to reduce the duty on tea as far as he can. I know he wants to bring about good feeling with our Colonies. This small Amendment will only deprive him of a trivial amount of revenue, but at the same time it will do a great deal to bring about good feeling for ourselves in the two countries which treat us best in trade matters. I trust, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Gentleman who submitted this Amendment is quite right when he says that it is one which appeals to my heart and to my sympathies. But, unfortunately, there are a lot of things which appeal to my sympathies and to my heart which I am prevented from doing. The hon. Gentleman more than once stated that the amount of revenue involved is very small—something like £90,000 a year. That may be a very small amount com-

    967
    pared with the hundreds of millions of taxation imposed at the moment. May I take this opportunity, however, of saying that we have a large number of Amendments on the Paper, nearly all of which are proposing further reductions of taxation. I have no doubt that hon. Members in charge of those Amendments will, like the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. H. H. Spencer), appeal to me to grant the concession, because it does not involve much loss of revenue, and I shall feel much difficulty in resisting those appeals; but I am bound to do it. If I were to concede all the Amendments that are down on the Paper it would involve a loss this year of tens of millions of pounds There is one Amendment which involves nearly £30,000,000 loss of revenue. There is another Amendment involving £13,000,000 or £14,000,000. A large number involve £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, and there is a number of Amendments involving tens and hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is quite clear I cannot concede all these; and that is my answer to the case put before me. I have made a large remission of taxation this year. I have made a remission on tea of 4d. a lb., and by so doing I have gone a long way to promote that better feeling between this country and China to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am sure my hon. Friend will admit that I have gone quite as far as I can. I am reluctantly compelled to refuse to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: In the course of this afternoon an hon. Member on the benches opposite described the Lord Chancellor as one who had been for a long time an ornament of the Liberal party. From the speech to which we have just listened it is obvious that another Chancellor—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—might be described equally fairly as having a bond with hon. Members below the Gangway, in that they both prefer to conciliate countries like China and the Dutch East Indies rather than our Dominions and Dependencies. Apparently the sentimental reasons which unite the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. H. Spencer) with China are far greater than those which weigh with him in considering the claims of India and Ceylon. I cannot but deplore that such sentiments should be expressed in this House at such a time,
    968
    and I also deplore that the hon. Member should seek to create prejudice by quoting a prospectus showing what are expected to be the profits of a certain company. I may remind him that prospectuses are not always realised, even when they are political prospectuses, and no one knows that better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is very interesting to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) reproving the Chancellor of the Exchequer for refusing this concession. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has always been really individual. He shared with me the struggle against the compulsory features of the present National Health Insurance Acts, and there again he proved himself characteristically individual. I quite agree with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Ladywood in discrediting the illusion that these preferences have any effect in conciliating our Colonies and Dependencies. Of all existing preferences the preference on tea is obviously one which should have that consequence in India, but we know enough to realise that that is not the real effect. Can it be suggested that the attitude of the people of India since this Preference was granted to them has improved towards this country? That is the great test. If it is true, as is asserted, that Preference is going to really improve the relations between the Mother Country and her Colonies, we surely ought to see proof of that in India. But has there been any improvement there? Has there been any reciprocity on their part? No, and on the contrary we have seen the Indian Government bringing in a protective tariff against which many hon. Members are complaining. We are, in fact, getting no return from India. I think the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. H. Spencer) has made out a good case for his Amendment. Here we have two other countries affected by the Preference. and they are countries which give exceptionally favoured treatment to the goods of this country, better treatment than India gives us. Why not admit China and Holland to the same terms in relation to the tea duty as India, which does not appreciate Preference at all? I was surprised at the Chancellor of the Exchange objecting to this Amendment on the score of expense. After all, it would only mean a loss of revenue of

    969
    £90,000, and that surely ought to be no ground for refusing the remission. I hope ray hon. Friend will press his Amendment.
    Mr. PERRY: I hope the Amendment will be rejected. I think both the hon. Members for South Bradford (Mr. H. Spencer) and Penistone (Mr Pringle) have laid themselves open to very severe criticism and attack when the next Debate takes place on Colonial Preference; they then will find some difficulty in pleading for Preference for China and the Dutch West Indies. I want to oppose the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, I object to any further encroachment on the estimated Budget surplus of £4,000,000. I remember a former Chancellor of the Exchequer declaring that every Chancellor of the Exchequer should budget, not merely for a single year, but for future years. If there are any more encroachments upon the estimated surplus of £4,000,000 this year it is going to make it most difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out schemes of social reform which are very much in request. I am certain that if this and subsequent Amendments are rejected, hon. Members who sit on these benches will be taunted with voting against a reduction of taxation on the people's food, but we are quite prepared to meet that criticism. The Budget only provides for a, surplus of £4,000,000, and already encroachments have been made on that surplus by the extension of pre-War pensions and by removing certain disqualifications of old age pensioners. It is, therefore, going to be extremely difficult to make any" further encroachments on the surplus, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will maintain, not only on this but on subsequent Amendments, the position he has already taken up.
    Mr. H. SPENCER: I resent very strongly the insinuations of the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) that I seek to favour China and the Dutch East Indies rather than our own Colonies and Dependencies. One of the greatest insults that can be offered to our Colonial friends is to insinuate, as is constantly being done in this House, that their loyalty and affection depend on Tariff Preferences. So far is that from true that I would point out that when we had a system of Colonial Preference we had nothing but bad blood between dif-
    970
    ferent parts of the Empire. We do not want a recurrence of such things as Mr. Hughes telling Mr. Bruce that he had only touched the Old Country for £3,000,000 when he should have touched it for £17,000,000. That sort of bargaining is altogether unworthy of real Imperial sentiment, and if the right hon. Member for Ladywood and others look upon our Empire in that light, then I am not surprised they talk in the way they do on the subject of Colonial Preference. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way to accept this Amendment, but I trust that next year, whether we have a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer following a Socialist, or a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer calling himself a Liberal, this little reform will be brought about so as to promote goodwill between the Mother Country and other nations. Under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 (Reduced duties on cocoa), and 3 (Reduced duties on coffee, chicory and coffee substitutes) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Reduced customs duties on sugar).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Before we pass from this Clause, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to the beet sugar industry in this country?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not in a position, I regret to say, to state anything more than that we have had this subject under constant consideration for some time now. We have had very exhaustive inquiries made. Those inquiries have now been completed, and the final Report reached me only at the end of last week. There has not been time yet for the Government to consider the matter, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee generally, that it will be considered at the earliest possible moment, and I think I may say with confidence that, before the House passes the

    971
    Finance Bill, we shall be able to make some very definite statement on the subject.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state who has made this Report.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: We have had inquiries made by our own Departments.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Reduced Excise Duties on Sugar), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Rate of Entertainments Duty.)
    Major COLFOX: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, to leave out from "1916" to the word "shall," in line 42.
    This Amendment is really one with another Amendment, which also appears in my name, and applies to the Schedule. With your permission, Sir, I would like to discuss the two Amendments as one, which they really are, although technically down as two. The point of the two Amendments, taken together, is to re-impose a duty on entertainment admission charges of 6d. and under, which, according to the Bill as at present drawn, will be free from tax altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a few moments ago, said that the various Amendments on the Order Paper would cost the country so many millions for this and so many millions for the other. This Amendment will not cost the country anything; in fact, it will increase the revenue. Therefore, I submit, he ought to look upon it with a favourable eye as being an increase to his revenue, which should be only too welcome to him. With this increase, if granted, much good might be done in various directions, but, I submit, that one very useful way of using it would be to reintroduce the penny postage in this country, which, under the present proposals, is found to be impossible.
    A good deal of resentment was felt formerly to the Entertainments Duty on the ground that it pressed more hardly on the cheaper prices of admission than it did upon the more expensive, that is, in proportion. It was quite rightly said that the poorer section of the community had to pay, in proportion to the amount
    972
    of money which they spent upon themselves, a larger sum in taxation than the richer people. That was perfectly true, and, therefore, my Amendment is drawn to meet that objection, because I propose that for admission up to 3d. the tax should be ¼d., and between 3d. and 6d., ½d. I have taken the trouble to dot down the percentage of tax upon all the various prices of admission as they appear in the Second Schedule to the Bill. It will be noticed that on a 15s. seat 13 per cent. and a fraction is paid; on a 10s. 6d. seat, 14 per cent. and a fraction; on a 7s. 6d. seat, 13 per cent. and a fraction; on a 5s. seat, 15 per cent.; on a 3s. seat, 16 per cent.; on a 2s. seat, 16 per cent.; on a 1s. 3d. seat, 16 per cent.; on a 1s. 1d. seat, 15 per cent.; on an 8d. seat, 16 per cent.; and on a 7d. seat, 14 per cent. There is a fraction in most cases as well, from which it will be seen that a rough approximation of the proportion paid in taxation to the amount paid in admission to the entertainment is round about 14 per cent. Under my proposal, the amount which would be paid in taxation on a 6d. seat would be 8⅓ per cent.; on a 5d. seat, 10 per cent.; on a 4d. seat, 12½ per cent.; on a 3d. seat, 8⅓ per cent.; on a 2d. seat, 12½ per cent.; and on a 1d. seat, 25 per cent.
    Therefore, in every case, with the one exception of the Id. admission ticket, which, so far as I am personally concerned, I should be quite pleased to let go altogether, the advantage lies with the cheaper admission tickets, rather than with the dearer ones, as was formerly the case, so that the objection that was raised to the Entertainments Duty last year and formerly, entirely ceases to operate, since the cheaper seats, if my proposal be carried, will get the advantage over the more expensive seats. Further, there can be no doubt, I think, in the minds of unprejudiced people, that entertainment in all its forms is a luxury, and that it is a right principle of taxation that luxury should be taxed; and, further, that it is a right principle of taxation that every citizen of the country should bear his proportionate share of that taxation. I made a speech somewhat on these lines on the Budget, when it was first introduced, and I was told by several hon. Members, in private conversation afterwards, that by so doing I was running a great risk of losing votes in my constituency. Be that as it may, I feel that

    973
    a principle, if right, should be advocated, whether one is going to lose personally or not. But, since I made that speech, I have had the opportunity of visiting my constituency, and holding a fairly large number of meetings, at each of which I have brought forward this proposal, and have found on every single occasion that it has appealed to the sense of justice and fairness of my audience, who, on each and every occasion, have been glad that I brought the matter forward. Therefore, I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to incorporate my suggestion in his Finance Bill, because of its transparent justice, and also because of the fact that he will thereby increase his revenue. There can be no two opinions in the minds of unprejudiced and fair people that all sections of the community should be prepared to bear their fair proportion of the taxation and expense of this country, and I submit that my proposal would have that effect.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I beg to support this proposal and should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his mind to what is involved. It seems to me, that having at last got, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, a real representative of the old Manchester school to which I myself belong, he should consider what is the bearing of those excellent and sound economic principles on a proposal to reduce the Entertainments Duty. I think if he were to follow up the line of thought I have suggested he might arrive at the same conclusion as I have done. The question really is, if we drop the revenue to be obtained from the Entertainments Duty on the lower-priced seats, where is the money to come from to make up the deficit involved? It appears to me that, ultimately, it will come either from food taxation in one form or another, or from some form of direct taxation, and I venture to submit to him, he and myself being the only two Members of the House who really understand the old Manchester school, that the burden upon the struggling poor at the present time is made far greater if direct taxation be increased. I have worked out what is the weekly contribution per man in direct taxation in my own works, and I find the result very startling indeed. I find, as a matter of fact, that if there were on my business no direct taxation, Income Tax or Super-tax, and no rates, which are another
    974
    form of direct taxation, the wages of every man I employ would go up by the amount of 17s. 3d. per week. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would they get it?"] Under the system I work they would get every penny of it. It seems to me that any addition to the enormous burden of direct taxation is to be deprecated. At the present time, perhaps, one of the reasons we are suffering from the burden of unemployment is that the supply of liquid credit is distinctly reduced, as compared with the period before the War. The reduction of liquid credit is very largely due to heavy taxation, particularly the Super-tax. I think, therefore, that the Chancellor will probably agree with me this—at any rate, perhaps agree privately, although not in front of the House—that of all burdens which the poor have to suffer at the present day, Super-tax is the most direct load upon the poorest paid labour in the country. For this reason, those of us who are engaged in industry would, if we were relieved from the burden of Income Tax, spend the money thus left to us in riotous living in some form or another! But the money paid in Super-tax is almost invariably what would form new capital.
    A little knowledge of the industrial conditions of this country would show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Super-tax levied on those who are engaged in the industries of this country is taking away directly the funds which would become further capital, and would be available for the extension of industry and for the relief of unemployment. That being so, a reduction of Super-tax would be of much greater use to the poorest paid workers of this country, and would relieve their burden imcomparably more, because their burden is not so much the low wages as the state of unemployment at the present time. Certainly it would relieve them very much more to reduce the Super-tax by an equivalent amount, than to reduce the Entertainments Duty. I do hope that the Chancellor, who, as I say, probably looks upon these matters more or less as I do; will give his mind to a consideration of this problem; go back upon the policy suggested, and will take an equivalent amount from direct taxation in order that he may restore this most admirable, most fair, and in every way beneficial tax upon the entertainments industry.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I never expected to live to see the day when the hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson) and I would be agreed on any question under the sun. The charm of the hon. Member in this House is that he stands alone. All the opinions he expresses are entirely of his own manufacture. He suggested that we should be in agreement. I am afraid that is not the case. I do not think that on an Amendment of this character it is appropriate to enter into an elaborate discussion of the incidence of direct and indirect taxation The hon Gentleman gave us an interesting statement to the effect that but for direct taxation, and if direct taxes could be abolished, the wages he paid his workmen would be increased by 17s. a week. Might I make a comment upon that statement? When direct taxation was about one-fifth of the amount that it is to-day, were the wages of the workpeople 17s. per week higher than they are to-day? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The hon. Gentleman knows that that was not so. Wages were lower when the Income Tax stood at 1s. in the £ and there was no Super-tax.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman speaking of wages in general? Is he referring to district rates, or trade union rates? It is difficult to say offhand, without consideration, whether there has been any actual increase in the real value of wages in the two periods, because my rate is not the district rate.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: However, to deal with the Amendment before the House. It is an Amendment which, I admit, is in a somewhat different category to most of the Amendments on the Order Paper, because if it were accepted, it would increase the yield of the revenue. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment suggested how we might dispose of the additional revenue. I am afraid that he has little idea of the yield of the proposed increase of taxation he suggests by this Amendment. The amount of increase of revenue by the adoption of the proposal of the hon. Member would be under £1,000,000 a year. The cost of penny postage, which he suggested, would be well over £5,000,000 per year. However, the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot be accepted, because
    976
    it is quite impracticable. He proposes to put on one farthing in a great many cases, namely, those where the admission price is threepence and less. There are millions of people who will be affected by this. Again, it would be quite impossible to adjust the price to this small tax. That is the insuperable obstacle to the adoption of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal. The hon. Member for Mossley spoke of the tenets, theories and principles, of the Manchester School. It is a long time since the theories of the Manchester School dominated political opinion in this country. However, in one great respect the principles of Liberal finance and Liberal taxation was to exempt from taxation altogether a minimum income. I remember Mr. Gladstone on one occasion said something to the effect that it was nothing short of criminal to tax an income which, in itself, was insufficient to provide for the bare necessities of life. The proposal I make to abolish the duty on prices below sixpence conforms to that canon. In one sense an entertainment may not be a luxury; what in the entertainment may be a luxury is the accommodation that is provided. People may pay 6d. to see an entertainment for which other people pay 3s. 6d., others 15s., and so on. These larger prices probably represent luxury. Again, I think that an entertainment, sports, and the like, which will be affected by the abolition of the duty, are in the nature of rational and health-giving things. For these reasons, first of all because it would be quite impossible to work the hon. Member's Amendment, and, secondly, because I desire to relieve taxation upon the poorest part of the population and particularly in relation to certain reasonable means of recreation and amusement, I must ask the House to stand by the proposal made by the Government.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to me to be making too much of the administrative difficulty involved in charging a duty in so low a unit as a farthing, because surely this farthing would not be dealt with by those who go to the entertainment; it would be paid in bulk in the form of stamps or otherwise, which could be arranged by the proprietor of the entertainment. I think also the argument

    977
    about direct and indirect taxation hardly applies. It might apply if the remission was going to the consumer of the entertainment, but, as I will show in a moment, a great deal of it is likely to stick between the fingers of the proprietor of the entertainment; hence there is really no application of this description of direct and indirect taxation. I do not commit myself in any way to the details of the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) has put down. Personally I had a different scheme in view for insuring that the benefits should be passed on, but I did not put down an Amendment, because I doubted whether it would be in order as it would have increased the charge upon the taxpayer.
    But I do sympathise with the object of this Amendment, because there is no, doubt that in the way the scheme has been drawn there is very great danger that a large amount of the benefit will not be passed on. The cinema trade, in the long agitation which they have conducted for the last few years, have been repeating continually that they did not wish to make any money out of the remission of the Entertainments Duty in the form of keeping back the tax which is taken off—that they proposed to get their benefit by getting more people to their entertainment. The schedule which is proposed to the Chancellor makes it certain that the proprietors of entertainments must get some of this money which is being remitted because they cannot give back the halfpennies to the public. It is impossible to give change in the denomination of a halfpenny. In the same way, when you come to charge for admission for sports, it is impossible, where you have to charge a shilling or a multiple of a shilling, to give back a penny. It is quite certain in all these cases a lot of benefit must go, for administrative reasons, to the proprietors. I do not say that the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) will give back to the full to those sections of the public who lose on the admission, but it would achieve a rough-and-ready justice; and I do think, in view of the fact that, in the nature of the case, a great deal of the remission would not be passed on, it would be fair to average out the loss to the public by charging this smaller entertainments duty in this Bill, and so take
    978
    from the proprietors some part of the admission which would otherwise go into their pockets.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I am inclined to think that the real reason behind the moving of this Amendment is because of the fear hon. Members opposite have of taking something away from the very poorest of those who go to see our picture entertainments. Some of us on these benches look to this proposal as only the beginning of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do in this direction. The Mover of this Amendment spoke of the Entertainments Duty as a luxury tax. That might be obvious if the hon. Member had in mind 15s. being paid for an entertainment, but the very section to which the hon. Member refers in his Amendment includes only those who pay 6d. and under for admission. In other words we are going to penalise school children who go to the theatre or to see an entertainment of educational value by imposing an additional charge upon them. The very poorest of our population who pay 6d. or less for admission do not call it a luxury. I wonder if the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment has ever sat in a 6d. seat or a seat at less than 6d; if so he would certainly appreciate the luxury of that entertainment. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will refuse this Amendment, and I trust what we have done in the way of a reduction of the Entertainments Duty is merely a beginning of the entire abolition of the tax upon all working-class entertainments in regard to the lower amounts paid for admission.
    Major COLFOX: One or two most astounding arguments have been brought forward against this Amendment. The statement, because it was not an argument, was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. W. M. Adamson), was to the effect that the Entertainments Duty is not a, luxury tax, and the hon. Member who spoke last said that an entertainment might be a luxury if you had to pay 15s. for admission. Apparently it is a luxury for one man to be entertained, whereas it is a necessity for another, and that seems to me to be a most extraordinary perversion of mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the difficulty of the collection of these

    979
    small amounts made the scheme suggested by me unworkable and impracticable. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) disposed fully of that argument, as it must be quite obvious that it is quite easy to collect even small amounts by stamps in bulk. We have been told that an argument against this Amendment is that it is criminal to tax the lowest possible income. I would point out that no man, woman, or child is compelled to attend any place of entertainment, and, therefore, you are not compelling anybody by this proposal to contribute to the taxation of the country. I contend that my proposal is the essence of justice, and no sound arguments have been adduced to show that it is either unworkable or unjust, and, therefore, I feel that it is absolutely necessary to take a Division upon it.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The CHAIRMAN(having collected the voices): The "Noes" have it.
    Major COLFOX: Since you have put the Question, Mr. Chairman, in the form "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," and as you have declared that "the Noes have it," the words are now left out.
    The CHAIRMAN: I confess, as my attention was drawn at the time to something else, that possibly I have made a mistake.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We challenged the Question on this side and declared "The Ayes have it."
    The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the challenge.
    Major COLFOX: You, Mr. Chairman, declared "The Noes have it" in the presence of us all, and, having done that, you cannot go back upon your own decision in this matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: If that be so, it will be necessary to put the words in on the Report stage.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that no Entertainments Duty shall be chargeable on any agricultural or
    980
    horticultural show where the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that the whole of the profits therefrom are devoted to agricultural or horticultural or educational purposes."
    The Entertainments Duty was introduced to place a tax upon performances run for profit nearly every day in the year, and it never was the intention to tax occasional agricultural or horticultural shows held once or twice a year not for the ordinary purposes of making a profit. Ever since this tax has been in force it has been more and more realised by making small concessions that these shows are not entertainments, and should not be looked upon in that light. Most of these shows run in the North of England, in addition to having a band, some of them arrange sports, but even if you only arrange a race for school children that brings the show under the Entertainments Duty, and if you have a choir in place of a band at any small show of this kind, it brings that show under the Entertainments Duty.
    I think it should be within the capabilities of the Law Officers of the Crown to be able to decide exactly what is an entertainment and give us an accurate definition, so that it will include only those regular entertainments which are run for profit, and not include those which are only occasionally held solely for agricultural, horticultural or educational purposes, such as the promotion of horse breeding, the giving of prizes for allotment gardens, or for increasing the production of vegetables, and other utilitarian purposes for which prizes are given away.
    The resultant profit is so small that since the introduction of the Entertainments Duty there has been a deficit at many of these shows, and a great many of them have been given up in consequence. Some of them have been faced with two or three bad years, and the Entertainments Duty has absorbed the whole of the small profits they were making, and they have been compelled to close down. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should exclude these particular forms of entertainment from this tax. I am sure that many Members of the Labour party would be only too ready to vote for this concession. I would like to read a few words from a

    981
    speech made by the Lord Privy Seal on this point, in which he said:
    "It would be proper that the Government should recognise that at least those purely temporary and occasional forms of entertainment, not organised primarily for the purpose of making a profit, but for the purpose of carrying on a custom or meeting local necessities, should be entirely exempt from the Entertainments Duty."
    That was what the Lord Privy Seal said on this point.
    Mr. GAVAN-DUFFY: Why did you not do it?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY:: We did not realise how small the concession was until it was too late, and we are now asking for this concession to be increased. Where does the money realised at entertainments come from? It comes from the theatres and cinemas, and the amount realised from the shows I am dealing with is very small indeed, and its imposition is annoying and irritating. We want to encourage these shows, and this duty is very detrimental to their success. The amount required to make this concession is a very small one. The right hon. Gentleman has made a great concession this year in regard to the Entertainments Duty, and he has made it, we might say, for the purpose of vote catching, and I know this proposal of mine is not one likely to attract votes, as only a small amount is required.
    Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: There is an election coming on.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The Chancellor of Exchequer might see his way to grant this small concession. At times the right hon. Gentleman, I know, is very careful in regard to national finance, but at other times he is extremely reckless. This would only amount to a few thousands a year, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can afford to give away £2,500,000 a year that was coming in from the McKenna Duties, he can, surely, afford this. I would, therefore, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue the concession that was begun last year, and to carry it out fully, so that what are genuinely agricultural and horticultural shows may be exempt from this so-called Entertainments Duty.
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend has moved is one which I hope will secure
    982
    support in all parts of the Committee. I heard the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan), who is so very articulate this afternoon, ask why this was not done last year, and I propose to try to answer that question.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg leave to correct that remark. I only said that there might be an election; I did not say anything about last year.
    Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. and gallant Member's memory is not so keen as his voice.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is it quite in order, Mr. Young, for the hon. and learned Gentleman to impute to me a sentence which I never said at all?
    Sir T. INSKIP: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is so very touchy about it, I will certainly withdraw.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It is a question of being accurate; it is not at all a question of being touchy.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Then, as I may take it that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not have asked the question, it must have been one of his neighbours. Perhaps I might suggest that, if all of them keep silence, none of them will have false charges made against them.
    Lieut.: Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Surely, we are entitled to have some respect shown to this side of the Committee, and not to be described as "neighbours," seeing that we are hon. Members of the House just as much as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I am very unfortunate this afternoon, but I do want to secure the support of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee for this Amendment. Let me suppose that someone asked the question why we did not do this last year. If I may remind hon. Members of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1923, with regard to this point, they will remember that two conditions must be fulfilled before a horticultural or an agricultural show can be exempt. First of all, the society which provides the entertainment must be solely or partly established for the purpose of promoting the interests of any industry; and, secondly, the enter-

    983
    tainment must consist solely of an exhibition of the products of the industry in question or of materials, machinery, appliances, or foodstuffs used in the production of its products. It was anticipated—and I can speak with some slight authority on this point, because I had a connection with the Finance Bill of 1923—it was anticipated that the new provisions would be interpreted liberally in the interests of the horticultural and agricultural societies, in which all Members of the House are genuinely interested, and that, where there was really no entertainment outside the genuine purposes of such a show, no Entertainment Duty would be charged.
    In a particular show in which I am interested from time to time in Wigtownshire, the Wigtownshire Horticultural Society's Exhibition, there has been an illustration of the change in practice, which may or may not have synchronised with the advent to office of the Labour Government, or it may be that there has been a change of some officer; but, of course, I cannot attack the permanent servant, and must make my criticism upon the right hon. Gentleman and his administration. In 1923 the society conducted its show and obtained the exemption, but this year, through following the same procedure, it has been told that it is not entitled to the exemption which it was intended should be conferred upon it by the Act of 1923, for reasons which I am sure will astonish hon. Members. As I have pointed out, such a show has to consist of an exhibition of the products of the industry or of materials or foodstuffs and so on used in the production of its products. The Wigtownshire Horticultural Society is unfortunate enough to have included within its prize-list a number of so-called children's classes, the only reason for calling them children's classes being to limit the age of the competitors. The exhibits in the children's classes include a bouquet of wild flowers, a collection of wild fruit, and a knitted woollen jumper. The next set of classes are eight or ten in number, and include the cooking of four plain soda scones, four potato scones, one home-made loaf, and so on. Other classes are for the exhibition of sections of honey and for toffee and fancy sweets; and the last class which I wish to mention to the Committee is for the
    984
    knitting, not by children, but by persons of any age, of a woollen or silk jumper.
    The administration of the Customs and Excise Department has said that the Horticultural Society of Wigtownshire is not entitled to exemption from Entertainments Duty, on the following grounds. So far as the classes intended for children are concerned, they must, they say, be promoted by some school or educational authority before they can come under the protection of the Statute. The next objection is that the cooking of scones and home-made loaves relates to the promotion of public health, and, therefore, has nothing to do with the horticultural society. The next objection is that the exhibition of sections of honey has nothing to do with a horticultural society, because it pertains to the agricultural interest. The next objection is that, with regard to the exhibition of toffee and fancy sweets—even if all the other objections could be got over as to the inclusion of honey, the baking of scones, the exhibition of a bouquet of wild flowers, and so on—the inclusion of toffee and fancy sweets renders the entertainment one that is not solely in the interests of horticulture, because they belong to the department of public health. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the jumpers?"] I will tell the hon. Member about the jumpers. The jumpers are objected to by this official—who is careful to write that he is writing under instructions, indicating, if one may read between the lines, that he suspects that all that he is writing is not common sense—this official objects to the jumpers on the ground that he is instructed that they relate, not to the horticultural industry, but to the home industry, whatever that may be.
    Mr. MACKINDER: What is the date of that?
    Sir T. INSKIP: The date of the exhibition with regard to which I have been quoting the particulars was the 24th August, 1923, and the date of the letter of which I have given the effect to the Committee was the 23rd June, 1924. I suggest to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that this is really a reductio ad absurdum of this Section. I am fortunate enough to have this illustration, because some of my interests are in that part of the country, and it is a show which concerns a sparsely

    985
    populated district and excites great interest. The society will be quite unable to continue if this Entertainments Duty is to be levied upon it. I have no doubt, and I do not think that any hon. Member in this Committee will have any doubt, that this particular society and numbers of other similar ones come within the purview of the relief which the House of Commons intended to give. This sort of quibble is unworthy of Parliament, even if the permanent officials are justified in the interpretation which they put upon the words of the Section, and I hope that from that point of view the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend will be accepted. If it is not accepted, I have given notice of an Amendment, which I shall ask leave to move in due course, to substitute for the word "solely," in the Act of 1923, the word "mainly," which will enable this Section to be administered in accordance with the dictates of common sense.
    Captain BRASS: I desire to support what my hon. and gallant Friend has said in moving the insertion of these words. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly willing in his Budget to give a general concession, as far as the Entertainments Duty is concerned, to everyone who goes to a cinema or theatre or similar place of amusement. The agricultural or horticultural show is much more a matter of business than of pleasure. A man goes to the cinema or to the theatre because he wants to be amused, but he goes to an agricultural show for a different purpose. He goes there because he wants to exchange ideas with his friends, because he wants to learn something, and also because he may want to compete. He may have cattle which compete with other cattle in the particular show in question, and there is no doubt that these shows have done an enormous amount of good for agriculture in this country. Why is it that we in this country are so far ahead of other countries in the breeding of pedigree herds? I feel firmly convinced that it is due to a large extent to the number of agricultural shows that we hold in this country. It is there that you get this healthy competition, and I myself think that competition is the lifeblood of any industry. Hon. Members opposite may not agree with that, because I think they do not agree with healthy competition quite so much as we do on this side. I do think, however, that the
    986
    healthy competition of these agricultural shows is a very great help in increasing the efficiency of the industry. This Entertainments Duty does hit our agricultural shows and is harmful to them in a certain degree, and I do think that at the present time, when we are already handicapped in every industry in this country by unemployment, we want to do all that we can to remove any possible handicap on a great industry like the agricultural industry of this country.
    Mr. LOVERSEED: The only source of attraction in the very sparsely populated districts like my own is the small agricultural and horticultural shows which are held during the summer months. I have had letters from the promoters of quite a number of the smaller shows in my constituency, pointing out that this tax has a very serious effect upon their undertakings, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept this Amendment, or otherwise to include in an Amendment the point suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip). I do not wish to labour the point, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept this Amendment, which I believe will have the support of every Member of the Committee who represents an agricultural district.
    Major STEEL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment. On all sides of the House we realise that these agricultural shows do a great deal of good. They encourage the breeding of good cattle and promote competition between farmers, and the name this country has got throughout the world for cattle and sheep breeding is, to a certain extent at all events, due to the holding of these agricultural shows. I know very well that there is a very large number, especially of small agricultural societies, which are in rather a bad way. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) referred to one society in Wigtownshire. I know of another society, not so very faraway from that county, which is also in a very bad state financially, and I attended their annual meeting last winter, when the question came up whether they could carry on the show again this year. It was pointed out that during the last two or three years there had been a deficit, which was to a large extent caused

    987
    by the amount the society had had to pay in Entertainments Duty. The principal object of an agricultural show is that the farmers may send their stock there and exhibit and thereby promote the breeding of good stock. Of course, one has to realise that a large number of the people who go to a show are not particularly interested in stock, and that you cannot get a sufficient amount of gate money to make the show pay unless you are going to have some other attraction, and therefore it is necessary that a society should have some attraction in the nature of sports or horse jumping or something of that sort in order to attract the public. The profits of such a society are entirely used for the purpose of carrying on the show, or for some agricultural purpose, and, indeed, the Amendment provides that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall not give this relief unless they are satisfied that the whole of the profits are used for some agricultural purpose. In view of the difficulties of so many of these societies, especially the small ones—I am particularly pleading for the small ones—in carrying on their annual show unless some remission is given to them in relation to Entertainments Duty, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Amendment favourable consideration.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I wish to put in a plea for a class which has not been mentioned in this Debate. I am not so greatly concerned in regard to the great agricultural societies and shows, but I am very intimately concerned to try to get this very small remission of taxation on behalf of the small permanent shows—on behalf of allotment holders. These are people who do not organise shows on a great scale. Their efforts are generally on the most modest possible scale, but they are doing work in our cities of incomparable value. Both in the constituency I now represent and that which I formerly represented there are a very large number of these small allotment holders' societies. They are very closely interested in the Amendments, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give it sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. GEOFFREY HOWARD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment. Anyone who
    988
    has any acquaintance with rural districts knows the real cases of hardship that arise. I have had occasion to bring before the Financial Secretary a case of real hardship that happened near my home: a small agricultural show in Yorkshire which, struggling under great difficulties and in bad weather, the previous year had instituted a writing competition for the school children of the village. Not being well up in the forms of procedure they failed to get the leave of the education committee to hold it, which would have exempted them from paying Entertainments Duty. The Excise officer descended upon them and claimed £7, a most serious sum of money for them. I really think this might be done in the case of agriculture and horticulture in the rural districts.
    Mr. HANNON: I also should like to support the Amendment. I am the vice-president of an agricultural show which has been in existence for the last 20 years and has done most valuable educational work in the Midland Counties. It has been gathering strength during the past few years, but is particularly handicapped by this tax. We had at the last show something like 12,000 people, who could not have been brought there if certain forms of entertainment had not been provided to attract them, and the educational value of the show would have been far less if we had not got a large number of people present. No one is more sympathetic with the efforts of the rural population to educate themselves than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All through the country we have small rural shows being organised for the purpose of educating the allotment holders and smallholders in obtaining the highest economical results from their holdings. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) on the importance of encouraging these allotment and smallholders to make the best of their opportunities, and it would be deplorable if in this House, after all the sympathy we have expressed Session after Session with the smallholders and allotment holders, we should tax them now so as to prevent them making all that possible out of their opportunities. We are all anxious to support these agricultural, horticultural and poultry shows and these small organisations, which serve as an education to a class of people we all wish to

    989
    encourage, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will extend his sympathy to the Amendment.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The kind of show to which the hon. Member who has just sat down has alluded is now exempted from Entertainments Duty. It is only when the horticultural or agricultural or industrial society goes outside the purpose for which it exists and makes its exhibition something other than an agricultural or horticultural show or an industrial exhibition that it is liable to the duty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) spoke about the need for encouraging the breeding of pedigree horses. That question is not in the least involved in the Amendment, and if it were carried it would neither injure nor improve the breeding of pedigree horses.
    Captain BRASS: I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that a large amount of the money which is necessary to carry on these shows comes from the people who are not breeding the horses but from those who go to see the shows.
    Mr. SNOWDEN:: Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not need to remind me of that very obvious fact. I cannot but admire the interest which hon. Members opposite are taking in the matter raised by the Amendment, and I will do some of them the justice to say that when they sat upon this side of the House they did raise this question, and some of them were successful last year in getting a concession, and I would ask them whether the concessions which were given last year are not sufficient to meet every reasonable need. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am sure they are. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) gave us the case of a show in his own constituency. I wish he had submitted that case to me. We get a great many complaints of that sort and in a number of cases we are able to give some accommodation.
    Sir T. INSKIP: I should be very glad to go to the Treasury and try to get some remission, but I cannot say some of us are encouraged sometimes in these matters. If I had been to the Treasury, I should probably be too late to try to bring some pressure to bear in the matter.
    Mr. GEOFFREY HOWARD: The case I put before the Committee was taken to the Treasury, and I got a refusal.
    Mr. SNOWDEN:: Probably it was not a good case. Let me remind the hon. Members what the conditions are:

    "(a) That the entertainment is provided by a society which is not established or conducted for profit; and

    (b) That the society is established solely or partly for the purpose of promoting the interest of any industry (including agriculture, horticulture and live-stock breeding); and

    (c) That the entertainment consists solely, apart from a performance of music by a band, of an exhibition of the products of the industry for promoting the interests of which the society exists or of materials, machinery, appliances or foodstuffs used in the production of those products, or displays of skill by workers in the industry in work pertaining to the industry."

    Those elaborate regulations were introduced into the law last, year by the Government in which the hon. and learned Gentleman was Solicitor-General, and I submit that they cover everything which can reasonably be regarded as being within the province of an agricultural or horticultural society or an industrial exhibition, and if such a society goes outside provisions which are made here and introduces something altogether extraneous to the purpose for which this society was formed, it is competing in the entertainment business with other entertainments.
    May I point out a further result which would accrue from the adoption of the Amendment? At the present time these horticultural or agricultural shows can dispose of their profits as they think fit. They can give donations to local hospitals or to other local charities, as I believe in many cases they do, but if this Amendment were passed, it would limit these societies in the disposal of their profits, because they could only be used for agricultural, horticultural or educational purposes. The interpretation would give rise to many complaints and a sense of injustice. This Amendment would cost a considerable amount of money, and there are other Amendments on the Paper of a somewhat analogous character. Of course, the adoption of the Amendment would cost a great deal less than it would have cost 12 months ago, because a good

    991
    part of the income from these shows will be exempt from Duty. They will be entirely free unless the charge is more than 6d., and the duty at present paid up to 1s. 3d. will also be less. That will give a very considerable amount of relief.
    Captain BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cost would be?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No. It is difficult to say what the exact cost would be but, at all events, it is more than I am in a position to afford. If we were to make a further concession than that which was given last year we should be opening the door still further for claims which it would be difficult to resist. There is an Amendment on the Paper to exempt from Entertainments Duty all entertainments where the profits are devoted to charitable purposes.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: So they ought to be.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: When we come to that Amendment, I shall have something to say to show that some of these entertainments ought not to be exempt. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that some enterments which are supposed to be for the purpose of charity are far from eligible in that respect. The Regulations which are in existence are quite sufficient to cover every bona-fide agricultural, horticultural or similar show. The concession in regard to the Entertainments Duty already made will go a long way to relieve these societies, and I cannot afford this suggested new concession, however small the amount involved may be. Therefore, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. I do not look forward to the Entertainments Duty being a permanent part of the fiscal system of this country. I have expressed my views upon it on many occasions. It is an irritating tax, a tax which it is difficult to collect, and it is bound to create a great deal of irritation, but I am afraid that we shall have to submit to these irritations until we are in a position to wipe out the tax altogether.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I think the Committee will be much disappointed at the very uncompromising and rigid attitude which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken up in regard to this
    992
    admitted grievance. When the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. G. Howard) brought forward a case and said he went to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the fact that the Treasury had turned it down showed what an absurd ease it was. I do not think that is at all the reason. I think the inference is not that the case was absurd and not that the Treasury was unreasonable, but that the law as it at present stands is not well calculated to deal with these grievances. It is a most undesirable principle to suggest that Members of Parliament should be always going to the Treasury on these matters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that it was rather the fault of the hon. and earned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inakip) that his grievance had not been remedied, and that if he had gone to the Treasury it would have been all right. In the next sentence he tells us what happened to another hon. Member who went to the Treasury. The only relief that we can get in these matters is not by going to the Treasury, who can only interpret the law, but by amending the law so as to get the right provisions. It is very unsatisfactory.
    Mr. STEPHEN: It was very unsatisfactory last year when you were on this side.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS:: Last year a new system was tried, but that system has proved too rigid. Some limitation must, obviously, be imposed, but after a year's experience it is not unreasonable to try to lighten the burden where it seems to press unduly. Ft is an unreasonable limitation that you shall only be allowed at these shows to get remission of taxation if the entertainment is purely of a, character relating to the industry or interest concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would do nothing to help horse breeding if we allow them to have these entertainments duty-free. It would help horse breeding by obtaining more money for that purpose. It is not suggested that the giving of a variety performance. at an agricultural show, or some other kind of side show, is going to help the breeding of horses, but these agricultural shows cannot be carried out unless they get funds, and they can only get funds by attracting a large entrance from the public. You can only get that public support if you cater for the

    993
    public. You can then use the money which the public give for an afternoon's amusement for the encouragement of agriculture and horse breeding.
    It is reasonable to help agriculture by the modification of the present system. At the same time, I think that this Amendment is very widely drawn. It may be that it would allow such a latitude in entertainments as would enable a really serious leakage in Duty to take place and would allow advantage to be taken by organisations which the Committee has not in view. It might be, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, that this Amendment would be inconvenient in limiting the objects to which the funds raised by such shows might be applied. However, I think he would do well to adopt the alternative of the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol, to amend the legislation of last year by widening Sub-section (b) of Section 11, which deals with the definition of societies qualified for this concession, and bringing in educational and philanthropic societies, and then, under Subsection (c), enabling the concession to be enjoyed if the entertainment consists mainly of the character laid down. I believe in that way the Treasury will be able to meet the legitimate case that has been put forward on behalf of these shows, and which will be put forward on behalf of charitable, educational and philanthropical entertainments, and that there will be sufficient discretion and sufficient elasticity to avoid any undue leakage of revenue.
    Mr. BLACK: I support the claims made on behalf of the Amendment. We who represent agricultural areas know that at these small shows which only last for a day or two in the country districts there is no competition with other entertainments. I was rather surprised to hear the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would be losing a substantial sum of money because these shows would compete with other entertainments in the neighbourhood. The small side shows at these rural agricultural shows are to help them to pay. It is with the utmost difficulty that some of these shows can make a credit balance. If there is a wet day the show is a loss, and in addition to the loss the promoters of the show have to pay Entertainments Duty. I appeal to
    994
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer to listen to the requests that have been made. I feel very strongly about it, because many societies in my district have sent me letters, and I hope the Mover of the Amendment will carry it to a Division. My impression is that on all sides we shall find a desire that this Amendment should be embodied in the Finance Act. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that he will meet the matter in some, way. We are not bound by the phraseology of the Amendment; what we want is the substance.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It is quite evident that there is a widespread, strong feeling upon this matter, and I do not think it would be impossible to meet the kind of grievance illustrated by the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) this afternoon. Those hon. Members who heard the hon. and learned Member will remember that he suggested that in the event of the Amendment, not being accepted or carried he would later move a further Amendment. I am extremely anxious to meet the Committee if it be administratively possible, and if it can be done without opening the door too wide and encouraging an abuse of the concessions which have already been made. If the Committee will allow me, I am prepared to put forward this suggestion—to consider what we can do in the way of amending the Regulations, particularly the third Regulation, in order to cover such a case as that cited by the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol, and to give a little more latitude than is permitted at the present time, so as not to regard as disqualifying for exemption from duty all those little things to which the hon. and learned Member referred. I am prepared to consider this matter and see what we can do between now and the Report stage, and if the Committee will agree with that I will promise to do the very best I can to see if some accommodation may be possible.
    Viscount WOLMER: I would like to try to get some complete understanding as to what the promise of the right hon. Gentleman amounts to. I want the right hon. Gentleman to be under no misconception as to what we are asking for on this side of the House and below the Gangway, because, judging from his first speech, he seems to us to have been

    995
    under a misconception as to the conditions in which these country shows take place. We have in mind a small country village where the show is an annual event, and the show cannot be made a success unless you bring in these ancillary industries such as children's knitting competitions and the like, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) detailed to the House. That sort of thing must be made part of the annual show. I believe that it was the intention of the House to include those items last year. The words then put in have been found to be too narrow. All we are asking is that they shall be extended. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I am not going to 'be browbeaten by hon. Members opposite, and if they continue to interrupt speeches of hon. Members on this side it will simply mean that those speeches will take longer.
    We are not concerned with the words. Provided that the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds a form of words which will meet the case of the ordinary village show we will be content. From his speech it appears that he has no personal experience of such shows, and has not the slightest conception of the conditions in which they work. Everybody who has had practical experience of these shows knows that it is necessary that all the resources of the village, all the branches of industry and activity in the life of the village must be grouped together in this one show, each department with its own representation. It is of course a country village which is mainly agricultural, but these other things must be brought in, and entertainments are also necessary so as to attract as great a number of people as possible. It is grotesque to say that a show held in those conditions is competing against theatrical and other outside entertainments. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to meet us in substance we are not going to trouble him about the words, but I am not going to be silenced by the barking, bellowings and noise of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am toe old a hand in this House not to know that it is
    a good thing to accept a concession when it is given in the temperate spirit in which this has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that he understands the point and intends to
    996
    meet it. There are only two points about which I would like to ask him. The first is, whether the general decision which he will give will cover the subsequent Amendments on the Paper dealing with further modifications of the Entertainments Duty. If it does so it will very greatly shorten this Debate, and we are just as anxious to shorten it as he is. The second is as to the modification of Section (11) of the Finance Act of 1923. The point is whether he could not find it possible to put in a modification as a new Clause, as was suggested by my hon. and learned Friend opposite, instead of leaving it to the Report stage, which may be a hurried procedure. If he could do that there would be no need for us to advance points which some of us consider to be of great importance, points connected with philanthropic, educational and charitable purposes. He may not be able to meet us completely, but he may put down the words of a, new Clause, and we can take a Debate on that.
    Sir T. INSKIP: I accept what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, that he would be prepared to insert my word "mainly" in place of "solely." I understand him, with the natural caution of a Chancellor, to say that he is anxious not to insert something which will raise more difficulties, but. I do think that this is a fairly simple Amendment, and if he will put in this new sub-Clause which I propose now, I think that the matter is so simple that, on Report stage, if there is any complication, he will be able to correct it. I think that the Committee generally prefers to settle these matters as it goes along, and I think that my hon. Friends behind me will be prepared to accept what the Chancellor has suggested if he will do it now.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that it is reasonable to expect me, on the spur of the moment, to see everything which would be involved in an Amendment of this nature. The whole matter shall be fully considered with the object of arriving at a conclusion which will meet the strongly-expressed views of so many Members of the Committee. The question of amending Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1923, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, will have to be considered by the draftsman, but, at any rate, I cannot go further than what I have stated. Before

    997
    we get to the Report stage there can be submitted to the House the conclusions at which I have arrived.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ROBERT JACKSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that no Entertainments Duty shall be chargeable on performances of musical societies where the Commissioners of Custom; are satisfied that the profits derived from such performances are devoted to objects of a musical educational character."
    My object in moving this Amendment is to remove what is an obstacle to the spread of musical education in. this country. In doing so, I am fortunate in appealing to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is, I believe, a patron of the musical art. In 1921 the President of the Board of Education set up a Committee on adult education. This Committee in their Report stated unanimously that it would be a good thing for the development of popular musical education to make use of the musical societies that existed up and down the country. I maintain that the operations of these societies are entirely educational, and in that I want no better support than the findings of this Committee on adult education. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will advance against the Amendment the argument that it would interfere with the revenue which he derives from other entertainments. On the contrary, I submit that the development which is taking place in the work of these voluntary organisations is creating an additional set of customers for the more professional entertainments from which the Chancellor draws his taxation.
    The members of these societies devote a considerable amount of time to the work of rehearsal and practice, especially during the winter months, and they look to their performances as a means of augmenting their income. I submit that their work is of real educational value, and in support of that I would remind the Chancellor that in the agricultural districts of the Eastern Counties this kind of musical effort is spreading to an enormous extent. I am pleased to note that the President of the Board of Education is present. The constituency which I represent is essentially an industrial con-
    998
    stituency, but it is part of a vast agricultural area and it is also the centre from which a multitude of musical activities may be spread throughout the villages and over our countryside, and if you are going to preserve British agriculture you are also going to restore merry England to your countryside. These societies are doing an enormous amount of educational work, and the incidence of this tax is making it difficult for them to carry on. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be prompted by his very excellent Financial Secretary to retort that in the case, for instance, of the Glasgow Orpheus Society, that society has bulging profits. I can only say that the Glasgow Orpheus Society is like most Scottish institutions and like most Scotsmen unique, but, on the other hand, if the Chancellor will look at the objects of the society he will find that they are entirely of an educational and useful character. The appeal which I am making has the unanimous endorsement of no fewer than 45 musical associations in the Eastern Counties, with a membership of something like 4,000. All these 4,000 people are keen musicians, anxious to further the cause of music. They hold that the existence of this duty is unduly interfering with their operations. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will regard the work of these societies as of even greater educational value than the work of fat stock shows.
    Mr. SNOWMEN: I regret that I act unable to accept the Amendment. Under the existing law, entertainments for educational purposes are regarded as philanthropic for the purpose of relief from Entertainments Duty, provided that the whole of the expenses do not exceed 30 per cent. of the receipts. This proposal in its general application to all entertainments devoted to philanthropic and charitable purposes is of the same character as other Amendments on the Paper, and it would be quite impossible to accept one without accepting the others. The united effect of them all, from the financial point of view, would be far too great for the Budget to bear. There are also administrative difficulties. If this exemption were allowed for non-profit-making societies, it would be quite impossible to resist demands in favour of wholly educational entertainments. It is very difficult to define what is meant by

    999
    an educational entertainment. It might be said that a performance of Shakespeare, if carried out by an amateur dramatic society, had an educational effect. Therefore, it would be exempt from Entertainments Duty. Assuming that the patrons of a performance pay the tax, why should the same people going to hear a performance of an oratorio by some local harmonic society be exempt from the tax, and yet have to pay the tax if they hear the same oratorio by professional people? I do not think that that can be justified at all. Insuperable difficulties would arise in defining what was a performance of an educational character. As I said on previous Amendments, incongruities and hardships arising out of the application of the Entertainments Duty will have to be endured until we are in a position to sweep that tax away altogether.
    Mr. JACKSON: The Chancellor's illustration of a performance by local amateurs and a similar performance by professional people does not hold good. The Commissioners have given a remission of tax where the concert is a municipal concert.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The interpretation of the word "educational" in regard to a performance under the existing law is that education must be tutorial. In the case of the concert cited that definition falls to the ground. Where a lecturer is in direct communication with his audience the education is of a tutorial nature.
    Amendment negatived.
    Lieut-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to add a new Sub-section—
    "(4) Notwithstanding anything in Section one of The Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by any subsequent enactment, Entertainments Duty shall not be charged for admission to any entertainment where the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that the whole of the profits thereof are devoted to philanthropic, charitable, or educational purposes."
    As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said, the position to-day is, that where 30 per cent. of the expenses of any of these entertainments is exceeded the Entertainments Duty comes into force for that entertainment. That figure has been arrived gradually. The year before the allowance was 20 per cent. I think that tends to the view that this form of
    1000
    entertainment, where all the profits are to go to charitable purposes, was never intended originally to come under the Entertainments Duty. Each Government each year has made some small concession. At first it allowed expenses up to 20 per cent., then up to 30 per cent., which is the position we are` in to-day. More and more money is required for the hospitals. The hospitals have been very hard hit by the high taxation, and, with the duty as it is to-day, money that would go to the hospitals is taken away from them. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exempt entertainments that are solely for philanthropic, charitable and educational purposes. I know what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. He thinks that bogus charities would crop up or increase in number. But what happened before the Entertainments Duty was put into operation? If there were bogus charities in those day, the police interfered nod stopped them. Why should not the police he used to-day to stop anything of the kind? I ask the Chancellor to look upon this Amendment favourably, because every penny that he takes in this way means a lot to the charities concerned. The total amount to the Treasury is not very great, but the cost of collection is very considerable. The bulk of the money received by the State from the Entertainments Duty comes from the theatres and cinemas with their regular entertainments day after day, whereas entertainments on behalf of hospitals are given only occasionally. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that an occasional entertainment like this competes with regular entertainments. It would be held only Once or twice a year for the particular purpose of raising money for a charitable object—for a hospital, for improving medical arrangements, or for building a new ward. Even if the Chancellor of Exchequer cannot give total exemption, I ask him at least to allow a larger margin for expenses. A wet day may make all the difference between 30 per cent. and 35 per cent. of the expenses. The concession would not cost very much money.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I desire to support the Amendment, particularly in the interests of the hospitals. I have had very strongly put to me the cases where those who desire to support our hospitals—I

    1001
    suppose that the same thing applies to all parts of the country—decline to do so because of this Entertainments Duty. I am told that the tax so frustrates their efforts that in all probability they will be compelled to give up the task. That is very undesirable, because the hospitals are in great need of support, as I know from my own district. I trust that the Chancellor, whose sympathies will be in this movement, will give the Amendment favourable consideration.
    Viscount WOLMER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated, in answer to an interruption just now, that he was afraid that if this Amendment were agreed to there would be a large increase in the number of performances that were given ostensibly on behalf of charities, but which really had as their purpose the remuneration of those who took part in them. Surely, that is not an insuperable difficulty? Surely there are means of seeing that only bona-fide charity concerts and entertainments receive the relief which is proposed in this Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman will find some difficulty in convincing the Committee that it is impossible for the Treasury to draw a reasonable line of distinction. I appeal to him for the hospitals, not only on the ground of humanity, but also on the ground of economy. Hospitals are doing a national work if ever there was one. They are doing it with the greatest efficiency and far more cheaply than the State can or could do it. If the voluntary hospital system goes under, the State will have to step in and the hospitals will be run with the taxpayer's money. Many of us feel that hospitals so controlled would not be more efficient and would probably be less efficient than our present hospitals, and they would certainly cost a great deal more. It is a matter of real economy, therefore, that the voluntary system should, if possible, be maintained.
    I hope that on that ground the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to meet us in some way. He must be aware of the tremendous straits to which the hospitals are reduced. Before the War they could rely on large subscriptions and large donations from wealthy men. To a large extent, that source of income has been dried up by the tremendous taxation of to-day. That is inevitable and nobody
    1002
    makes any complaint of that. The hospitals are trying to find new sources of income. They are trying to broaden the basis of their subscriptions and trying to collect thousands of pennies where formerly they got a few cheques, and one of the most useful methods which they employ for this purpose is the holding of public entertainments. It is an extraordinary thing how people like to give money through the medium of entertainments such as bazaars and the like. You can raise £500 through entertainments and bazaars from people out of whom you would not get a quarter of the amount unless you could give them some quid pro quo. It is an extraordinary psychological fact. Personally, I would rather pay the money and not go to the entertainment, and I think other hon. Members are in that position, but that is not the view of the public. It is easier to raise money, if you can do so, under the cloak of an entertainment of some sort, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in maintaining this duty is discouraging and hindering one of the most useful methods of raising money to maintain hospitals.
    Mr. BIRKETT: May I add my voice to those already raised in support of this Amendment? I think it would be wise, before the Committee makes a final decision on this matter, that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us the exact amount involved in an acceptance of this proposal. I am given to understand that the amount involved is comparatively small and, if that be so, it is right to urge upon the Chancellor the wisdom of bowing to what seems to be the general sense of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee upon this particular matter. I agree that safeguards are quite necessary, but it is obvious from the observations which have already fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that adequate safeguards can easily be provided to ensure that the real purpose which the supporters of the Amendment have in mind is faithfully carried out. I desire to make my appeal solely upon this ground. Provided that adequate safeguards exist nobody will dispute that the matters contemplate in the wording of the Amendment, namely, philanthropic, charitable or educational purposes are for the public advantage, and, if that be so, the unanimous testimony is that the imposition of this duty is hindering the

    1003
    advancement of those purposes which tend to the public advantage, and upon that ground I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make this concession.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: There can be no two opinions on the point that entertainments for the purpose of raising funds for charitable purposes should be exempt from the Entertainments Duty, but that concession must be protected by what the last speaker called adequate safeguards. An adequate safeguard has already been devised, and it lies in the provision that not more than 30 per cent. of the receipts should be devoted to expenses. The objection to this Amendment was anticipated by one speaker who referred to the possibility, if that safeguard were removed, of the widespread use of the exemption for the purpose of holding bogus charity entertainments. I think it is a very real danger. What would happen if the 30 per cent. safeguard were swept away? Every hon. Member knows that a great many of these entertainments, concerts and the like, said to be for the purpose of raising funds for charitable objects are promoted by individuals and, if this safeguard were struck out, there would be nothing to hinder an individual from organising and advertising a concert and appropriating 90 per cent. or even 95 per cent. of the receipts as expenses of promotion. The House of Commons, in past years, when dealing with this matter, in its wisdom inserted the safeguard that 30 per cent. of the receipts should be the limit of the expenses; and I think it will be agreed that unless in very exceptional cases that 30 per cent. of the receipts is as extravagant an allowance as ought to be made. Because of that, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not believe the charities will suffer to the extent imagined by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), and the street collections for hospitals, to which I think he referred, are not affected at all by the imposition of the Entertainments Duty. My point is that the present safeguard of 30 per cent. is necessary, and we could not go beyond it without encouraging those who might desire to make profit out of the promotion of so-called charity entertainments. The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) asked me what this concession
    1004
    would cost? If it were possible to confine it simply to the purposes described in the Amendment it would cost about £100,000 a year, but if we were to give way here, we should open the door, and a great many other claims would come in which would be irresistible, and the cost would be a great deal more than the figure I have given. I am as anxious as any hon. Member to avoid discouraging voluntary effort for the aid of philanthropic institutions, and if I were convinced that the continued existence of the 30 per cent. limit was a hindrance to philanthropic work I would gladly raise it, but I do not think it is so, and I regret therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. HANNON: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman, between now and the Report stage, to consider some modification of the Amendment which would enable an exception to be made in the case of hospitals only. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of entertainments organised for the assistance of hospitals great care is taken to prevent any abuses creeping in. He can easily satisfy himself that the committees which are responsible for the management and protection of hospitals are almost entirely composed of people who would not be parties to any transactions of the kind indicated as being possible in other cases. The Chancellor's sympathy might take the practical form of allowing hospitals, at any rate, to be exempt from the operations of the provision of the Finance Bill in this respect.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: It has been interesting to listen to the Debate on the Entertainments Duty and to note the universal opinion which appears to prevail that the incidence of the tax in wrong. We were given to understand that the duty was to fall upon the person who was going to be entertained, but the whole of this Debate shows clearly that it is the opinion of hon. Members—whether they are right or wrong—that it does not fall on the person who is entertained but on the promoters of the entertainment. I was going to ask the Chancellor to raise the expenses limit to a higher level than 30 per cent. Only this morning I received a letter from a gentleman who is getting up a boy scouts' fete, in which he stated:
    "The Inland Revenue have put a pistol into my chest for £225 deposit with regard to Entertainment Tax."

    1005
    He was trying to turn the pistol off his chest and on to mine. At the same time, this is a fete in aid of a very admirable organisation, and they are required to put down £25 before going on with the entertainment. I presume the deposit is necessary to avoid the payment of duty at the entrance. There are many of these entertainments where 50 per cent. would be an adequate safeguard and would get rid of all possibility of bogus entertainments. I suggest, too, there are other ways in which the bogus entertainments could be dealt with. Could there not be a provision under which the promoters of an entertainment would be bound to give their services voluntarily and not to receive anything. That would seem a better and a simpler safeguard. The very fact that the amount coming in now is only £100,000, collected in very small sums, shows that the charities are losing considerably and that the concession would be of great benefit. It would be more than an actual cash benefit, because it would take away a great deal of the annoyance now caused to anybody who is promoting a charitable entertainment and who has to go through all the complicated procedure of giving bonds and securities to the customs officer, of getting tickets specially printed and so forth—all to bring in a comparatively small sum of money. It is a tax which irritates very much and brings in very little, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision.
    Mr. G. OLIVER: I direct the Chancellor's attention to a fact which has not been discussed so far. A number of speeches have dealt with profits arising from these local efforts, but I wish to call attention to the case of local efforts where no profit arises but where losses are incurred. I refer to a case in my own constituency. In the town of Ilkeston there is annually held a small exhibition of art work—painting, needlework and work of that description. The promoters make no profit but, on the contrary, incur loss. The exhibition is, in the main, run by working men, and they incur a loss of from £5 to £8 each year, despite which they are required to pay Entertainments Duty to the Treasury. I trust the Chancellor will take into consideration the desirability of making some exemption in cases where the entertainment results in a loss
    Major BURNIE:This is a most difficult subject, and I quite agree with the Chancellor that if this Amendment were accepted, it might lend itself to the purposes of the bogus entertainment promoter, who, while working ostensibly in the cause of charity, would absorb all the money. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) asked why should not hospitals be exempted? He will find later in the Paper a proposed new Clause, standing in my name, a Clause which I placed before the Committee last year and which, to my mind, would exempt the hospitals from this duty. My proposal is, that the Entertainments Duty should not be levied on any entertainments promoted by any charity registered under the War Charities Act, 1916. I think it would make it perfectly easy for the Chancellor to guard against bogus entertainments and at the same time to relieve the hospitals. This difficulty only arises where the expenses exceed 30 per cent. In an indoor entertainment it is easy for the honest entertainer to keep the expenses below 30 per cent., and as a rule for the sake of charity the artists give their services free, but in an outdoor fete, where we are very dependent on the weather, the expenses sometimes exceed 30 per cent. With that in view, I placed this Clause on the Paper last year, and I have done so again this year.
    Sir GODFREY COLLINS: Many hon. Members are anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should reconsider his decision before the Report stage. He has advised the Committee that the cost to the Exchequer would be as much as £100,000; in other words, charitable institutions are being taxed to-day to that extent, and I think that, in view of the difficult financial position in which many of these institutions find themselves today, the Government might be well advised to meet the Committee on this point, especially because the Government during the last year or two—I think, last year and again this year—have been finding money from public funds for the use of hospitals. While, on the one hand, they are taxing these institutions, on the other hand, they are helping them from public funds, and I sincerely hope, in view of the Amendment moved last year by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths), whom we are all glad to see

    1007
    back in his place, that the Government will reconsider this question. During the course of the Debate on that occasion, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury reminded the Committee of the safeguards which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced this afternoon, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, listening to the Debate a year ago, decided to vote in favour of this particular Amendment.
    I do not plead for consistency, and it may well be that in his short experience at the Treasury the right hon. Gentleman has found out that, if you open the door too wide, entertainments for bogus charitable purposes might be started, but he took into the Division Lobby most of his followers who are gathered here to-day. I will not remind them of their vote last year, but we are now pleading for a very simple question. On an Amendment moved an hour ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out hopes and gave a distinct understanding to the Committee that he would reconsider his former decision before the Report stage. No hon. Member wishes to open the door too wide to allow bogus charitable institutions to profit by the Amendment, but we plead that, as the safeguards put into the Act the year before last against bogus institutions work out in practice to-day, when hospitals undertake charitable entertainments they do so with the fear that they may incur a loss in doing so. What we are asking is that uncertainty may be translated into certainty, and that when these charitable institutions, hospitals or others, get up entertainments for their own funds, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his taxing capacity will not take the larger portion of their profits. I, therefore, hope we can have some assurance that before the Report stage the Government will reconsider their former decision.
    Lady TERRINGTON: As one who has worked very hard indeed on behalf of charity, and organised a certain number of entertainments for them, I can assure the Committee that we have always done our utmost to ascertain what were the good and what were the bogus charities. I am sure, as far as I am concerned, that I am perhaps over careful, but at the same time I have been able to do much very hard work once I have satisfied
    1008
    myself on the point. Quite apart from the hospitals—and God knows they need money badly enough—it is not perhaps generally realised that institutions devoted to child welfare, nursing associations, orphanages, and many other charities are sufferers under the law as it stands. If you are having an open-air fête, for instance, there is always the question of the weather and the possibility of a wet day, and there is loss of money caused in that way, but even if you do not have a wet day, you have to pay insurance against it—it might be only a few pounds—and, therefore, it is necessary to press for this Amendment. I very much hope that, if this question is not satisfactorily answered by the Government, hon. Members will stand by what they think is right and go to a Division, if necessary, in which case I, for one, shall support the Amendment.
    Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I hope the Noble Lady the Member for Wycombe (Lady Terrington), who has just spoken, will infuse some portion of her own courage into those who sit immediately in front of her on those benches. I did not rise especially to congratulate the Noble Lady, but rather to suggest to the Government that this question of bogus charities is really not a matter for the revenue authorities, but is a pure matter for the police, and I would undertake, with assistance from an hon. and learned Friend, to devise a sufficient police safeguard against a bogus charity promoter. It is not the bogus charity of which we are afraid—anybody can detect that—but it is the bogus charity promoter, the person who, under the guise of promoting an entertainment for the sake of charity, really devises it for the betterment of his own pocket. A very familiar kind of case is where someone who is not allowed to run a cinematograph show on Sundays for his own profit runs it ostensibly for the benefit of a charity, but really be charges against the entertainment a proportion of his rent and a proportion of all sorts of standing charges, which he would have to pay in any case, so that he really gets a very considerable benefit, although he does it ostensibly for the benefit of a charity. I would suggest that everyone who seeks exemption from the Entertainments Duty in respect of an entertainment which he promotes should first of all satisfy the police that he is

    1009
    genuinely promoting the entertainment for the benefit of charity, and not for his own benefit or that of anyone taking part in it.
    I myself know many cases, and particularly, of a bicycle association in Sheffield, which has for years promoted an entertainment for the benefit of the hospitals. Sometimes its entertainments have been ruined by reason of a rainy day, and then it has found itself at a considerable loss, and at the same time it has had to pay quite a considerable amount in tax. I suggest that the Government should bring this matter forward again, and I think the Financial Secretary, with the assistance, for instance, of the learned Attorney-General at his side, would be able to provide a form of police safeguard against the bogus charity entertainment or promoter which would satisfy the Treasury and enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury to carry out this undoubtedly beneficial, though small, reform.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. Graham): I regret that I had to be out of the House for a minute or two when the Amendment was moved, but I heard the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he was unable to make any concession on this proposal. May I add a word or two in reply to the Debate which has since taken place? My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) twitted us, I think, with some possible inconsistency as between the votes which we gave last year and what we are defending on the present occasion, but I think there is a very adequate reply, in that we have not in any way weakened in our position in regard to the Entertainments Duty as a whole, and that we have taken the first step this year in wiping out a considerable part of it. In so far as the Entertainments Duty has been wiped out, it inures to the advantage, at all events under 6d., of the kind of entertainment which has charity or philanthropic enterprise in view. But there is a practical point in reply to my hon. Friend, that, so long as any part of the Entertainments Duty continues, it is plain that there
    1010
    must be provisions to protect the revenue and the public against the bogus entertainment and against other forms of entertainment which are not strictly in the interests of charity at all. I think my right hon. Friend made the point perfectly plain, and I suggest to hon. Members in all Harts of the Committee that there is already adequate provision.
    First of all, there is no Entertainments Duty at all where the whole of the proceeds are devoted to charity. They are entirely free, but in the other cases, where some part of the proceeds is retained, it has been necessary to work out this limit of 30 per cent. of the expenses which are incurred in order to protect the public against the danger which I have described. The hon. and learned Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Storry-Deans) suggested that we might make certain alterations, or further concessions, but may I remind the Committee that originally, in 1916, this percentage was 20, and under pressure, I think, from hon. Members in all parts of the House it was raised to 30 per cent. in 1922. There is abundant evidence at the disposal of the Customs and Excise Authorities to show that that limit of 30 per cent. is strictly required. Every hon. Member impartially viewing the situation will agree that as we proceed above the limit of 30 per cent. for expenses then the profit to individuals increases. The public must be protected against that, and in the next place it must be protected against the class of entertainment which, while not promoted for the private profit of individuals, is nevertheless not in the interests of charity. There are many entertainments which have only in view the avoidance of a loss, and I do not think the Committee seriously would press for complete exemption from Entertainments Duty where in fact they are competing with other forms of entertainment in the locality exposed to this duty. From that point of view I think the existing position so long as this tax survives is safeguarded and accordingly I ask the Committee not to press this Amendment upon us to-night.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 165.

    Division No. 120.]

    Ayes.

    [7.3 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Mond, H.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Falconer, J.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col J. T. C.

    Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Morden, Colonel Waiter Grant

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C.(Honiton)

    Alstead, R.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Morse, W. E.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Gates, Percy

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Astor, Viscountess

    Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Owen, Major G.

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Pease, William Edwin

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon, W. E.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Raffan, P. W.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Raine, W.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Rea, W. Russell

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Berkeley, Captain Reginald

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Remer, J. R.

    Berry, Sir George

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Birkett, W. N.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F

    Bonwick, A.

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Savery, S. S.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hughes, Colling wood

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Cassels, J. D.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Terrington, Lady

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Kay. Sir R. Newbald

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Keens, T.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Croydon, S.)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    CockerIII, Brigadier-General G. K.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Waddington, R.

    Cope, Major William

    Lessing, E.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Linfield, F. C.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lorimer, H. D

    Wells, S. R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Weston, John Wakefield

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    McCrae, Sir George

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead- E)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Macfadyen, E.

    Willison, H.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    McLean, Major A.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Dixon, Herbert

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Dudgeon. Major C. R.

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, E.)

    Dunnico, H.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Colonel Howard-Bury and Mr.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Samuel Roberts.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Moles, Thomas

    Noes

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Ammon, Charles George

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Barnes, A.

    Alden, Percy

    Ayles, W. H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Baker, Walter

    Black, J. W.

    1012

    1013

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hudson, J. H.

    Richards, R.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Ritson, J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Buckle, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Climie, R.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Snell, Harry

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Lansbury, George

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Law, A.

    Spence, R.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Lawson, John James

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Dickson, T.

    Leach, W.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Dukes, C.

    Lee, F.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Duncan, C.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lowth, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Lunn, William

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Egan, W. H.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Mackinder, W.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thurtle, E.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gillett, George M.

    March, S.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Gosling, Harry

    Marley, James

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Viant, S. P.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Maxton, James

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Greenall, T.

    Middleton, G.

    Warne, G. H.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mills, J. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Morel, E. D.

    Watts Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Groves, T.

    Morris, R. H.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Westwood J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Muir, John W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Murray, Robert

    Whiteley, W.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Nichol, Robert

    Wignall, James

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Nixon, H.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kenningtn.)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Healy, Cahir

    Palmer, E. T.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Perry, S. F.

    Windsor, Walter

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wright, W.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hodges, Frank

    Raynes, W. R.

    Mr. Kennedy and Mr. John

    Robertson.

    Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer——
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): I had better put the Question.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take, in view of the defeat on the Finance Bill?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: There has not yet, of course, been very much time to consider our position and to judge what action we should take in view of the result of the new Coalition. I would suggest that we proceed with the Bill and then, if I have any further announcement to make with regard to this decision, I will make it at a later stage.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I beg leave to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I do not know whether hon. Members below the Gangway realise that a defeat of this kind is one of a very serious nature. We realise it fully and it has been the immemorial custom of this House to regard a defeat on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill as a defeat of some consequence, and while I quite agree it would be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this moment to say what be and his Government are prepared to do, I think this House should give them reasonable time for consideration.
    Sir G. COLLINS: It will be within the recollection of several Members of this House that, I think, two years ago during the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill

    1015
    of that year an Amendment was moved in this House while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) was Chancellor of the Exchequer and an Amendment was carried against the Government of the day after a long Debate and a very close Division in a very large House. I think I recollect that directly the right hon. Gentleman was asked a similar question as to what would be the intention of the Government in view of the decision of the Committee, and, if my recollection is correct, the right hon. Gentleman, being always a House of Commons man, told the Committee on the spur of the moment that he would accept a decision of the Committee and invited the Committee to proceed with its business. If my memory is correct the Chancellor of the Exchequer has followed the example set by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated what occurred two years ago, but I think he has drawn the wrong inference. The representative of the Government on that occasion was prepared at once to inform the House of the decision of the Government on the vote which the House had come to. He said they were prepared at once to accept that decision. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present moment is neither prepared to accept nor to refuse the decision of the House. He has himself asked time for further consideration, and I submit it is contrary to all practice that the Committee should be asked to proceed with a Bill which may already be dead in the mind of the Government or when the Government brings that mind to bear on it. The Committee cannot usefully go on with all the stages of the Bill without knowing whether the Government mean or not to carry out the decision just come to. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in a position to say at once that the decision would be accepted I do not suppose my right hon. Friend would then have thought it necessary or proper to move to Report Progress. It clearly is not in accordance with the precedent of two years ago that the Government should, while their own mind is not made up on this question, invite the Committee to make up its mind on the whole series of further propositions. Therefore, I think we must adjourn further proceedings until
    1016
    such time as the Government have decided in the first place whether they will accept this decision or not, and in the event of their accepting it, how many defeats they can submit to without feeling bound to treat an adverse vote of the Committee as a vote of want of confidence.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that there is a practical distinction between the precedent quoted by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Sir G. Collins) and the present occasion, but I should like to remind him that there are other distinguishing features which have to be considered. The Government of that day commanded a majority of the House of Commons, and, therefore, it was defeated by practically the desertion of Members of its own party. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that at the early part of this Session, when the Labour Government assumed office, the Prime Minister stated that they were not going to regard defeat in Committee as involving resignation, and that only when the House of Commons by its vote registered its want of confidence in the Government would they consider that they were under an obligation to resign. With regard to the immediate matter at issue, the House of Commons has registered its view in regard to that Amendment, and the Amendment for the time being stands. I told the Leader of the Opposition, in reply to his question, that we would continue the discussion of the Bill, and in the meantime the Government would consider the matter. I do not think I can go further than that.
    Mr. MILLS: I think I shall have the assent of many of my colleagues on these benches in what I am going to say. When the Prime Minister came into office, he made it perfectly clear that he would only go out of office on a definite Vote of Censure which stood in the name of the Leader of the party opposite or of the Leader of the Opposition below the Gangway. I want to submit if we are to be trailed in the mud like this and if every adverse decision is to be treated as a slight, the sooner the battle comes the better. I can assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that Members on these benches are not shirking the fight, and they will be highly disillusioned in the constituencies when they come to face

    1017
    us. We have at least blown the bubble that Labour is unfit to govern. On this front bench there are men who left school to go to work before their predecessors had left home to go to school, and these men have vindicated their position.
    The CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is that Progress be reported.
    Mr. MILLS: This Amendment is a very trivial one. It would only involve an expenditure of something like £4,000 if it were carried into effect. Therefore, the importance attached to it by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really seems to be out of all proportion to the facts. We have got the Opposition in such a tangle that they have no idea exactly where they stand.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I do not suppose that anyone on this side of the House expects the Government to resign, but that is not the object of this Motion to Report Progress. This is, I hope, still a serious business assembly, and, if the Committee makes a somewhat serious alteration in a Government Bill, it is hardly possible to expect the Committee to go on discussing other points arising on the Finance Bill unless and until we know whether the Government are going to accept this decision or will take steps to reverse it hereafter, making any such Motion a definite Vote of Confidence. We know that the skins of the Government are fairly tough in present circumstances. It is not a question of asking them to resign. It is a question of discussing this Bill on proper business lines, and the Committee certainly cannot make up its mind what it should do on subsequent Amendments while it is in a state of uncertainty as to what attitude the Government intend to take up with regard to the decision just arrived at. The Government have only one of two courses open to them: either at once to accept the decision of the House and announce that they will make no attempt to reverse it, or to agree to the Motion to Report Progress until they can inform hon. Members what their decision is.
    Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) could not have heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, or he would not have been under the impression that the carrying
    1018
    out of this Amendment would only cost £4,000. The Chancellor told the Committee that it would cost £100,000 and that he had not got the money for even a very much less expensive Amendment. It therefore is a complete mistake to suggest that the Amendment is not a serious one. I feel that the House is, under the circumstances, entitled to some guidance from the Government as to what is going to happen in the future. Are we to go on considering Clauses without any lead from the Government as to what view they will take of an adverse decision of the Committee? After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have known that the position of the Government on some of these Amendments would be exceedingly difficult and precarious, because they had not a majority at their back. Surely, then, he ought to have made up his mind with regard to the more important of them as to what attitude the Government were prepared to take up in the event of an adverse decision. As yet apparently the Government have not made up their minds, and I submit that the Committee is entitled to insist that they should do so, and tell us what their attitude is to be, before any further progress is made.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I have no desire to support any Motion to report Progress. We want our business done and done quickly, so as to get this great Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer through. But I clearly understood when I gave my vote on the Amendment it would cost £100,000, and we were told that more adequate safeguards were needed to prevent it costing more. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devise some means at a later stage for limiting the effect of this Amendment.
    Colonel GRETTON: Surely the House of Commons is not being treated with the respect usually paid it by the Government. The Prime Minister is here. He is sitting beside his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there are other important Ministers present. Surely they can tell the Committee what they intend to do about this Amendment. Surely we can be informed by the Prime Minister whether the Government will accept the decision of the Committee or whether they desire to consider their own position. The matter is quite simple.

    1019
    The practice of the House of Commons in these cases is a sound and right one. It is wrong to ask the Committee to proceed with the discussion of a Measure like this when the Government are not prepared to state the course they will take with regard to an adverse vote.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Is this House to be treated seriously or not? I want to put a question to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last year there happened to be a discussion and Division on an Amendment couched in almost precisely the same terms as the one carried to-day. That Amendment was resisted by the Government of the day. It was resisted by the Leader of the Opposition, and it was also resisted by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Personally, I have a clear conscience on this matter, because feeling that we have incurred enormous expenditure I was prepared to and did vote for the Government in order that the revenue necessary to meet that expenditure should be raised. Hon. Members must not think that they can vote expenditure on reforms without
    also voting the necessary money. If they think that they will find they are very much mistaken. But I do ask that this House shall be treated as a business assembly, and though our friends here voted for this proposal last year and this year, too, hon. Gentlemen opposite really voted against it last year. Why have they changed their minds now? I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, who now asks the House to report Progress, when an Amendment has been carried by his party, an Amendment which he himself voted against last year, is there any consistency in that? I do hope the House of Commons will treat these great financial questions with some amount of gravity, and I must say the position of the Leader of the Opposition in voting this year for an Amendment which he resisted last year, is incapable of defence in any reasonable assembly.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 237.

    Division No. 121.]

    AYES.

    [7.33 p.m.

    Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Astor, Viscountess

    Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Austin, Sir Herbert

    Cope, Major William

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hughes, Collingwood

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Berry, Sir George

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Deans, R. Storry.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Dixon, Herbert

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Ednam, Viscount

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Lumley, L. R.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    McLean, Major A.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macnanhien, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Gates, Percy

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

    Buchanan, G.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Milne, J. S Wardlaw

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Moles, Thomas

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pease, William Edwin

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Perring, William Geroge

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Wells, S. R.

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Weston, John Wakefield

    Pielou, D. P.

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Rains, W.

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Remer, J. R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wise, Sir Frederic

    Remnant, Sir James

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Waddington, R.

    Colonel Gibbs.

    Savery, S. S.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mackinder, W.

    Adamson, R. Hon. William

    Groves, T.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Alden, Percy

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    March, S.

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Marley, James

    Alstead, R.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetlan)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, E.)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harbord, Arthur

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Hardie, George D.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Maxton, James

    Ayles, W. H.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Middleton, G.

    Baker, Walter

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Mills, J. E.

    Banton, G.

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Mond, H.

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Morel, E. D.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Morris, R. H.

    Barnes, A.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Batey, Joseph

    Healy, Cahir

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Berkeley, Captain Reginald

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Morse, W. E.

    Birkett, W. N.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Black, J. W.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Bonwick, A

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Muir, John W.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hirst, G. H.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Murray, Robert

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Murrell, Frank

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Nichol, Robert

    Buckle, J.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Nixon, H.

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Hudson, J. H.

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Owen, Major G.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Paling, W.

    Climie, R.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Palmer, E. T.

    Cluse, W. S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Perry, S. F.

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Potts, John S.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Darbishire, C. W

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Raffan, P. W.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Jowltt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Dickson, T.

    Keens, T.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Kennedy, T.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Dukes, C.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Richards, R.

    Duncan, C.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Dunnico, H.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Ritson, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, southern)

    Lansbury, George

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Laverack, F. J.

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Cheimsford)

    Egan, W. H.

    Law, A.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Falconer, J.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Finney, V. H.

    Lawson, John James

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Leach, W.

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Lee, F.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Lessing, E.

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Linfield, F. C.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Loverseed, J. F.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Lowth, T.

    Snell, Harry

    Gillett, George M.

    Lunn, William

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Gosling, Harry

    McCrae, Sir George

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Spence, R.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Greenall, T.

    Macfadyen, E.

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    1022

    1023

    Speor, Dr. G. E.

    Thurtle, E.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Whiteley, W.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Toole, J.

    Wignall, James

    Stephen, Campbell

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kenningtn.)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Sullivan, J.

    Ward, Col. J. (Stole-upon-Trent)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Warne, G. H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Terrington, Lady

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Winteringham, Margaret

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Watts Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Wright, W.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Westwood, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mr. Spoor and Mr. T. Griffiths.

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
    Sir K. WOOD: In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated what were his intentions with respect to the remission of this tax. He said:
    "I propose to give relief on the cheapest seats, which are used by the less well-to-do member of the community, by abolishing the duty on payments for admission up to and including 6d., and by reducing the duty on payments over that amount up to and including 1s. 3d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1924; col. 1605, Vol. 172.]
    I would remind the Committee that this remission has taken effect as from 2nd June, so that the effect, I think, can be fairly well ascertained by now, because nearly a month has gone by since first this payment was remitted, and the point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether he can assure the Committee that the proper people are getting the benefit of the remission. The matter has been raised in the House several times during the last few days, and evidently some evidence is afforded that in many parts of the country the remission has not been made in such a way as to give the benefit to the people for whom it is intended. I know, for instance, that many Members have questioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he has from time to time made various statements concerning the matter. The first time that his attention was called to the matter was when it was stated—I have no doubt quite accurately—in an interview with a representative deputation that if the Entertainments Duty were reduced the public would get the benefit. He also stated on that occasion, 19th June, that he saw no reason to believe that that undertaking would not be generally fulfilled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Very many
    1024
    instances have been brought to the notice of the Chancellor up and down the country, both in regard to the cinemas and also in relation to sports, in relation to the duty, that instead of the benefit going to the public it had gone into the pockets of the people who promoted these things. On more than one occasion the Chancellor has said he was making inquiries into the matter, and he could assure the-House that, if the information he subsequently obtained substantiated the allegations, and he came to the conclusion that action was necessary, he should not hesitate to take such action. On another occasion the hon. Member who speaks, I suppose, to a large extent, on behalf of the entertainments business here—
    Mr. LANSBURY: Who is he?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece).
    Mr. LANSBURY: Does he not represent his constituents?
    Sir K. WOOD: Certainly; but, at any rate, he speaks with authority on this question before us. He has put questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on the occasion to which I am referring it appeared to me that he raised the issue with the Chancellor as to whether or not the theatre industry had really given any undertaking in the matter. He seemed to me to imply 'that so far as the theatres were concerned their promise was only conditional upon the full Entertainments Duty being remitted. Whether that is so or not the Chancellor will, no doubt, tell us this evening. It certainly does raise a matter of importance so far as the theatres of the country are concerned. It seems to me—if I may put it so to the Chancellor—that the matter resolves itself into two parts. The first deals with the

    1025
    cinema trade, and the second with places like the Oval, Lord's and so on, and with football grounds. So far as the cinema trade is concerned, I think it is perfectly fair to state that a very large proportion, I believe, of those engaged in the cinema business are honourably carrying out the undertaking which they gave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can inform the Committee what were the exact terms of the undertaking, because there is considerable difficulty arising, or has arisen, as regards the interpretation of the arrangement that has been made.
    I have carefully examined the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, and all he is apparently committed himself to in the House is that the public shall have the benefit of the remission of these taxes. A very large number if cinema proprietors are interpreting that very widely indeed. I notice some cinema proprietors are saying that they have given the benefit of the tax to their customers if, for instance, they provide a better film for those persons who witness their entertainment. Another section of these proprietors are saying that they have fulfilled the pledge which they gave to the Chancellor if they provide a seat which is nearer the screen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nearer, or further away?"] Some say one, some the other. However, the matter, I think, is very well put by Mr. Hewitson, the chairman of the Birmingham and Midland Branch of the Cinematograph Association. He says, in an interview with a representative of the "Birmingham Mail":
    "If not altogether in pounds, shillings and pence, the exhibitors were passing on the concession to the public. It often took the form of improved programmes or of in- creased comfort. In one house under his control the old prices were 6d., 9d. and 1s., and the new prices 5d., 8d. and 1s. He had been prepared to make the 1s. seats 11d., but the patrons had asked for the retention of is. At another house the old prices had been maintained by the vote of the patrons, who had been offered a reduction or an additional variety turn. They decided for the latter by 440 to 122."
    Mr. Hewitson in his statement——
    HON. MEMBERS: Is this Woolwich, or where?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am speaking of Birmingham. In this statement Mr. Hewitson added that a change had been
    1026
    followed by an increased patronage of 20 per cent. Other instances cited by Mr. Hewitson were where in these houses a number of higher priced seats had been reduced and a number of cheaper places proportionately increased. Other managements had decided to exhibit newer films. I put it to the Chancellor that this interpretation of the pledge which was given to him certainly opens a very wide door indeed. I fail to see that it fulfils the position; and it seems to me that in a very short time we shall have all the cinema people in the country saying that they have fulfilled their pledge to the Chancellor by putting on some films of a newer character, or something of that kind upon which the public really themselves have really no option. It is very desirable that what the Chancellor no doubt intends is not avoided in the manner in which I have indicated, and which has been put forward by a very responsible authority. If this is going to be the interpretation of the pledge that has been given, I think you will find very shortly that instead of the public getting the reduced prices that it ought to, the matter will be dealt with by the proprietors saying: "We are putting on a wonderful film next week"—the Ten Commandments or something of that sort—"and therefore the full amount must be paid." I put it to the Chancellor that he cannot leave the matter in this way.
    I want also to put this to him. I agree very largely with the statement that he has made that he is anxious to get this matter put upon a proper footing. It may be that, we will say, 90 per cent.—as many as that—of the exhibitors in the country are honourably fulfilling their pledges. What, then, is he going to do about the remaining 10 per cent.? Although you may say that the number is a very small one, it will add very greatly to the difficulties in the localities where the various proprietors are competing one against the other. If one proprietor is honourably fulfilling the undertaking which he gave to the Chancellor and another man further down the street is ignoring it it will, I suppose, affect the takings of the man who is behaving honourably.
    The other point I wish to mention is the sports aspect of the matter. In this matter the remission has been in no way

    1027
    passed on to the public. I have had given to me instances, and the Chancellor will no doubt be able to make some statement about the case as he promised to do. There is the case of Lord's and the Oval. Other hon. Members can give him instances in connection with the Football Association, and matches where really no remission has been made. I should be glad to know from the Chancellor, and for this purpose I put down an Amendment on the Paper that the Clause should be deleted from the Bill. I shall be glad to hear what the Chancellor has to say; whether he can make any statement to the House dealing with these several aspects of the matter, whether he will be able to assure or reassure the Committee before we pass this Clause that the benefit which he intends should undoubtedly go to the great mass of the public should so go, and that it shall not go into the pockets of people that neither he nor, indeed, any Members of this House, desires to get it.
    Major COLFOX: I had expected to have to support my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) in the Amendment to leave out this Clause. Having regard, however, to the very useful Amendments that have been inserted in the Clause I feel it would be a mistake now to delete it. I refer generally to the matter of the Amendment which was inserted earlier this afternoon, and the consequential Amendment which will have the effect of re-distributing the incidence of the tax and making it what it certainly was not before, fair in its incidence. That and the other Amendments which have been carried to this Clause make it, I feel, a, workable, fair, and useful Clause. In spite of the omissions which have been pointed out by my hon. Friend and with which I am heartily in agreement; in spite, I say, of that fact and that many instances of remission of the tax have not been passed on to the consumer, I feel that half a loaf is better than no bread, and having got that, it will be a bad thing now to delete the Clause.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has raised this question, and I hope the Committee will be able to get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the statement he promised us
    1028
    at Question Time the other day. We have not heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he is going to get over the difficulty. I think hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that the difficulty is a very real one. Even though evasion of obligation may exist in a very small proportion of cases, it is extremely unfair that these cinematograph proprietors who are playing the game should be subject to undue competition on the part of those who are not. I have always regretted the remission that the Chancellor made in this tax. It seemed to me that so long as people were to be taxed that a tax on their pleasures was one of the most proper things that you could do.
    8.0 P.M.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to reduce the Entertainments Duty, but he certainly did not mean that the money, of which he deprived the Exchequer, should go into the pockets of the owners of these cinema houses. I want to remind the Committee of the enormous amount of money that is at present paid in the cinema industry or profession. I understand that he, who is familiarly known as Charlie Chaplin, gets a salary of over £100,000 a year—that is to say, more than 20 times that received by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is worth it!"] Whether he is or not is a matter of opinion. While an industry is in a position to pay such gigantic salaries to its staff, it is, surely, quite wrong that it should Seize this tax, the remission of it which the Chancellor had meant to be for the benefit of the public. Personally, I have always doubted whether the public objected to this tax so strongly as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other hon. Members thought they did, but I am certain the right hon. Gentleman would have the public behind him if he kept this tax at its full strength if he thought the undertaking given to him some weeks ago was not being properly fulfilled, I hope the Government will adopt some attitude of that sort, or make a statement somewhat to that effect, because until the House of Commons takes steps which are effective to see that this remission of the Entertainments Duty is passed on to the public, it is quite clear that a certain section of the entertainment trade are

    1029
    going to put the remission of this duty into their pockets. That is a thing which was never contemplated, and ought not to be tolerated for a moment.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has done so in order to elicit some statement in regard to the working of these reduction proposals. It is rather early yet to know exactly whether the remission has been passed on in full to the cheaper seats, or how the reduction on the higher priced seats will operate in the long run. I do not think the hon. Member made any serious objection to the statement that a large proportion of the cinema houses have passed on the duty to their patrons. The Association of Proprietors inform me that they have made inquiries into the matter amongst all their members, and they say that 95 per cent. of the members of their association have reduced their prices by an amount corresponding to the reduction bf the duty. Of course, members of the Committee hear a great deal more about the few cases which have not passed on the duty than about the larger number who have done so. I had very exhaustive inquiries made in all parts of the country, and I think it is true to say the vast majority of the cheaper priced houses have honourably carried out the undertaking.
    I am informed by the cinematograph people that 95 per cent. of the cinema people of the country are members of the association, and the undertaking I have mentioned was given to me by their official representative, who authorised me to make this statement. Of course, they cannot be expected to exercise any authority over the small minority who are outside the union. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) quoted instances in which the duty is alleged to have been passed on to the public, not by a reduction, but by providing better seats or better fixtures at the same price. May I mention that the prices of admission to cinemas are by no means fixed. They are very varied, often according to the character of the film which is being shown, and if a more expensive film is being shown, then the prices are raised. Therefore, I do not think I should regard it as a violation of the undertaking that was given to me if the public were getting the benefit in some cases in some more artistic form than a
    1030
    mere reduction in the amount charged for admission.
    It is rather too early yet to draw any definite conclusion on the question. The hon. Member for West Woolwich cited a hypothetical case, which I do not think justifies the conclusion he intended to draw. He pointed out that prices had been reduced in nine-tenths of the houses and one-tenth had retained the old price, and his sympathy went out to those who had not reduced their prices. I think it should be the other way about, because in that particular instance competition must be immediately effective, and the public will soon find out where the prices have been reduced, and they will go where they can get a seat for a smaller payment than elsewhere. I think we may rely upon competition to secure that the reduction of the duty will sooner or later be passed on to the consumer. From the information which I have been able to collect I am satisfied that in the vast majority of cases the public have reaped the advantage in the form of reduced admission charges.
    With regard to sports, I may say that the sports associations were not represented on the delegation which waited upon me, and they were not included in the undertaking which was given. I am told that the sports associations, and particularly the cricket clubs, did not want the duty taken off. I am not quite sure about the accuracy of what I am going to say, but I am under the impression that when the tax of 3d. was first imposed upon the 6d. admission, instead of raising the price to 9d., they raised it to 1s. and made a profit of 3d. upon each person who paid that sum for admission to a match, and consequently they did not want the tax taken off because they were afraid that they would have to reduce the price to the original figure of 6d.
    I have had returns from every one of the county cricket clubs, and with the exception of two no change has been made in the price of admission. I understand that they have some kind of automatic arrangement for collecting the admission money, which is adjusted exactly to take 1s., and it would be difficult for them to give change by returning one penny. May I add that there are two county cricket clubs which have reduced their prices, and they deserve mentioning because we were informed by

    1031
    the Leader of the Opposition that one of these county clubs was in a very impecunious position. The two county cricket clubs which have reduced their prices are Warwickshire County Cricket Club and Glamorganshire, and in each case the prices have been reduced by the amount of the tax. The football season will begin in a few months' time, and we shall have to wait and see what they do. On the whole, I think the response all round has been very good, and those who have given the undertaking to me have to the extent of probably 95 per cent. honoured it, and if the minority which has been referred to by the hon. Member far West Woolwich are giving a better entertainment or better seats instead of a reduction in the price of admission, I do not know that there is much to complain about.
    Of course, I know that there is some excuse for a very few cinema people trying to put the money into their own pocket. Possibly the incidence of the tax in the past may have been thrown upon the proprietors, and it has prevented them raising their prices, and the consequence has been that they have been working at a smaller profit. We shall, however, have to wait a little longer to see the actual results. I am not in the least inclined to think that we did wrong in making the reductions that we did when the result undoubtedly has been that so large a part of the reduction has been passed on, and I think the operation of the law of competition will secure a full advantage to the public in one form or another. I think the undertaking that has been given to me by the various associations will be recognised in one form or another.
    Sir K. WOOD: I want to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very clear statement he has made; and I may say that it has given considerable satisfaction to me because I thought I should never have lived to see the day when a Socialist Government would put a proposal of this kind into operation. I only want to say that I think there is a little danger in permitting certain cinema people, instead of reducing their prices, meeting the difficulty by way of a better film, or in other ways, because Heaven knows how people would regard the films! The Chancellor of the Exchequer may think a film is very excellent whilst I might have a contrary opinion. The diffi-
    1032
    culty of the matter is leaving it to the proprietors to determine which are the better films, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, it is difficult for them to put that matter forward now, because at most of these cinemas the films are booked up for months ahead. Consequently, when I read about the cases in Birmingham which I have mentioned, and where they say they are putting on better films and remitting the duty in that way, it is difficult to understand how this can be done when as a matter of fact the arrangements for their films are made months ahead, and therefore that is an argument which has very little weight. I think there is a very strong case, after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said this afternoon, for something being done in the case of the sports associations, because, while I believe it to be perfectly true that the great majority of the cinema people have honourably fulfilled their pledges, the right hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon shows that the sports associations, with three exceptions, are not doing so, and, therefore, when one is dealing with the matter in a critical fashion, there obviously is a case for something being done there. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer at any rate to consider between now and Report whether he cannot devise something in this connection.
    After all the remission of this tax was intended to benefit the public, and that is the ground upon which it should be put. If, in fact, it is net benefiting the public, I do not see why this money should go into the hands of these people. After all, at certain tines of the year, the places where most people assemble are these football matches, and it seems to me that the only effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal, so far as these many thousands of people are concerned on many days of the week, will be to put money into the pockets of the clubs. At one football match, I believe, 40,000 pennies were put into the pocket of the club concerned, as a result of the proposal. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer never intended that, and I would ask him, between now and Report, to consider whether, on his own statement to the Committee this afternoon, there is not a rather strong case for differentiating between what may be called the entertainments associations and the sports associations. I am sure

    1033
    the Committee will be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very exhaustive, inquiries he has made. I was struck by the fact that he has communicated with practically every county cricket club in the country, and one feels confident that he is regarding this matter as of some consequence. I hope, therefore, that he will have regard to what 1 think is a case which demands attention from him.
    Mr. HANNON: As my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has mentioned Birmingham several times, I think I ought to say that I am convinced that the entertainment houses in Birmingham are prepared to pass on, as far as they possibly can, the advantage of this reduction in tax to their customers, within, of course, the limits of the organisation of the respective theatres. In Birmingham in the entertainment industry, just as in sport, we are doing all that we possibly can to carry out the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Warwickshire Country Club and the Birmingham entertainment industry are living up to the high ideal of Birmingham and the Midlands, and, in defence of Birmingham, I desire to say that the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are being carried out just as much as they are in any other part of the country.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE:To allow the proprietors of cinema theatres to pass on the benefit of the reduction, not by a reduction in the price bill, by putting on better films, seems to be a very dangerous precedent, of which some people would take advantage, and I should like to be quite clear as to whether that would be regarded as a sufficient excuse, for not passing on the reduction in the tax
    Mr. GRAHAM: The point which the hon. Member has just put is quite simple. The Government, of course, have no power of compulsion in this matter over the proprietor of any entertainment, and I have no doubt that in numerous cases where a special film is shown some extra charge will be imposed, which, of course, would be simply another way of stating that the reduction in tax has not been passed on. Apart, however, from exceptional cases, I think the best reply is that, in a very large number of the cases as to which we have received infor-
    1034
    mation so far, the reduction in tax has been passed on. Further, there is this safeguard, that, if it were not passed on, a very large part of the campaign of the cinema proprietors would be defeated, because they wanted to be able to make a lower charge in order to attract additional patronage. I think that that is really the protection in connection with the problem which the hon. Member has raised. I am afraid, however, that I could not give a more definite reply than that which I have now offered.
    Clause 7 (Continuation of increased Medicine Duties), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Continuation of new Import Duties until 1st August, 1924.)
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not calling the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), to substitute the words "thirty-first day of July" for "first day of August," the discussion upon which can be taken on the Clause.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I want to raise on this Clause the question of the withdrawal of the McKenna Duties, and to mention in particular one small industry which has never had its case put before the House, namely, the cinematograph printing industry in this country. It is an industry which grew up owing to the tax which was put upon films imported into this country, and now, without a moment's warning, this industry—admittedly a small one—is going to suffer great hardship. The whole position is curious in this respect, that, as far as I can find out, not one single soul in this country is going to be benefited by the withdrawal of this duty. No Section of the cinematograph trade, not even importers of foreign films, are in favour of the withdrawal of the tax upon cinema films. I think I ought very briefly to state the two different types of films which are imported into this country. Unfortunately, cinematograph films are not taken in this country so much as they are abroad. Almost 90 per cent. of the great cinema plays are photographed outside the United Kingdom, and, when such a

    1035
    play is finished, it is, as a rule, imported into this country in the form of a negative. I can quite understand that, if a high duty is put upon the negative, that might increase the charge to cinema theatre patrons, and on the question of negative films I do not say anything at all. It is, however, in connection with positive films that this particular hardship comes upon film printers in this country.
    There is no difference in the price of printed films as between this country and any other, and the imposition of this duty upon imported positive films caused films to be printed in this country which otherwise would have been printed abroad. We are now in this position, that, owing to the withdrawal of this particular duty, films which were printed here will now be printed abroad, not because that is necessary, but because, where one has a manufactory, one tries to use it in the very best possible way, on a 100 per cent. basis, doing as much work as possible in order to keep the overhead charges as small as possible. Consequently, copies of the great films which have been made abroad will come into this country already printed. I want to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this particular industry is in a different position from any other, because the machinery is quite exceptional, and is of no use for any other work but the printing of films. In other industries, such as engineering, the making of motor cars, and so on, it is quite conceivable that the plant in the factories could be turned to some other account; other goods could be manufactured, and the capital invested in the factories used in some way; but in this particular case the machinery is so exceptional, and so entirely confined to the one particular business of film printing, that at this moment, owing to the withdrawal of the duty, the machinery, complicated and expensive as it is, is of no value at all. I have put before the hon. Gentleman this small industry, which was increasing in importance and earning money and is now in a very difficult position. It is going to be sacrificed because of an abstract political doctrine. I know any words I say to-night are not going to change the position, but I have risen to put the case of this small industry and to show how this very great hardship has
    1036
    been inflicted on a growing business for the benefit of not one single soul in the United Kingdom but for the benefit of people outside the United Kingdom.
    Mr. HANNON: I rose to call attention to the effect of the McKenna Duties in a much larger branch of enterprise than that which has already been dealt with. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget speech and intimated that he was going to abolish the McKenna Duties, there was undoubtedly a good deal of alarm felt, not merely throughout the motor trade itself, but through all the incidental trades associated with it. The agitation which naturally arose was perhaps in some instances a little overdone and there was a good deal of exaggeration perhaps in certain sections of the Press and amongst certain protagonists of the interests of various parties in the industry. But in the deputation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer received, and at which 'the Financial Secretary was present, no exaggerated statements of that nature were presented at all. On the contrary, we confined our arguments within the rigid limits of fact. We pointed out the number of persons who would be directly affected in the first instance by the removal of these duties, and secondly the number of interests in affiliated and incidental trades which were bound also to be affected m soon as the duties came to be removed. Although I take the same position as the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the highly abstract atmosphere in which certain Members of the Government live will not help us to any concession during the Finance Bill, I would at all events call attention to what has happened since the previous debate took place. I put down a question the other day to the Minister of Labour, calling his, attention to the increase of unemployment in Birmingham and the Midlands. I asked him whether he was aware that the week ending 9th June showed an increase of something like 5,000 in the number of unemployed in the Midlands as against the preceding week, and he answered that the statistics of unemployment for that week showed an increase as compared with the preceding week, 'but detailed statistics on an industrial 'basis were compiled only at monthly intervals, and he was unable then to state what particular industries were

    1037
    affected. I was naturally anxious to ascertain whether this sudden increase in the number of unemployed in the Midlands was due to the effect of the abolition of the McKenna Duties on the motor trade, and I asked if he could give any information of the extent to which it was being increased by the abandonment of the duties. He regretted that he could not give me an answer as the statistical Department was very short-handed, and owing to the process of economy adopted by the House, he had not enough staff to obtain the required information.
    It is quite clear that in this important area of the country, there is a steadily rising tide of unemployment, which is almost entirely due to the fact that these duties are about to be removed. Birmingham is a city of small industries. There are between 1,200 and 1,300 small traders. A great many of these were able to carry on during the past two years, through the flourishing condition of the motor industry, in other parts of the country as well as in the Midlands, which acquired from the small firms certain accessories and parts necessary in the trade. The immediate effect of the Budget speech was that the motor manufacturers suspended or modified large orders which they had placed with these small manufacturers, and naturally this at once led to notice being given to a large number of workpeople that employment could not be continued. A great firm like Lucas's in Birmingham has been obliged to give notice to something like 1,000 hands in the course of the past month or six weeks. That is a condition of things which I am sure no party contemplated when the right hon. Gentleman made his Budget speech. Of course, with all his facile methods of dealing with opponents, the right hon. Gentleman fastened on to one or two of the somewhat extravagant statements which have been made in the newspapers, and on that based his whole argument against the speeches which had been made from the Front Opposition Bench. In a matter like this—we all know the promises which were made in regard to unemployment during the last General Election—the Government ought to have made a more careful study of the results which the abandonment of these duties would have upon the industries of the country before they made it part of their financial policy. Even now
    1038
    it would not be without profit to the Government to make a careful expert examination of the extent to which highly skilled workers are being put out of employment in large numbers because of the course which is being pursued by them. The struggle to-day at the instance of employers to keep their people employed is exceedingly great. There is not much sympathy in certain parts of the House for the employer, but during the last five hard and difficult years the employer has made great sacrifices in order to enable his workpeople to make their livelihood out of the industries in which they are engaged, and no one has observed with greater concern and anxiety the continuous exodus of the highly skilled workers in the engineering trade than the employers whom they served.
    Thanks to their adherence to an old shibboleth and the pursuit of mid-Victorian Free Trade doctrines, great numbers of men, especially men of the quality of those engaged in the engineering trade, are being sacrificed. The Government ought to have given more thought than they apparently did to this point before they introduced these modifications in the taxes. They lose revenue. They do not confer a single benefit upon any soul in this country. They do not reduce the price of motor cars, which in point of fact had been reduced because of higher efficiency and greater production under the existence of these duties. They confer not a single benefit on man, woman or child, and, looking back on the result of their work during the past six weeks or two months, we have weekly another 1,500 skilled men added to the volume of unemployed who register at the Employment Exchanges. In the districts where these industries have contributed so much to the maintenance of the working population the Labour party will have some difficulty in justifying their financial policy the next time they have to make an appeal. I ask the Financial Secretary whether he has any influence upon the stony heart and the somewhat confused economic intelligence of the Chancellor to induce him even now to consider whether there should not he some modification in the determination of the Government to abolish these duties on 1st August. It is not much consolation to the workpeople who are out of employment to know that the Government is salving its conscience by adhering

    1039
    loyally to an old exploded economic principle. At the same time it is of considerable consequence to them to realise that in other parts of the world, in the United States or in Germany, workmen are producing and selling in this country articles in the production of which they themselves should be employed. We are receiving to-day volumes of goods produced under conditions of cheap labour and longer hours in corn, petition with our workpeople here, and this action of the Government in abolishing these duties, at a time when employment was slowly improving and the whole motor industry was prepared to accept the responsibility of standing on its own merits at the end of three years, has struck a severe blow at national prosperity from which it will take us a considerable time to recover. I ask the hon. Gentleman even now to consider whether the position of this industry and all the people employed in these little trades which work for it should not be taken into account.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I am interested in the trend of the Debate, for I was not in favour of the abolition of the McKenna Duties. My view was, and I think I know something about the motor industry, that it would have been much wiser to have given these people three years in which to adapt themselves to the circumstances in which they found themselves. They did not ask for the duties to be imposed. The duties were of no advantage to them while the War was on, and during the slump it could not have been argued that there was any protection to the people who were manufacturing motor cars in this country. Here was a question affecting an industry which was developing on good, sound business lines, an industry which had gone through a very difficult period, and which was beginning to get on to its feet again. If the case had been argued from a business point of view, I suppose there never was a stronger case to put before the House. But that was not the line taken by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition showed very bad judgment in arguing the McKenna Duties from the Tariff Reform Protectionist point of view. However, he argued it from that point of view and he got what he might have expected. He was defeated on the political issue.
    1040
    The Opposition might have argued the question from the business point of view. It ought to have been argued from that point of view. The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) began his speech entirely from the business point of view, but before he had finished he could not leave the old nostrum alone. It is this mixing of politics with business that has as much to do with injury to the motor industry of this country as anything I have ever heard in this House. There was a really fine chance of getting the motor industry on to its feet in this country. That it had gone through very difficult times is proved beyond doubt. The position of their shares is eloquent of had times. Many firms within comparatively recent years have had to go into the Bankruptcy Court, and the story is not all told yet. Not long ago there was a meeting in regard to the winding up of Messrs. Harper Bean and Company, a very large firm. If there had been a chance of continuing the McKenna Duties it would have enabled some of these firms to get on to what is termed mass production lines, in order that they might have competed on more easy terms with their American competitors. We have heard from the hon. Member opposite remarks about the dismissal of men. He mentioned the name of one firm, and I will not controvert what he said, but I believe that a number of firms who have stopped their workpeople will be starting them again. It is utterly fantastic to suggest to this House that the rioter industry is a dying industry.
    Mr. HANNON: I did not say so.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Anybody who follows the operations of the motor industry, and I follow them as close as anybody in this House, must realise that the motor industry is improving very much. Its exports are increasing practically every week, and, side by side with that, the imports of motor cycles particularly have almost faded out of existence. In the motor cycle industry we are making the finest motor cycles in the world, and we are exporting them in increasing numbers to countries throughout the world. We are exporting them to Germany and other countries that were at war with us. So great is the demand for them that they are actually being taken over in aero-

    1041
    planes. Our exports of motor cycles, not only to Europe, but practically every country in the world, are increasing greatly. The weak spot in the business is in regard to the motor car, and I admit the abolition of the McKenna Duties, to some extent, will impose hardship on the motor industry. Even so, I say that the position is not without hope, because I believe that the motor car we are making in this country will not only bear comparison with the motor car made in any other country but it is a far better article in every way.
    From many points of view it is infinitely cheaper, because of its smaller nominal horse-power and the fact that through the improvements achieved in regard to engines, it develops a far greater level of service than most motor cars. There is very little doubt that the American car which has been imported into this country for the last few years will soon be as dead as Queen Anne, and that the motor car made in this country will take its Place as a better engineering proposition and a much more economical type than cars that have been imported in the past. All the same, I would have preferred that the McKenna Duties on motor vehicles should have been taken off by spreading the reduction over three years. That would have given the motor industry in this country a better opportunity of going on with mass production than is likely to be the case under existing circumstances.
    It is very difficult for us on this side of the Committee to take a stand in a case of this kind. I made a few remarks on this subject when the Budget was introduced, and I discovered that my speech was being used in Tory publications as against the Government. I was not against the Government. I voted for the Government. At the same time, I confess that I desired a rather different policy from the one they were pursuing, a policy which would, I think, have been beneficial to the motor industry.
    It would have enabled those industries to get better on to their feet, and it would have made a little more employment for the engineers who are now out of work. It might also have prevented many men, or some men, from emigrating to other countries. These matters may seem of small importance in a big Debate of this kind. but it is the little things
    1042
    that make the big things. From that point of view I am sorry that the Duties were abolished at one swoop, believing as I do that a little consideration not only from this side of the House but from the other side as well would have been advantageous. If the whole proposition had been discussed from the business point of view, I am rather inclined to think that the House might have been willing to give more consideration than it did to the ease. Both sides of the House were equally to blame.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am sure that the Committee will not expect to-night a long reply to the discussion which has taken place, not because I do not realise the importance of the points put forward in this Debate, but because this is a subject upon which the House already, after a very full Debate, has recorded its, decision. The Debate which has just taken place falls into two parts. The first part, which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), regarding the position of a particular industry, the manufacture of cinematograph films; and the second dealt with the McKenna Duties as a whole and was raised by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Duncan). With regard to the manufacture of cinematograph films in this country, it would be wrong on my part to suggest at the moment that I had any detailed information which I could give in reply to the hon. and gallant Member, but the broad facts as regards the importing of cinematograph films into this country under the McKenna Duties is that after the duties were imposed, taking the first year for which we have complete returns, the yield was approximately £184,000, and that rose in the last year for which we have complete returns—1923–24, I think—to about £289,000.
    So it is clear that cinematograph films were coming into this country in increasing numbers, and I should think to some extent, on the mere fiscal aspect alone, that there was not that complete protection to those articles which is sometimes derived from the mere existence of what becomes a protective duty. But we have never disputed that in the repeal of these duties there might be some temporary dislocation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I endeavoured to make that quite plain when the larger discussion took

    1043
    place, but I should think that in a small industry of this kind the dislocation cannot be large, and in any case the practical reply to-night is that we could not possibly exempt from the operation of the repeal the manufacture of cinematograph films without opening the door to other exemptions, which might amount in the long rim to a continuance of the duties themselves. The duties have either got to go altogether or to remain altogether. There cannot be any picking out of particular items without a complete upheaval of an important principle in fiscal practice.
    On the point raised by the hon. Member for Clay Cross, the main suggestion was that some notice should have been given to the traders in this country, and that perhaps over a period of three years, no doubt in three stages, these duties might be repealed. On that point we took a great deal of advice from the trades affected at the time, and I have no hesitation in telling the Committee that the trades themselves made it perfectly plain that if the duties were to disappear they had better disappear as quickly as possible in order to get rid of the uncertainty and doubt which would remain if this was a suspended operation over a certain term of years.
    Mr. HANNON: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not say that the trades were against a period of three years?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, it is, true that there was a difference of opinion in the trade itself, but I should think that for the trades it would be better to give the one definite date, because business men always argue that while they can fight obstacles of all kinds the one thing which they cannot fight is uncertainty, and if the duties were continued for three years, with the possibility of a change of Government that would have exposed important sections of British industry to uncertainty as to the continuance or otherwise of the duties in question, and so the Government decided to repeal the duties all at once. The other point which remains is the larger question of the duties themselves and their aspect upon unemployment. Our information up to the present is that the expected repeal of those duties—they have not yet disappeared—has had no appreciable effect upon unemployment at all.
    1044
    There is a certain temporary embarrassment—at least we hope that it is temporary—in certain parts of the country, but I think that these are only examples, which may be localised, and I can only add that the Government is bound to take its position on all the facts believing as it does that a Free Trade policy is better for this country than a policy which, whatever the origin of the duties was, had at all events become Protection, because during the whole course of the Debate on the general question recently no one suggested that the peculiar conditions which obtained during the War remained still in force. That those conditions had disappeared was generally admitted, and with the disappearance of those conditions there had gone the 1915 case for the duties. I am not a slave to any particular economic doctrine one way or another, but I have always felt that, on balance, a policy of fiscal freedom is the better policy for this country, and there are many reasons on which this could be argued, if this were the appropriate time. My own faith is that the individuality of the British worker and the ability of manufacturers in this country and the quality of the British goods produced by those who are engaged in the industry, will tide over any temporary dislocation, and, taking a long view, that the trade will be stronger and better rather than weaker as a result of the change.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am very glad that the Government have decided to adhere to this Clause as introduced. I do not share in the view which has been expressed that the general motor trade will suffer severely as a result of the discontinuance of these duties. I say that for this reason: I look to our engineering trades before the War, and having regard to the large exports of engineering products, created in British factories by British labour competing against America and Germany in the neutral markets of the world, and having regard to our trade and the size of that trade, I think that experience shows clearly that British commerce, unfettered by State interference supported by British capital, with goods manufactured by British labour on a system of free imports, is able to stand successfully the competition of the world, and I, therefore, do not share the fears that have been expressed in formed Debates that the motor trade will suffer severely on account of the proposals of

    1045
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am glad to see this duty removed, because it is another of the duties which were posed in the stress of the European War. I know that the Opposition have taunted the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the creation of unemployment as a result of his policy. But the Leader of the Opposition invited the decision of the country on the question of Free Trade or Protection, and when the votes were counted these duties were doomed the day after the Election. I am glad that my friends are co-operating with Members of the Labour party in sealing the fate of these duties, and in placing this trade on the same basis as other trades, and I have no doubt that it will be a successful trade in future.

    CLAUSE 9—(Repeal of duty on certain table waters.)
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at end, to insert the words
    "together with fifty per cent. of eight-pence per gallon chargeable under The Finance Act, 1916, and Section five of The Finance Act, 1923, together with the relatively similar a mount of Customs duty chargeable on certain table waters known as-unsweetened table waters and sold or kept for sale in Great Britain or Northern Ireland."
    I move the Amendment as a protest against the rather unfair treatment of unsweetened table waters. If the Chancellor is to give relief to table waters, why should he confine that relief to sweetened table waters? Everything that could be said in favour of the relief of unsweetened waters has been said in support of the Clause as it stands now. The Amendment is designed to extend the benefits of the Clause to unsweetened table waters.
    9.0 P. M.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I thank the hon. Member for the brevity with which he has moved this Amendment. There are two reasons why the remission of duty has this year been confined to sweetened table waters. The Government last year made a reduction of the duty. The House of Commons then admitted that there was a distinction in the claim of the two classes of water for consideration. Sweetened table waters are consumed very largely,
    1046
    indeed in the main, by children of the poorer classes of the community. The unsweetened waters are consumed almost wholly by people of fairly considerable means. Those two facts are borne out by the history of the consumption of sweetened and unsweetened waters since the duties were imposed. There has been a very considerable reduction in the consumption of sweetened table waters. Whereas the duty upon the unsweetened waters has apparently had no effect at all in reducing the consumption—the consumption of unsweetened table waters increased, from the time the duties were first imposed, from 10,800,000 gallons to 12,300,000 gallons—the consumption of sweetened table waters fell from 56½ million gallons to 31 million gallons in the same period. Those figures support the choice we have made in favouring sweetened waters this year. The tax on unsweetened table waters is one that I would not continue if I had an abundance of resources and was in a position to scatter my bounty, but for the time being the complete abolition of the duty on sweetened waters has a prior claim. The cost of the Amendment would be very considerable.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The total duty for 1924–25 is £480,000, and for unsweetened waters £30,000,000 only.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is wrong. The Amendment would cost an additional £130,000 this year and £200,000 in a full year. With the remission which I have given to the sweetened waters, that would make a total in a full year of £500,000, which is much more than I can afford now. The only hope I can hold out to the lion. Member is that in more prosperous times he may be able to press his claim.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I see quite plainly that the amount of money involved is too largo a sum for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant. I would draw this conclusion from his speech. He tells us that the duty on sweetened table waters caused a diminution of the sale. The moral to draw from that is that sweetened table waters are a luxury. The duty has had no effect on unsweetened waters. Why? Because unsweetened water, pure water, is a necessity.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken the trouble to

    1047
    ascertain as nearly as possible the cost of collecting these duties? It has been said that the cost of collection leaves very little margin to the Exchequer. Would it not be desirable to abolish this comparatively small tax altogether?
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Amendment as to methylated spirits.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HOPE: This is a somewhat recondite and abstruse Clause which should not pass without some explanation from the representative of the Government. Sub-Section (1) appears to give a somewhat wide dispensing power to the Treasury, or at least to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, to state what substances should be mixed for making industrial methylated spirits and mineralised methylated spirits respectively. The second Sub-section seems to suppose that the vicious custom has arisen of drinking methylated spirits. If prohibition prevailed here I could well understand the need for such a provision as this, but I have never heard of it being a practice of any section of the community to drink mixtures of methylated spirits, and I ask either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to state the reason for this Clause.
    Mr. GRAHAM: The object of the Clause is to deal, at all events in part, with the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, and to try to make methylated spirits more objectionable in order to cut down the consumption of that spirit as a commodity in the nature of what might be called "refreshment." That raises certain rather obscure and difficult questions turning on the Spirits Act and other legislation of the past, and what we had to do was to frame this Clause in such a way as to be consistent with that legislation. In the second place, we had to be perfectly satisfied that any steps we took would not interfere with the full and free use of methylated spirits for industrial and other purposes. The Committee will not expect me to go into the various classes of methylated spirits which now exist, but may I
    1048
    say that the object is to introduce something into the spirit which would make it objectionable but, at the same time, will be non-poisonous and non-alcoholic, which will not interfere with its industrial use and which will fulfil a variety of other conditions. I am not, even in the most remote sense, by way of being a chemist, but I think it is pyridine which it is proposed to add. I am advised that the admixture will not impair the spirit for industrial use but will make it so abominable that only in very desperate cases is it likely to be consumed as a beverage. I am bound to tell the Committee that it is possible to exaggerate the extent to which methylated spirit drinking has grown in this country within recent years, and I do not propose to make any dramatic declaration upon that point, but there is a very complete Home Office statement—prepared by the police authorities—which shows that in certain centres in South Wales and, I regret to add, also in my own country of Scotland, the consumption of methylated spirits, especially among women, has increased. The result is the rapid and, I am afraid, in many cases the complete degradation of the victim. While the aggregate number of such cases is not large, they are undoubtedly tragic and it is the duty of Parliament, if it can do so, to devise a means of making the spirit more objectionable without impairing its industrial value. I believe, on the basis of the evidence from chemists and others which we have seen, together with the legislative scheme which we have adopted, we have reached that result and with that explanation I invite the Committee to give a trial to these proposals in the hope that they may deal with a very real social evil before it grows to greater dimensions.
    Mr. HOPE: As I understand the Financial Secretary's explanation, it does not cover the first Sub-section. I should imagine that Sub-section (2), which requires security to be given, including a requirement for the observance of special conditions in connection with the making of spirits, was sufficient. There does not appear to be anything in Sub-section (1) which bears upon the point referred to by the Financial Secretary. Do I understand that the whole of this Clause is directed towards a. measure of social reform and has no fiscal bearing at all?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is true there is no fiscal element in this Clause at all, but I am advised that the first part is necessary in order to secure elasticity, which is not possible under existing legislation. It was in order to make the remainder of the Clause more effective and more certain that we introduced Sub-section (1).
    Lieut. - Colonel LAMBERT WARD: What is the substance which it is intended to put into the spirit? We do not want to make matters worse than they are at present, and, if this substance has not been carefully experimented upon and tested, possibly it may have more disastrous results to the unfortunate victims of this tragic vice than the drinking of the original methylated spirits. I do not know if it is a secret, or if the hon. Gentleman will be disposed to state what is the substance?
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is it a colourless substance, so that methylated spirits may be so treated as to be readily distinguishable from the delectable liquor which is drunk by some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents?
    Mr. GRAHAM: This discussion really calls for the presence of the Government chemist. I think I am correct in saying that methylated spirit sold in small retail quantities is already coloured, and my information is there will be no interference with that arrangement. As regards the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) I am obliged to read the exact description of the element which it is proposed to introduce. It is:
    "A quantity of crude pyridine, a constituent of bone oil which is an exceedingly repellant and nauseous substance and which is not readily removable from the spirit."
    I always apologise for reading anything to the Committee, but I think in the circumstances I may be forgiven on this occasion.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Drawback on exportation of blended tea.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HOPE: The explanation of the Financial Secretary on the last Clause
    1050
    was so lucid that I invite him to explain this Clause. For example, what is meant by "exhausted tea." The Committee learned a great deal from his last speech and I hope they will learn as much from his coming speech.
    Mr. GRAHAM: The Committee will not ask me for a long explanation of this Clause because the point is comparatively simple. It has arisen because of the existence of the Irish Free State as a separate country and we require to make this arrangement in order to maintain freedom of trade between this country and the Irish Free State. It simply amounts to this in practice, that it saves blenders in London, which is a very important centre of the tea trade, from collecting the tea from different warehouses; it shortens the process of blending and it enables the quick delivery of the Irish tea to be maintained and thus, an important part of our trade with that country is safeguarded. As regards the expression "exhausted tea," I understand that it simply indicates the introduction of leaf which is already exhausted, a fraudulent process against which we must take precautions. That is the whole explanation of this Clause which is necessary, as any representative of the tea trade will inform the Committee, in order that the industry may be freely carried on.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Amendment of S. 6 of Revenue Act, 1909.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HOPE: I think I must ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for a third explanation, in regard to this Clause. On the face of it, it has a auspicious appearance of being directed to favour the importation of German lager beer, and it certainly does make it easier for trade in foreign beers to be carried on in this country. I think we should have some assurance on this point.
    Mr. GRAHAM: This also is a Clause which is rendered necessary by the existence of the Irish Free State. The precise point in this Clause is that under Section 6 of the Revenue Act, 1909, there is a provision that duty-paid beer which has been brewed in the United Kingdom

    1051
    may be deposited in an approved warehouse for export. Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1914, provides, among other things, that when the duty-paid beer brewed in the United Kingdom is deposited in an approved warehouse for export the drawback of duty shall be allowed and paid as if the deposit in the warehouse were the exportation of the beer, instead of being withheld. The short proposal in this case is simply to extend these provisions to beer brewed elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, in order to permit the continuance of the export trade in Irish beer which had grown up in this country before the constitution of the Irish Free State. It is simply the removal of difficulties arising by the existence of the Irish Free State as a separate legislative and administrative entity.
    Mr. HOPE: If the object be to safeguard the interests of the Irish Free State, and particularly, I suppose, the interests of the stout export trade, why should not the hon. Gentleman say so in the Clause? The words of this Clause apply to beer brewed anywhere, and I suggest that the effect may be to encourage an import and re-export trade, to the detriment of the beer brewed in what used to be the United Kingdom.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think the short reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that this Clause legalises the concession which I have described, and it is true that it is drawn in general terms applicable to all beer, because it is considered undesirable to confine it to Irish beer, but, in fact, I think, the strict position is that there is little or no trade in bottling beer for export, except in the case of British or Irish beers, so that in practice, I think, the danger which the right hon. Gentleman mentions is hardly likely to arise.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: I do not see that one can quite be satisfied with this explanation. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the subject to know how much bottled beer may come from Germany, but it does not seem to me that there is any serious reason—and the Financial Secretary has not told us any—why the Irish Free State should not be specified in this Clause. Certainly, I have no doubt that the sense of the Committee would, by an overwhelming majority, be against giving this privilege
    1052
    to Continental beers. If it be undoubtedly the fact that nothing will be affected by this Clause except Irish beer, I do not think we ought to pass it in this form, and, if I am in order, I should like to move to omit the words "elsewhere than in the United Kingdom," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the the Irish Free State."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and the hon. Member is not, therefore, in order in moving that Amendment now.
    Mr. HERBERT: With a view to the preservation of our rights on the Report stage, I shall formally oppose the Clause. I do not think it is sufficient to get a mere expression of opinion from the Financial Secretary that in practice he does not think the Clause will apply to anything but Irish beer, and I do not think we have yet had any sufficient reason given as an objection to specifying the Irish Free State. I should have thought that it would be the reasonable thing to do to show that we were giving that part of the Empire this particular privilege, which we did not propose to extend to foreign countries on the Continent.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Parkinson were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.
    Clauses 13 (Amendment of s. 4 of Finance Act, 1915), and 14 (Game certificates and gun licences taken out in Northern Ireland to be available in Great Britain), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Amendments as to licences for mechanically-propelled vehicles.)
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I beg to move, in page 9, line 5, after the word "registered," to insert the words
    "or, in the case of a licence charged with duty under the said paragraph (a), to the council of the county or county borough by which the licence was granted."
    This is a drafting Amendment, rendered necessary by reason of the fact that

    1053
    a general trade licence is not granted in respect of a particular registered vehicle.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 9, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words "if the vehicle is," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the case of a licence in respect of.'
    This is a necessary drafting Amendment, for the same reason that applied to the last Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel L. WARD: May we have a few more words of explanation regarding this particular Amendment? It seems rather difficult to understand what it means. Does this paragraph taken as a whole mean that a holder of a licence can surrender it at any time he likes and for a period of completed months, and at the end of that time recover the licence, receiving as rebate so much per month? That, I think, is what the House understood was to be the, meaning of this Clause when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the Bill.
    Mr. GOSLING: The previous reason that I gave, and the only one I have, is that it is rendered necessary by reason of the fact that a general trade licence is not granted in respect of a particular registered vehicle.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 9, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "if the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the case of any other licence."
    This is an Amendment again for the same reason.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I beg to move, in page 9, line 21, at end to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(2) So much of paragraph (6) of the Second Schedule to The Finance Act, 1920, as relates to proof of the payment of duty and to the repayment of twenty-five per cent. thereof is hereby repealed, and it is hereby enacted that if any person proves to the satisfaction of the authority charged with levying the duty payable in respect of any vehicle chargeable under the said paragraph, as amended by any subsequent enactment, that the engine of the vehicle was constructed eight years before the first day of January of the year in which duty is payable he shall be entitled to an abatement
    1054
    of twenty-five per cent. of the duty payable under the said Section."
    The effect of this Amendment is to provide for a 25 per cent. reduction of the tax to cars over eight years old. In 1920 there came into force the present taxation of motor vehicles. A car that was eight years old was then considered worthy of an exemption of 25 per cent. from the licence payable on a new car. I would ask the hon. Member who represents the Ministry of Transport whether he cannot carry that eight years forward so that whenever a car is eight years old it will be automatically liable to a reduction of 25 per cent. That is to say, that it will pay 15s. per horse power instead of the existing £1 per horse power. A car as it gets old is no longer as good or efficient as it was when new, and it also prevents the free sale to-day of second-hand cars. You have in many cases a high tax on those second-hand cars. In many cases to-day you will scarcely be able to sell a second-hand car because it is inefficient, it has a very high yearly tax on it, and there are no buyers. There are no buyers because of the high tax. That is the whole reason. Therefore I would ask the Minister of Transport or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether they could not carry out the same exemption throughout for cars that are eight years old. In 1921, a year after the present law authorising the present taxation of motor vehicles came into force, people imagined that it applied to cars eight years old. They found that they were mistaken, and that it applied only to cars manufactured before 1913. To-day there are fewer cars on the road that were made before 1913. I suggest that the Minister should look into the question. It is a grievance. Old cars are still serviceable. There is this high tax on them. They are not as efficient as when they were new, and I think he should give some benefit by reduction in these taxes to these older cars. Also another point. Supposing there is reduced taxation, the depreciation of a new car will not be so great as it is to-day because it is impossible to-day to sell an old car over eight years old because of the high tax on it, whereas if the taxes are lower there will be a freer market for these cars. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give this small concession to motorists by reducing the tax per horse power from £1 to 15s. on small cars, private cars

    1055
    and commercial cars that are over eight years old and still on the road.
    Mr. J. HARRIS: This is a very small concession for which we are asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I only want, in a few words, to support the hon. Gentleman opposite. If there are any reasons for adhering to this present arrangement I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us. But I can think of no reasons which apply to-day which did not apply in 1920, when these concessions were made. If it were thought wise in 1920 to give this concession of 25 per cent. on cars built prior to the War, surely the same condition should obtain to-day. I want rather to put this plea on the ground of advantage to the Exchequer. I venture to think it is to the advantage of the Exchequer to make this concession. A great many people are attempting to commence driving cars because of the great advantage they get. The agent comes along and says, "You can begin. It will not cost you very much." The first thing the purchaser says is, "What on earth is the tax on the car?" Says the agent, "You begin on a second-hand car, an old car, and you will have the advantage of a low tax." The motoring community is tempted, so to speak, into the parlour of learning to drive a car because of the great advantage they will get on the second-hand car, and they will lead to a very much larger motoring community, and in turn to greater revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I appeal to him, in the interests of the motoring community and particularly of beginners, to see if he cannot make this form of concession to us.
    Mr. GOSLING: The Amendment is evidently based on a misconception. The concession, as appears in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, was not given because an engine eight years old might be expected, simply because it was eight years old, to be worn out or inefficient. 1st January, 1913, was purposely selected because it Was considered that at or about the beginning of 1913 there was a trend of change of design whereby, in order to reduce the tax payable, the effective horse power of an engine was increased by lengthening the stroke and reducing the bore, the effect of which was to reduce the Treasury rating from which
    1056
    duty was assessed. There has been no general change of design since that time, and there is, therefore, no logical reason for making the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1920, as proposed.
    Commander BELLAIRS: What Departmental Committee, in what year?
    Mr. GOSLING: The Departmental Committee I speak of is the Committee of 1920. The Departmental Committee recommended this rebate for pre-1913 engines and stated that
    "This concession is considered expedient in order not to hamper the continued use of cars of obsolete types at a time when the supply of new cars is not equal to the demand."
    This state of things no longer exists. From the administrative point of view there would also be objections to the Amendment on the ground that the investigation and certification of pre-1913 engines would involve a considerable amount of work on the part of the local authorities, which is administratively undesirable. So long as the rebate is based on a distinctive change in design affecting the calculation of horse power it is logical to confine it to vehicles the rate of duty on which is based on horse power. When, however, as will be the case, the rebate is based on the theory that a vehicle a certain number of years old is considerably less efficient there will be considerable difficulty logically in refusing to extend the rebate to all classes of vehicles. This would largely increase the administrative difficulties and would have a substantial effect on revenue. Under the circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I regret that the Government have not agreed to accept this Amendment. The Minister has advanced the theory that at one particular date the change in motor cars was very pronounced. From 1913 to 1916, which is the date to which the eight years now go back, very few motor cars were made in this country, as most of the manufacturing resources of the country were not being devoted to motor-car manufacture but to other work for war purposes. The number of cars introduced between 1913 and 1916 was inconsiderable, and I think that the administrative difficulties have been very much exaggerated by the Minister. As long as you make your taxation on horse-power basis and

    1057
    nothing else it is inconceivable to think that the efficiency of engines will not increase from year to year. Consequently it seems to me that the eight-year basis would be a quite reasonable and satisfactory basis to take when you compare your engines and modern engines. You get a rebate at present on 1913 cars of 33 per cent., and it is not likely that in eight years the modern motor manufacturer will improve the efficiency on the engine by 33 per cent. In future years, when the eight-years' period brings us up to 1922 there will be little difficulty in view of the fact that between 1913 and 1916 very few motor cars were made in this country. Therefore the administrative difficulty will be very small, and I think the Minister might well accept the Amendment which I hope will be pressed.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: I regret I did not hear the whole of the Minister's reply on this Amendment, because the case in connection with the eight-year old motor car is one I know very well. But I judge from what I heard of the statement that the whole tenor of the reply was the greatest condemnation possible of the existing system of taxation. If you have got a rigid form of taxation which permits of no elasticity whatever, does the Minister intend to perpetuate that system and make no rebate other than that made in the case of care manufactured before 1913? Is he going to maintain his rigid system of taxation ad infinitum? If he does not mean that, what does he mean? I say the motor owner who possesses a car with an engine above a certain age has a perfectly just case to put before the Minister, and it is no use for that hon. Gentleman to meet it with a blank negative. Practically every Member of this House is, I assume, a motorist to-day, whatever party he may belong to, and he must realise that the case submitted to the Minister to-night is a reasonable one. We say that some allowance should be made and incorporated in the taxation of this country for engines which are getting old and out of date.
    Everybody knows perfectly well that cars of a certain age have depreciated enormously in value. Everybody knows that the insurance companies compute the depreciation of a motor-car at about 33 per cent. per annum. If that is so in the case of the insurance companies, why should not the Government take some of
    1058
    these facts into their consideration? They do not do it at present. They are raising an enormous sum by way of taxation from the motor-using community, and when I speak of the motor-using community, I not only refer to the class of motorists to which I may belong, but I speak for people whose case I know Well, and I want to submit that the more you can encourage motor using in this country, the better it will be for the country. It will not only benefit the class of men who own the expensive Rolls Royce cars, but you will benefit the poorer sections of the community. You are going to take money from the large centres of population, where presumably the majority of motorists are concentrated, and you are going to encourage people who use motors to go out into the countryside, and make more use of this means of communication than they have hitherto done. The more you do that, the more that community will spread its money afield, and I hope that those who so ably represent agricultural constituencies in this House, will to-night combine to support us, because the more motorists use agricultural roads, the more backing will there be to those who represent agricultural constituencies when they come to this House, and say, "We do not get half enough from the Minister and our agricultural roads."
    In all sincerity, I put this to the Minister. Do not look upon this question from the point of view, so to speak, of reducing the number of motors on the roads, because you will do that in effect if you keep your taxation at the present limit. The whole motor-using community, whether commercial or pleasure, are all combined on one thing, and that is they are not satisfied that the existing taxation, as the Minister himself knows well—I think he has got in his Office the Report of this wonderful Committee which has sat for rather more than three years, and the Conservative Government, with himself, will take the blame for the monstrous delay—he knows full well that that Committee has, in effect, really turned down the existing system of taxation. They admit it is inequitable.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is travelling very wide from this Amendment. It only affects cars of eight years of age.
    Viscount CURZON: I would submit that this does hear a certain relation,

    1059
    because cars of eight years of age are taxed as if they have only just come out of the works. I would submit that the persent system of taxation is wholly inequitable, because of that very fact. If the hon. Gentleman is going to stick to the existing system of taxation, which is disliked by the whole motor-using fraternity, and which everybody agrees is quite inequitable, there should be a graduated tax on the present basis, and the best system of graduation is to make some sort of allowance for the unfortunate individual—because he is unfortunate, in that his vehicle is practically unsaleable—who is saddled with a motor eight years old. Cannot some concession be made? You have told those who use motor vehicles that you cannot give a fuel tax—and I agree with the Minister it is almost impracticable—but if you cannot give a fuel tax, cannot you make some concession to those who, even the agricultural fraternity, and anyone who knows anything at all about the upkeep of roads will agree, bear a very large portion of the cost?
    It is not a great concession that is being asked, and I submit that the more you do it, the more you will encourage the use of cars, and the more you encourage the use of cars, the more you will get. I ask the hon. Gentleman not hastily to turn down the proposition put to him to-night. It is a business proposition which will encourage the use of motors, and, by encouraging the use of motors, more revenue will be got. I submit to my hon. Friends who represent agricultural constituencies that the more motorists use their roads the more backing they will get. Therefore, I hope the Committee will support this Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friends whose names are behind it will press it to a Division. I would ask the Minister not lightly to turn down the case put before him tonight.
    Sir CHARLES BARRIE: With the Noble Lord, I am in entire agreement as to promoting the motor industry, but I hope the Minister on this occasion will resist the Amendment. As I understand it, the taxes raised from the taxation of motor vehicles go to keep up the roads in the country, and I do not see any reason why motor cars, even although they be eight years old, should get an
    1060
    abatement of 25 per cent. The chances are that a vehicle eight years old is badly tyred and is heavy, and probably knocks up the roads very much more that a new vehicle would, and I do not see any reason whatever why the Minister should give an abatement of 25 per cent on a vehicle simply because it happens to be eight years old. If some hon. Members opposite will bring forward an Amendment to reduce taxation on all motor cars by 25 per cent. or more, it will have my hearty support, because I am in entire agreement with the Noble Lord on this point, that the taxation of motor cars should take a different form. But why, because a vehicle happens to be a few years old and getting out of date, it should have a preference of 25 per cent. in duty, is entirely beyond me. As a matter of fact, the vehicle ought probably to be off the road altogether and so provide employment, perhaps amongst the Noble Lord's constituents, in building a new car.
    Lieut.-Colonel JOHN WARD: I want to support the Amendment, to some extent, for the very reason my hon. Friend opposite has opposed it. I think the main reason why this Amendment has been brought forward by at least one or two of the hon. Members whose names are attached to it is this. The regular scorcher on the road, the wealthy man, the millionaire motor owner, will not have a car more than about a year old, and as you go down in the scale there is the man who has to keep his car three or four years, and finally the very poorest man, who wants, and ought to have, as much opportunity of recreation, exercise and seeing the country, which is almost barred to men in that particular class, and there you count to the five, six, or seven year old car. That is the car owned by the poorest motorist, and when you get to eight years you may take it for granted that it is a car that the Noble Lord or my hon. Friend opposite would not look at. My hon. Friends, among some others, do not want that type of car given a chance to keep on the road. It is rather in the way of the scorcher The owner of the old car has got to jog along with his family and his two or three, or it may be five or six, kiddies, in a quiet sort of way, and he is an absolute obstructionist to the scorcher which the Noble Lord and his friends represent. I say that, so far as I am concerned, if this Amendment goes

    1061
    to a Division, merely to give to the poorer man that has got, or acquired, an old car a chance of using it on the road, and enjoying life as much as the other fellows, I shall certainly be found in the Division Lobby.
    Captain BRASS: The original concession, so far as this duty is concerned, 25 per cent. rebate, was made in the Finance Act of 1910. It was made not because the car was a certain age but because there was an alteration made in the design of the engine. Before the Finance Act of 1910 the Royal Automobile Club formula for calculating the Horse-Power did not exist. When the latter came into operation, instead of the cubic capacity rating, the Horse-Power Tax made the motor manufaturers of this country start designing and making engines with a very small bore and a very long stroke. That was due to the Finance Act of 1910. That in itself, I contend, is a bad thing for the export trade of this country, because if you have these sort of regulations that result in forcing manufacturers to make a type of engine which is not required on the Continent or elsewhere, it is a handicap to our export trade, and a very bad one.
    I contend that although this remission of 25 per cent. was due to the alteration in the design of the engine, the age of the engine has necessarily got to come into the matter. I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banff (Sir C. Barrie) that an old car is badly tyred. I agree that a car may be tyred, but I do not agree that old cars should have any worse kind of tyres than the new cars. But I do say this—I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend will or will not agree with me—that it is the same with individuals as with cars, as one gets older one gets less efficient. Why is a motor car taxed on its horse-power. For this reason, I understand, that the higher horse-powered cars are more damaging to the roads than the lower. As a car becomes older it becomes less efficient and in consequence has less horse-power than before. The engine is getting older. If you are going to be fair and to tax cars on the horse-power developed on the road, I do think that the Minister ought very carefully to consider this question, because there is
    1062
    no doubt about it as the engine does get older it becomes less efficient; consequently it does less damage to the roads, and consequently it should pay lees tax than a new car of the same horse-power.
    10.0 P.M.
    A car that was made in 1912, at the present time, say, gets this rebate at the rate of 25 per cent. In 1950, if we are all here, no car except a car bought in 1912 will be able to claim the rebate of 25 per cent. You will have to go back to 1912 and say that only cars made before 1912 are to be allowed the rebate. I think that is all wrong. It is a wrong principle altogether. I think that when cars get older and become less efficient, and produce less horse-power, they should be able to get this rebate of 25 per cent., and so encourage the people who would otherwise do so not to buy foreign cars, but to buy those old cars which are in the market at the present time.
    Commander BELLAIRS: This is a very small concession for which my hon. Friend asks. The Minister of Transport really cannot be congratulated on the arguments that he used against it. He fortified himself by reference to the Departmental Committee of 1920. But the report of that Committee was so inefficient that we had to set up another Committee almost at once to consider the question of motor taxation. This Committee has been sitting for something like three years, and we have only just got its report. Most conveniently, so that motorists could not be dealt with in the Budget. The Minister of Transport said it would probably cause some confusion in the accounts of the various county councils. I cannot see that at all. All you have to do is to put in the date and other information as to the manufacture of the car, and there need be no trouble in the matter whatever. I do plead with him that, seeing the opinion of the House is clearly against him, that if he speaks again he should make this very small concession, because it does not affect the Budget at all. The cost of these taxes comes out of the Road Fund, and the money is earmarked for the purpose. Therefore I ask him to make this concession, or otherwise we must go to a Division.
    Sir G. COLLINS: Before we go to a Division I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister of Transport. I understand that if this Amendment be

    1063
    carried it would mean a small loss, but a loss growing over a number of years. There might consequently be a very serious loss, and one growing in volume to a considerable sum. Will the Minister also tell us what will be the extra cost to his Department of examining these cars? I think, perhaps, the Committee might have information on those two points before we come to a decision in the matter. There is one other question. Reference has been made to the Report referring to Motor Taxation being to-day in the hands of the Minister. If that be so, and the Committee report some new basis, it may be that the Minister could hold out hopes that during the next six or 12 months, on this Report, which he, I understand, had in his possession, he could submit new proposals to the Committee on this point, to deal, not only with this very narrow point which the Committee are discussing, but with the larger question of motor taxation.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: The somewhat ancient car I run myself happens to be of the 1912 vintage, and therefore I shall get this 25 per cent. When I heard the hon. Member for Banff (Sir C. Barrie) speak disparagingly of these old cars I remember my own case, and they are not so bad after all. When I went into this question three months ago I found there were a good many instances where the taxation on some of these light cars cost almost as much as the car, and that penalises your small man who can only afford a small sum to buy a car, because it often means an upkeep of £14 or £15 per annum when the capital outlay is only about £25 or £30. Therefore I suggest it is very important that you should make your motor car running costs as low as possible in order to let people get out into the country during the week end. I understand that the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have relatively a very small amount in hand to play with, but may I point out that this concession will come out of the Road Fund, which is far larger than it was ever expected it would be, and it has raised a good many millions more than was expected. I would also like to point out that the cost of road making is going down, and therefore we could very well make a concession of this sort which would do a great deal to help the small
    1064
    men who cannot afford a car with such a heavy upkeep as is necessary at the present time.
    Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: I hope the Minister of Transport will resist this Amendment to his utmost ability. This House has passed a Resolution expressing agreement with the Motion brought forward to the effect that already the Road Fund is not sufficient to supply all that is required for the maintenance of country roads. We are being asked to reduce the amount paid into the Road Fund, and the consequence will be to add to the amount which has to be borne by the ratepayers of rural districts, and I do not think that is a reasonable request to make. I for one feel that rural ratepayers at present pay far too much, and when hon. Members come forward with the argument that if we have more cars running on the roads we shall get more revenue, I would reply that the number of cars running on the roads at the present time is causing a deficit of revenue in the country districts, and if the number of cars is increased that deficit will be all the greater.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman draw some distinction between the cars and say whether the damage to rural roads is caused by heavy or light vehicles?
    Mr. WILSON: The damage is caused by large and small cars, and that does not affect the argument I am using against the point that the more cars you have the larger will be the revenue. My argument is that the more cars you have on the roads the more damage will be done, and the more the rural ratepayers will have to pay. Therefore, I hope the Minister of Transport will oppose this Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: I was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) using the argument about horse-power. As a matter of fact, the older the machines the more ramshackle they become, and the more damage they do, and these old machines are a nuisance on the road. If this principle is admitted, it is placing a premium on inefficient machines, and simply encouraging the use of vehicles which are not safe and constitute a public danger. It is simply encouraging people to buy these secondhand machines, which damage the roads.
    Mr. ACLAND: This Debate has some interest for me, because I happen to own a car to which this Amendment would apply. I very much agree with the argument that really for the interests of the rural districts it would be ten thousand pities to do anything which would take a single £10 note from the sum available to assist rural roads. I shall support the opposition to this Amendment, and I hope we shall have as much money as possible from the Road Fund for our rural roads, the expenses of which are continually increasing and not decreasing.
    Captain Viscount EDNAM: I want to say a word on behalf of the small business man who sits in his office all through the week and has only one day a week when he can get out for a short country run, and he is generally a man who abhors a motor bicycle. It seems to me very hard that that man should be penalised because the agricultural ratepayers will not help him, for the reason that they are afraid of having to pay a heavier rate for their roads. I suggest that if this concession were made it would result in a larger number of these old cars being used, and they are only used about one day a week. This would result in a larger number of taxes being paid on those old cars, and in the end the Road Fund would gain by it. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), I also am the owner of a 10-year old car, and my car is an honest car, that is to say, when it declared its horsepower 12 years ago it declared its true horse-power. It cannot develop that horsepower now, but at that time it declared its true horse-power, and was not like many cars I see standing outside now in Star Court, which declare a horse-power of, say, 14. I know of one in particular, which I am perfectly certain is a 40-horse-power car. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I do not mind
    naming it. It is a Bentley. I have nothing to say against the Bentley car. I believe it was specially designed—whether by means of a small bore or long stroke I do not know—to cheat this form of taxation. I do maintain that my old car and those other old cars belonging to numbers of my constituents, which are used only once a week, should have this concession. There is one more suggestion that I should like to put to the Minister. If he thinks that this is too great a concession for which to ask on behalf of an eight-year old car, would he consider granting it on an even older car, say, 10 years old? I do think that these small business men, who, as I have said, want to use their cars once a week to get a breath of country air, should have a chance of owning an old car which they can afford, and which in the ordinary course they would not be able to afford owing to the enormous duty.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I rise to support the Amendment, in the interest of a very large number of individuals who cannot afford a high-power car. It has been suggested that an old badly-tyred car wears out the road more than a newer car which is heavier; but it must be known to every motorist here that it is not weight and bad tyres that wear out the roads—it is speed. A car running at a high speed will wear out more road in half a day than an old badly-tyred car, even though it be heavier, will in a week. Further, on the question of the improvement in trade, a very large number of cars which are eight years old now would be bought by a large section of the community if the price were reduced a little. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will support the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 275.

    Division No. 122.]

    AYES

    [10.20 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Brass, Captain W.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Apsley, Lord

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Cockerill, Brigadier General G. K.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Austin, Sir Herbert

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Cope, Major William

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hughes, Collingwood

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Ropner, Major L.

    Deans, R. Storry.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Dixon, Herbert

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Savery, S. S.

    Ednam, Viscount

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Elveden, Viscount

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    England, Colonel A.

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Stanley, Lord

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Gates, Percy

    Lyle, Sir Leonard

    Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    MacDonald, R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Moles, Thomas

    Waddington, R.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wells, S. R.

    Harvey, C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Weston, John Wakefield

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wise, Sir Frederic

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Perring, William George

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Philipson, Mabel

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Pielou, D. P.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury and Mr. John Harris.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Alden, Percy

    Cove, W. G.

    Haycock. A. W.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hemmerde, E. G.

    Alstead, R.

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Crittall, V. G.

    Henderson, A (Cardiff, South)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Darbyshire, C. W.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Baker, Walter

    Dickson, T.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Banton, G.

    Dukes, C.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Barclay. R. Noton

    Duncan, C.

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Dunnico, H.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Barnes, A.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

    Hudson, J. H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Birkett, W. N.

    Egan, W. H.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Black, J. W.

    Falconer, J.

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Finney, V. H.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Bondfleid, Margaret

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Bonwick, A.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Broad, F. A.

    Gillett, George M.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Bromfield, William

    Gorman, William

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Gosling, Harry

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Keens, T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Kennedy, T.

    Buckle, J.

    Greenall, T.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Groves, T.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Grundy, T. W.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Lansbury, George

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Laverack, F. J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Law, A.

    Climie, R.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hardle, George D.

    Lawson, John James

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R

    Harris, Percy A.

    Leach, W.

    1068

    1069

    Lee, F.

    Pease, William Edwin

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Lesing, E.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Perry, S. F.

    Sullivan, J.

    Loverseed, J. F.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Lowth, T

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Terrington, Lady

    Lunn, William

    Potts, John S.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    McCrae, Sir George

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Raffan, P. W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Macfadyen, E.

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Mackinder, W.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    McLean, Major A.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Toole, J.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Richards, R.

    Viant, S. P.

    March, S.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Ritson, J.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Marley, James

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Warne, G. H.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Maxton, James

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Middleton, G.

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Westwood, J.

    Mills, J. E.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Mond, H.

    Sexton, James

    Whiteley, W.

    Morel, E. D.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wignall, James

    Morris, R. H.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Williams, Dr. J. H (Lianelly)

    Morrison, R. C (Tottenham, N.)

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B.(Kenningtn.)

    Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

    Morse, W. E.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Muir, John W.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Willison, H.

    Murray, Robert

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Murrell, Frank

    Snell, Harry

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Windsor, Walter

    Nichol, Robert

    Spence, R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Nixon, H.

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Woodwork, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Spoor, B. G.

    Wright, W.

    Owen, Major G.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Paling, W.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Palmer, E. T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. John

    Pattlnson, S. (Horncastle)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Robertson

    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I beg to move, in page 9, line 21, at end, to insert
    "(2) The rate of duty chargeable under the Second Schedule of The Finance Act, 1920, shall be reduced by twenty-five per cent. in the case of any vehicle of which the unladen weight does not exceed two tons."
    These taxes were imposed when the cost of living was at its height, and when all taxes were at their height. Motorists since that time have had no reduction, and it is time something was done for them. A Committee has been sitting for the last three years to inquire into the question of motor taxation. If that Committee does report within the next few days, its Report cannot come into force before 1926. What, we ask is a reduction of 25 per cent. for the year beginning 1st January, 1925, on motor-cars under two tons in weight, which would include light vans, bakers' vans, and the vans of small tradesmen. The cost of this is not
    1070
    likely to be more than £1,750,000. When these taxes were first imposed, the total amount produced was £9,000,000. To-day these, taxes bring in something like £15,500,000, and they are increasing at the rate of over £1,000,000 per year.
    Mr. MILLS: When were they put on?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: They were put on in the year 1920–21. Sir Henry Maybury, in a speech which he made, on Friday, referred to the increase of mechanically propelled vehicles and said:
    "They would in all probability continue to increase. Already the road fund had over £15,500,000 this year paid into it,"
    but he added—and he is not a real friend to the lighter motorist—
    "he was not sure that it would be wise to give a very much larger percentage to the local authorities than they were giving. There was just a danger than when money came too easily there was not the same keen desire for economy."

    1071
    I think that that is very true at present. People think that this road fund is a bottomless well out of which they can always draw as much as they like. In three months of this year no less than £5,500,000 was contributed by the owners of private cars and motor cyclists, which amount exceeds the whole revenue from these vehicles in 1921. Only in November last year Sir Henry Maybury again said:
    "He believed we had come to the apex of our spending on the roads. The costs were beginning to decrease, and in many cases we had gone back again to the expense of 1913–14."
    Therefore, as this fund is a constantly increasing one, he thought we had already caught up with the repairs that were necessary, and that there would be no longer need to have an increasing amount going year after year into the Road Fund. I hope that the Committee will accede to this request. It does not affect the Budget in the slightest degree; the money goes into the Road Fund. I ask the Minister of Transport to give some concession after all these years to the motorists. We have had no concession whatever since the War. Motorists have been taxed unduly for the wear and tear that they are supposed to cause to the roads. The damage done by the light car is only a quarter of what is done by the heavy motor lorry. If a preference is given to cars under two tons in weight it will be a preference given to those cars with pneumatic tyres which do far and away less damage to the roads than the heavy vehicle, and they will be paying a fairer percentage of tax than they are paying to-day. The 1920 Budget was all in favour of the heavy motor interests—the big omnibus combines and all the heavy lorries that do so much damage to the roads. By reducing by 25 per cent. the taxes on the lighter cars that are under two tons in weight, you would be bringing them nearer to the right proportion, having regard to the damage that is done to the roads.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: First of all it is necessary again to point out that should the Minister of Transport wish to accept this Amendment it does not affect the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the money that we are thinking about now does not go into the Budget proper, but is ear-marked for
    1072
    certain particular purposes. Whether the Minister of Transport assents to or refuses this particular concession depends on a matter of high policy, which is to what amount he wishes the Road Fund to grow. On that matter the present Minister has never given us his views. I have noticed that one thing happens. As the Road Fund gets bigger, so the claims upon it become more and more. You have only to mention the words "Road Fund," anti rural Members in every quarter of the House become interested. I have the greatest respect for our bucolic and rustic frinds—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—I can tell my Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) he will never get any support from them for a reduction of the Road Fund—but I assure some of these rural Members that there is one thing for which the Road Fund was not invented, namely, rural roads. The Road Fund was brought into existence to pay for roads which were being damaged by through traffic, to save local districts paying for damage done by traffic which was not theirs. Successive Governments, perhaps, granted relief to rural districts, but that is not the first claim upon it and that is not the reason for its invention. Where does the income arise which constitutes the £14,000,000 at the disposal of the Minister. Roughly, it comes in the proportion of half from pleasure vehicles and half from commercial vehicles, and, consequently, if the Minister accepts this proposal he is going to take from his income a very considerable amount. At this time we have to consider whether it is wise to reduce a fund such as we have at present by a very large margin, because at this time, more than at any other, the money going into the Road Fund is of particular value to the country. Big capital works are being engaged in by the Government and, at the present moment, the Road Fund is mortgaged for several years to come. At the present time it is well to keep the Fund as large as possible, so that these capital works and large schemes all through the country, which tend to relieve unemployment, should be carried on until unemployment diminishes. I do not recommend any of my Friends to vote for a reduction of this tax at present or until unemployment has considerably abated.
    Viscount CURZON: As a rule, when I have the honour to be allowed to put in a plea on behalf of the motorist I meet with enthusiastic recognition from hon. Members above the Gangway opposite. I invite them not to consider the terms of the Amendment in the way in which my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last has put it. I ask them to look at it from this point of view that practically every Member, in fact every Member of every party is to-day a motorist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Yes, motorists to-day are drawn from every section and class of the people and there is no distinction of class nowadays such as formerly existed between those who are owners and users of motor vehicles and those who are not. Hon. Members opposite have their Rolls-Royces. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!" I know two or three hon. Members, and I will be prepared, if necessary, to give their names—among the Socialist party who are users of the Rolls-Royce—the most expensive vehicle. They are good judges. They agree with Mr. Trotsky, who invariably uses a Rolls-Royce. Quite seriously, however, there is not a single Member in this House who does not either own or use a motor vehicle. I invite hon. Members who disagree with me to compare notes with such hon. Members as the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), who is well able to speak on this matter, or with any other hon. Member who knows that whether you use a motor omnibus, or a taxi, or a lorry, or a Rolls-Royce, or a motor bicycle, you come under the heading of a motorist. I, therefore, invite hon. Members not to consider this Amendment from the very short-sighted point of view put forward on the previous Amendment by the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire (Mr. M. Wilson). We also listened to a singularly short-sighted point of view put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall).
    There are a number of Members very keen on housing, and I submit to hon. Members of the Socialist party that you cannot only build on slum areas, but that you have to try to develop new housing areas, for which transport will be essential, and cheap transport at that. How can you ensure cheap transport if taxation is kept at a high level on that transport? Is it not reasonable to think, in
    1074
    business, that the more you encourage the business to succeed, the more money you will get out of it, and the more you encourage motorists to use motor vehicles, be they light motor cars or commercial vehicles, the more you will encourage the industry? Is it not true to say that anybody who uses a motor vehicle radiates a certain amount of money through whatever section or sphere of life he may move? Supposing the urban motorist could be encouraged to use roads through rural areas, would he not be spending money in those areas? Those Members who represent agricultural constituencies are, I submit, shortsighted in putting themselves in opposition to the use of their roads by motorists. If I were in them shoes and representing an agricultural constituency, I would do all I could to induce——
    Mr. CLIMIE: Is the Noble Lord entitled to discuss the question of agriculture at this moment?
    Viscount CURZON: I am trying to put a reasoned argument before the Committee, but seemingly the hon. Member is incapable of appreciating it. I do not think it will do either him or his party any good for it to be thought that the Socialist party, of all others, is opposed to all reduction of motor taxation. He like all other Members, depends on the use of motor cars at his election. The point of view I was trying to put forward was this. It is really in the interests of the agricultural community that the use of motor cars should be encouraged. The more money there is for the Road Fund—and I invite the attention of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Black) to this—the more money there is for roads in Leicestershire. An hon. Member who proposed a preceding Amendment said that speed was the great factor in the wear of roads. I would invite his attention to this fact. It is speed plus weight that is the great factor. Therefore, if you can get an increased amount available for the Road Fond, so much the more likely is it for hon. Members like the hon. Member for Harborough to find something for them to get hold of. I would invite the Committee to consider that, while they may treat motorists and motor users as a subject for amusement in this House, they are not so treated outside. There is no single Member of this House who does not in some way or other depend on motors

    1075
    to secure his return to this House. Hon. Members know well that at election time they are quite ready to appeal to the motorists for the use of their cars. If they like to turn down this request they know the answer they will very likely get if they identify themselves with the refusal on this occasion.
    Most hon. Members in this House will agree with me that the present system of taxation is inequitable and has no relation to the amount of wear and tear taken by any particular vehicle out of the roads. Everybody knows it is speed plus weight. Everybody knows that if it had not been for our motor industry many hon. Members of this House who to-day laugh at motors would not be sleeping so quietly in their beds at night. Hon. Members seem to forget what our Air Force did during the War; they would not be in so much hurry to laugh at the use and development of motors if they did remember. I would invite hon. Members who laugh at me not to forget this point. I would invite them to remember that unemployment is one of the great factors to-day. I would invite hon. Members to remember that the motor industry is one of the great branches of the engineering industry in this country, and if we can do something to induce people to go in for more cars would it not benefit that branch of the industry? I do not want to detain the Committee unduly. I have tried to put forward certain arguments, no doubt in a very bad way, but I hope hon. Members will not consider the points I have advanced as unworthy of consideration. I have spoken of what I know. I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make this small concession and to remember that if he refuses it on this occasion it will be treated as the first action of a Socialist Government in identifying the Socialist party with the determination to refuse any concessions whatever to those who use motors.
    Mr. GOSLING: Even if it were possible to make some considerable concession in this direction, it is quite impossible to make a change of this kind without very serious investigation. It has been said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not suffer in his Budget by this Amendment. I suppose the Chancellor will answer for himself, but I should like to say that the claims which
    1076
    are coming in day by day to the Road. Fund render it quite impossible for that fund to suffer any serious reduction such as an Amendment of this kind would entail. We should have to look to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for money which is badly needed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment, I am afraid, was not quite accurate in his figures. He was quoting from a speech by a Road Director, but I have taken an opportunity of looking to the Finance Department of the Ministry for advice, and I am told that this Amendment would mean a reduction of at least three or four millions in the Road Fund. I am saying that on the authority of the Finance Department of the Ministry of Transport and I say it therefore with great confidence. This Amendment will take money away from the Road Fund at the very moment when claims are pouring in and when everyone is engaged in trying to get money out of the fund. The local authorities say that they cannot find more money for road purposes and yet there is an absolute necessity for doing more and more to improve the roads. It is suggested that what is lost on the swings may be gained on the roundabouts, and that if you lessen the taxation you will get more vehicles to tax, and therefore you will be in receipt of just as much money in the long run, but it seems to be forgotten that more vehicles will be used on the roads and that will make the expense of maintaining them still greater. If it were possible to make any change in this direction, it certainly could not be done in the way proposed by this Amendment, and it would require very serious investigation before it could be undertaken. Under the circumstances, I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion of the total cost of the upkeep of roads in this country is at present borne by the Road Fund?
    Mr. REID: Is not the logical result of the hon. Gentleman's argument to increase the tax to such an extent that there would be no motorists to pay for the roads?
    Mr. GOSLING: I cannot answer the Noble Lord without notice, but not only

    1077
    is the whole income of the Fund spent on the roads, but it is mortgaged years ahead.
    11. 0 P.M.
    Mr. BLACK: I should like to have the opportunity of saying a word or two on this Amendment, because one or two of the arguments that have been put forward to-night seem to me rather remarkable. I do not dispute that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side are bucolic, if they like to attach that name to themselves, but I would draw attention to the fact that the Road Fund was not set in motion in order that rural roads might have attention. At the time the Road Fund was first established, motor cars did not run so much upon the rural roads, and there was no necessity then for the relief of the rural roads, but what we find now is, that while the rural roads draw practically nothing from the Road Fund, those roads are being used to a very large extent. Protests are being made in all parts, in order that this may be remedied. What I desire is, not that this 25 per cent, should be taken off any vehicle, the unladen weight of which does not exceed two tons. I believe that, in the main, the light car users do not feel the weight of the taxation. This proposal to relieve all cars under two tons of 25 per cent. of the duty would mean that practically every private motor car would be relieved. So far as my knowledge goes, the proportion of private motor cars over two tons would be very small, so that it is practically asking that 25 per cent. should be taken off the duty of nearly the whole of those who use private motor cars. That does not seem a reasonable proposal, and I quite agree with the Minister that the sum involved would not be less than £3,000,000. There was one argument used this afternoon about those who rode in omnibuses. But these are the very things that people should ride in. I hope that the Minister of Transport will stick to his guns.
    Viscount WOLMER: My hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has appealed to the agriculturists to support him in this Amendment. I am afraid that I, as an agricultural Member, can give him no change whatever. We agriculturists say that the people who should pay for the roads are the people that use them. It is not the agriculturists, but the motorists that do
    1078
    the damage to the roads. As a matter of fact, the motorists are not paying anything like their share for the upkeep of the roads. I quite agree with my Noble Friend that the present incidence of motor taxation is not fair. I wish that he or some other motor-car expert would devise some method by which the motor-cars paid, say, according to mileage. The Report of the Committee which is going to be published in a few days' time will, I hope, show some improved method of assessing motor taxation. In some individual cases it is most unfair. Until we have a practical proposal put forward for improving the method by which the tax is levied, I do not think that those who sit for agricultural constituencies can possibly support a proposal to reduce any large portion of this duty by 25 per cent. I quite agree with my Noble Friend that the cars which are doing the damage are heavy lorries, and if it were in order I should very much like to see some hon. Member propose an increase in the duty on heavy cars. I wish the Government would consider that. But that cannot be moved from these benches. Therefore, until a more equitable and just tax is devised I am afraid those of us most concerned to keep local taxation as low as possible must oppose the proposal of my Noble Friend.
    Mr. B. SMITH: I do not think there is anybody in this House who would not like to see a reduction generally in the taxation of motor vehicles. But the Amendment is being supported as an Amendment that wants to take something between the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the hon. Gentleman opposite of between £4,000,000 and £7,000,000 for what I call the luxury users. At the present time an omnibus is taxed at £84, a cab is taxed at £15 in London and £12 in the rest of the country. I am going to say that if you want to do the thing at all we ought to reduce the taxes which will ultimately bring down the prices. Take the two-ton lorry. I suppose if you take vehicles of two tons and upwards, some millions of pounds from them come into the revenue annually. Keep the tax on above that, or, rather, take it all above the two, and you are in a fair way reducing the prices. I am saying that seriously. If we are to have reduced taxation, then I say it

    1079
    ought either to be general in its scope or specific with regard to these duties that are distributed over the whole country.
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Which does the damage to the roads, the heavy car or the light car?
    Mr. SMITH: My experience generally is that the agricultural 10-ton lorry travelling on the road does a lot of damage to it, and I am certain of this, too that the light cars can do a good deal of damage
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how many farmers have 10-ton lorries?
    Mr. SMITH: If the Noble Lord will get on the road at 12 o'clock to-night,
    I shall be glad for him to tell us what he has seen in this matter. We are being asked to give up something like £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 of taxation on what is luxury usage. Having regard to the fact that fully 70 per cent. of these cars run only in the summer, and have already a 50 per cent. reduction by taking out a quarterly licence; and also the fact that they get a rebate on an annual licence, it is all a concession to luxury riding. If I could afford a car I should expect to pay the tax. If this Amendment is pressed I shall support the Government.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 318.

    Division No. 123.]

    AYES.

    [11.12 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Dixon, Herbert

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Apsley, Lord

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Perring, William George

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gates, Percy

    Plelou, D. P.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk.

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Remer, J. R.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Richardson, Lt. Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Savery, S. S.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Burman, J. B.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Hughes, Collingwood

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Sunlight, J.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Toole, J.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Lumley, L. R.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lyle, Sir Leonard

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)

    MacDonald, R.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury and

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Moles, Thomas

    Captain Viscount Ednam.

    Noes

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Buchanan, G.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Batey, Joseph

    Buckle, J.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Birkett, W. N.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester. S.)

    Black, J. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Alstead, R.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bonwick, A.

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Climie, R.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Cluse, W. S.

    Baker, Walter

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Banton, G.

    Broad, F. A.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Bromfield, William

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Barnes, A.

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Compton, Joseph

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Rea, W. Russell

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Richards, R.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

    Jewett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Crittall, V. G.

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Ritson, J.

    Daikeith, Earl of

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Keens, T.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Robertson, J.(Lanark, Bothwell)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Dickson, T.

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lansbury, George

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Dukes, C.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Duncan, C.

    Law, A.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Dunnieo, H.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lawson, John James

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Leach. W.

    Seely, Rt. Hn. Maj.-Gen. J. E. B. (I. of W.)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lee, F.

    Sexton, James

    Edwards. G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Lessing, E.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Egan, W. H.

    Linfield, F. C.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Elveden, Viscount

    Loverseed, J. F.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    England, Colonel A.

    Lunn, William

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)

    Falconer, J.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Finney, V. H.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Macfadyen, E.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Snell, Harry

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    McLean, Major A.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    March, S.

    Spence, R.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Marley, James

    Spencer. H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Gillett, George M.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Gorman. William

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Gosling, Harry

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Stanley, Lord

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Maxton, James

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Middleton, G.

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Greenall, T.

    Mills, J. E.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mond, H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Groves, T.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morel, E. D.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Morris, R. H.

    Sullivan, J.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C.(Honiton)

    Terrington, Lady

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morse, W. E.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hardie, George D.

    Mulr, John W.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Murray, Robert

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Murrell, Frank

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Harvey, C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Thurtle, E.

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Tout, W. J.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Nichol, Robert

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Viant, S. P.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Nixon, H.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Warne, G. H.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Hirst, G. H.

    Paling, W.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Pease, William Edwin

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wells, S. R.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Perry, S. F.

    Weston, John Wakefield

    Hudson, J. H.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Westwood, J

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Philipson, Mabel

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Potts, John S.

    Whiteley, W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H (Llanelly)

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B.(Kenningtn.)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

    1082

    1083

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Willison, H.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Allen

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Parkinson.

    Windsor, Walter

    Wright, W.

    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, at end, to insert the words
    "Paragraph (5) of the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1920, is hereby amended so that the rate of duty for vehicles constructed or adapted for use and used solely for the conveyance of goods in the course of trade and not exceeding sixteen hundred-weights in weight unladen (other than vehicles electrically propelled) shall be ten pounds."
    The effect of this Amendment is to increase the weight of commercial vehicles chargeable at the minimum duty of £10. The duties payable are: on a vehicle not exceeding 12 cwt. unladen, £10; exceeding 12 cwt. but not exceeding one ton, £16. My Amendment would make wider provision for the introduction of the 15 cwt. vehicle which is now coming into common use, and which serves a very useful purpose for a very large number of traders throughout the country. The smaller class of trader and shopkeeper have much more largely taken up the use of the motor car than was the case when the 1920 Act was passed. It would be of great advantage to that class of trader if the minimum duty of £10 were applied to vehicles of the 16 cwt. unladen size. We were not producing many of these vehicles in 1920, whereas we are producing a very large number of them to-day. It is a comparatively light vehicle, the wear and tear on the road is inconsiderable, and it would be a distinct advantage to a very large number of traders and shopkeepers if this concession were made. I know how anxious the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make concessions to every worthy object. Hon. Members will have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman is in no respect different from other Chancellors of the Exchequer in the quality and quantity of the concessions he makes. Chancellors of the Exchequer all down our history have been a breed peculiar to themselves - exceedingly kind when they are extracting money from the pockets of the taxpayers, but very hard when it comes to making concessions to the people who have to bear the burdens of taxation. I appeal to the Chancellor, benevolent man
    1084
    as he is, to consider the small trader and shopkeeper.
    Viscount CURZON: I support the Amendment. I should have thought it was an Amendment that would make its appeal to all parts of the Committee. I look upon vehicles of this sort as being the poor man's motor vehicles. This Amendment is to benefit the small shopkeeper. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been ready to do their utmost to help the small man. Many hon. Members opposite are associated with co-operative societies. Co-operative societies are largely users of the small van which would be benefited by this Amendment. I appeal to the Government not to let it be thought that the Socialist Government, of all others, is against making any concessions to the users of motor vehicles, trade vehicles or private vehicles. Hon. Members opposite have always told us that they are against restrictions on trade. I hope that by their votes on this Amendment they will show that they are prepared to give effect to the speeches which they make in debate.
    Mr. GOSLING: While this Amendment grants relief to a certain section of light vehicles, it makes no compensating increase in the case of heavier vehicles. The effect of the Amendment would, therefore, be a substantial loss of revenue.
    Viscount CURZON: How is it possible for any hon. Member on this side of the Committee to propose an increase of taxation?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am reminded of a promise which I made in the House some time ago that the Departmental Committee would make their Report in June. That Report came to me this morning, and a matter of this kind is a matter that should be considered in the light of that Report. I have not yet had an opportunity of knowing all that it means, but as soon as we have gone into it I hope that we may be able to deal with the matter. Meantime, I would ask the Noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the Minister give an undertaking that between this and the Report stage he will take into consideration the Report of the Departmental Committee, and be prepared to consider a form of words in which this matter can be dealt with?
    Mr. GOSLING: I could not go as far as that, because it is a very big Report. I will look into the matter as soon as possible.
    Mr. HANNON: It is a poor consolation to my Noble Friend to be told that the hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, unless he can give some promise that he will consider it in a sympathetic way.
    Mr. REMER: Most of the difficulties in the motor trade at present are in the
    matter of the export trade. Owing to the taxation which is imposed in this country at present a lower horse-power car is being produced by our manufacturers than is required in foreign countries. One of the effects of our taxation is that the one type of car is being provided for the home market, and we are losing very considerably in the export trade. Quite apart from the considerations put by my hon. Friends, this Amendment will have considerable effect in helping our export trade by enabling our manufacturers to produce different types of cars for the home and export markets.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted.'
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 291.

    Division No. 124.]

    AYES.

    [11.38 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Ednam, Viscount

    Raine, W.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Remer, J. R.

    Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gates, Percy

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ropner, Major L.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Harbord, Arthur

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Stanley, Lord

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Burman, J. B.

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Kindersiey, Major G. M.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)

    Chlicott, Sir Warden

    Lumley, L. R.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Lyle, Sir Leonard

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otfey)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    MacDonald, R.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T C.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Perring, William George

    Mr. Hannon and Captain Viscount

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Philipson, Mabel

    Curzon.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Pielou, D. P.

    NOES

    Actand, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cave, W. G.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Crittall, V. G.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Ammon, Charles George

    Broad, F. A.

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bromfield, William

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Dickson, T.

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Buchanan, G.

    Dukes, C.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Buckle, J.

    Duncan, C.

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Dunnico, H.

    Baker, Walter

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Banton, G.

    Cape, Thomas

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Egan, W. H.

    Barnes, A.

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Charleton, H. C.

    England, Colonel A.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Batey, Joseph

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Falconer, J.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Finney, V. H.

    Birkett, W. N.

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Black, J. W.

    Compton, Joseph

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Bonfield, Margaret

    Cope, Major William

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Bonwick, A.

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Lee, F.

    Sexton, James

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lessing, E.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Gibbs, Cot Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Linfield, F C.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Gillet, George M.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Loverseed, J. F.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Gorman, William

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Gosling, Harry

    McCrae, Sir George

    Smith, T. (Pontetract)

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Greenall, T.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Snell, Harry

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mackinder, W.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Groves, T.

    McLean, Major A.

    Spence, R.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Spencer. George A. (Broxtowe)

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Stamford, T. W.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    March, S.

    Stormer, Sir Charles

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Marley, James

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Hardie, George D.

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Harmsworth, Hon, E. C. (Kent)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Sturrock, J. Long

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Maxton, James

    Sullivan, J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Middleton, G.

    Sunlight, J.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Mond, H.

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)

    Morris, R. H.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Terrington, Lady

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Morse, W. E.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Murray, Robert

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld)

    Murrell, Frank

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Hirst, G. H.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Tout, W. J.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Newton, Sir D. G C. (Cambridge)

    Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Nixon, H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hodges, Frank

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Warne, G. H.

    Hoghin, Henry Cairns

    Oliver, George Harold

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Paling, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Palmer, E. T.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wells, S. R.

    Hudson, J. H.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Welsh, J. C.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Perry, S. F.

    Westwood, J.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Potts, John S.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Whiteley, W.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Raffely, F. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Rothbone, Hugh R.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rea, W. Russell

    Willison, H.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Richards, R.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Windsor, Walter

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Ritson, J.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Keens, T.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Kennedy, T.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Lamp, J. O.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Woodwork. Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Lane-Fox, Grorge R.

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Wright, W.

    Lanesbury, Grorge

    Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Laverack, F.J.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Law, A.

    Savery, S. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOEL.—

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Mr. John Robertson and Mr.

    Lawson, John James

    Seely. H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Thomas Griffiths.

    Leach, W.

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Maj-Gen. J. E. B.(I. of W.)

    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, at the end, to insert
    "(3) The Minister of Transport may make regulations providing for the issue of a transferable licence or licences to a person keeping or using more than one vehicle so
    1088
    that the holder of such transferable licence shall not be required to take out a separate licence for each such vehicle, provided that the rate of duty payalbe on such transferable licence shall not be less than the appropriate duty payable under the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1920, as

    1089
    amended by any subsequent enactment, for the vehicle for which the transferable licence is used."
    The object of this Amendment is to provide for the case of a motor vehicle owner who wishes to have a second or stand-by car, and that he should only pay for one licence, provided he never uses more than one car at a time. The Amendment would give to a man with two cars a transferable licence, where one of those cars was required to be used as a relief car. With this transferable licence, a man might make use of an old car without having to undertake the heavy cost of a special licence, and as this does not involve any considerable loss to the Exchequer, the Chancellor and the Minister of Transport might put their heads together and make this concession. They have given us nothing at all to-night. The Minister of Transport, who is so warmly sympathetic with every development of transport in this country, ought to have a little more consideration for those of us who are trying to get the efficiency of road transport advanced, but he has not given us a single sign to-night that he really means by a concession to continue to help motor road traffic. Now he has an opportunity of doing so, by agreeing to this transferable licence, and I appeal to him to make this gesture, and to intercede with his hardhearted colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Here are we, making speeches all night and getting nothing for it. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that such a, continuous manifestation of energy deserves something more?
    Mr. GOSLING: This Amendment is to allow the owner of more than one vehicle to transfer the licence from one vehicle to another. It therefore strikes right across the fundamental principle of the present method of licences for mechanically-propelled vehicles, which is that each vehicle shall have a separate licence appropriate to itself. It would be almost impossible to enforce this provision successfully, as it would really involve the police, when inspecting a, licence, being able to identify the model. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be that there would in all probability be a great many vehicles run on the road which were inadequately licensed, and I am, therefore, sorry that, under the circumstances, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. HANNON: What difficulty is there about transferring the licence from one car to another?
    Viscount CURZON: It is all very well to come here and tell us, upon each succeeding Amendment which has anything to do with motor vehicles, "We cannot do anything for you." I would ask hon. Members opposite to consider that what is asked for in this Amendment is merely an extension of the principle which is admitted by every single motor insurance company that insures a car. This Amendment is designed to extend to motor vehicles the principle observed by insurance companies to owners who possess more than one car, by allowing a rebate in cases where only one car is in use at a time. This, I submit, is a very fair principle, because when a car is standing in its garage, it is not wearing the roads.
    Mr. B. SMITH: This is a question of licensing, not of rebate.
    12 M.
    Viscount CURZON: I quite agree but I am trying to show what is the object-of this Amendment, i.e., the extension to licensing motor cars which is now admitted by insurance companies. We are claiming that a motor car which is not in use, but is standing in its garage, should not be called upon to pay a tax. It seems altogether unfair. If the owner is prepared to give a solemn undertaking that he will not have more than one car in use at a time, it should be possible to issue to him a transferable licence. I would like to point out to hon. Members who are opposing this Amendment that they are losing practically their last chance of relieving the existing taxation on the motoring community, to whom they are so apt to appeal for the loan of cars at emergency times, such as a General Election. Surely, in return for that, they might well support this very reasonable demand for a businesslike arrangement which would ensure that the motor owner shall pay part upkeep of the roads in the proportion in which he uses them and not compel him to pay a, full licence duty for a car which may be in use only three or four days a year. The Minister has not really dealt with that point. Under the circumstances I hope that even at this late hour or at any rate before the report stage is reached he may be able to give further consideration to the question and seek to relieve the position I have described.

    1091
    All these Amendments to reduce the taxation on motor-cars have really been caused by the inequitable system under which motor taxation is levied. The Minister received this morning the Report of the Departmental Committee which has been sitting for no less than three years. Of course, he requires time to consider it, but they may have made a recommendation on this point, and he might give us an undertaking that, if the Committee have made such a recommendation, he will deal with it on the Report stage.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I think the demand made is a reasonable one, and if the Minister will agree to it, he will be
    meeting the interests of motoring in this country.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: I would not have intervened if the Minister of Transport had said a single word in reply to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. Surely he must admit that it is better to encourage a motor owner to purchase two vehicles in place of one, provided he only runs one vehicle. And surely the difficulty foreshadowed by his Department is non-existent. Is it not possible with the present licence to have a description of both cars, and the licence duty would be paid on the higher scale car?
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 246.

    Division No. 125

    AYES

    [12.7 a.m.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Ralne, W.

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Remer, J. R.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Un'lv.)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hughes, Collingwood

    Stanley, Lord

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Burman, J. B.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Sunlight, J.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Ward, Col. L. (Kinston-upon.-Hull)

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    McLean, Major A.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Woodwork, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Moore Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    England, Colonel A.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Mr. Hannon and Captain Viscount

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Curzon.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    NOES

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Bowyer, Cant G. E. W.

    Duncan, C.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Donnico, H.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Broad, F. A.

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Bromfield, William

    Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilisbro')

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

    Buchanan, G.

    Egan, W. H.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Buckle, J.

    Falconer, J.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cape, Thomas

    Finney, V. H

    Astor, Viscountess

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Blrm., W).

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Close, W. S.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Baker, Waiter

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Banton, G.

    Compton, Joseph

    Gorman, William

    Barnes, A.

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Gosling, Harry

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Cope, Major William

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Greenall, T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Crittall, V. G.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Darblshire, C. W.

    Groves, T.

    Birkett, W. N.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Black, J. W.

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Dickson, T.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Bonwick, A.

    Dukes, C.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Hardie, George D.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Maxton, James

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Middleton, G.

    Snell, Harry

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Mond, H.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)

    Morris, R. H.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Spence, R.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Morse, W. E.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Stamford, T. W.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld)

    Murray, Robert

    Stephen, Campbell

    Hirst, G. H.

    Murrell, Frank

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hodges, Frank

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Sullivan, J.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Nixon, H.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Hore-Bellsha, Major Leslie

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Hudson, J. H.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middiesbro. W.)

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Paling, W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Pease, William Edwin

    Tinker, John Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Perrino, William George

    Tout, W. J.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Perry, S. F.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Philipson, Mabel

    Warne, G. H.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Potts, John S.

    Watson, Sir IF. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Purcell, A. A.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Keens, T.

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D (Rhondda)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Lansbury, George

    Richards, R.

    Wells, S. R.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Law, A

    Ritson, J.

    Westwood, J.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Lawson, John James

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Whiteley, W.

    Leach, W.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Lee, F.

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Lessing, E.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Linfield, F. C.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Loverseed, J. F.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)

    Lunn, William

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Willson, H.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Savery, S. S.

    Windsor, Walter

    MacDonald, R.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    McEntee, V. L.

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Mackinder, W.

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Maj.-Gen. J.E.B. (I. of W.)

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sexton, James

    Wright, W.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    March, S.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Marley, James

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinson

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir T. INSKIP: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that in his Budget statement he said:
    "The other recommendation is that the surcharge on quarterly licences, which, is now 20 per cent., should be reduced to 10 per cent. I propose to take power in the Finance Bill to give effect to both these recommendations."—[OFFIcIAL, REPORT, 29th April, 1924; col. 1600, Vol. 172.]
    There is no Clause in the Finance Bill dealing with it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells me that it is not necessary, because it is a matter of administrative Order. No doubt his information is correct on that point, but, in view of the fact that it is not desirable that the
    1094
    subject should be taxed by administrative Order, and that he proposed to put a Clause in the Finance Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will introduce on Report the necessary Clause to carry out his undertaking.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this matter. I was advised that it is unnecessary to incorporate it in the Finance Bill, as it can be done by administrative Order. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that between now and Report, I will confirm that, and, if it should be necessary to put anything in the Bill to make quite sure, it shall be done, because the pledge that I gave in my Budget speech shall be carried out.
    Sir T. INSKIP: I think that very likely the right hon. Gentleman is right, and that it is not, strictly speaking, necessary, but we want to get away from the practice of altering taxation by administrative Order. I should prefer to see this relaxation of taxation put in the Bill, and not left to the control of the Minister.
    Lieut.-Colonel L. WARD: I cannot help feeling that the ambiguity of the wording of the surrender and rebate provision in this Clause may lead to considerable dissatisfaction and misunderstanding, and I should be obliged if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain what it actually does mean. Is it only intended to apply to a man who sells a car, or will it apply also to the man who lays up his car for a specified period? I think it is quite clear, for example, that a man who sells a car in June would, on surrendering the licence, be entitled to recover the balance of the amount which he had paid—in other words, the rebate on the unexpired portion of the licence. But is a man who goes abroad on business for two months, say in June, also entitled to surrender his licence for two months and obtain a rebate for those two months? If so, the wording of the Clause would hardly lead one to suppose that that is the case, and yet the Chancellor, in his Budget speech, led us to infer that it would be. I shall be very glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Transport will explain that point.
    Viscount CURZON: I want to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to this Clause. The Minister of Transport has told us that he received only this morning the Report of his Departmental Committee. Every proposal that we have made so far has been turned down. Might I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there may be recommendations in this Report which vitally affect the system of taxation of motor vehicles, and ask him whether, between now and Report, those recommendations may be considered and, if necessary, incorporated, as far as may be—I do not say all of them—in the Bill at that stage? I think that that is a reasonable request. Every submission we have made to the Chancellor to-night in the form of Amendments has been turned down; might I ask him whether he can give favourable consideration to this humble request which I make to him with great respect?
    Mr. HANNON: Before the Motion be put, I think we on this side ought to register our protest against the treatment of the motoring public by Ministers to-night. A series of Amendments have been put down to the Finance Bill, each of which was calculated to improve the conditions of the motoring industry and of the motoring public, but not one single considerate reply has been given by Members of the Government this evening to any of the proposals submitted from this side of the Committee. The Minister of Transport, if I may respectfully say so, ought to take into consideration that there must be some relation between the taxation and the efficiency of the motor vehicle which is taxed, but he has shown to-night no regard at all for what ought to be the fundamental principle in taxing motor vehicles. We have made the best fight we could to-night on behalf of owners and users of motor cars, and particularly that large class of people to whom the motor vehicle, in these days, is of such immense importance in the maintenance of the enterprises in which they are engaged. I must say we have received no sympathy of any sort or kind from His Majesty's Ministers.
    It is easy for hon. Members opposite to say, "Why did you not do this last year?" We made the same fight last year against our own Ministers, but the exigencies of national finance were much greater then than they are this year, because the prosperity of the country under my right hon. Friend's administration has been such that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can now get taxes much more easily than was the case last year. But, in spite of the improved condition of the country because of a beneficent Conservative administration, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, enjoying the full happiness of his heritage, does not make a single concession to us in regard to the taxation of the motoring public. I hope that that public, from the humblest to the highest, in this country, will take note of the kind of sympathy the Government have for those who are owners of cars, and particularly those who use the motor car in carrying on the industrial life of the country. For that vast class of people neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor my kindly and genial friend the Minister of Transport has one single word. I am quite certain that if the

    1097
    Minister of Transport had to deal with this question himself, motorists and the motor industry would not have a better friend in the House of Commons, but, unhappily, he comes under the influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who concedes nothing to anyone, who stands there in the plenitude of his power, depending upon hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway whose affection for his Free Trade doctrines maintains him in office and enables him to refuse these concessions. It is deplorable that a great class in the community like the owners of motor cars, and particularly those who employ motor cars in the prosecution of legitimate enterprise, cannot get a single concession from His Majesty's Ministers.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I should like to know under what condition a person can obtain a rebate on the unexpired portion of his licence. I understand that the condition is that the car has either to be sold or broken up. That is no concession. If a person has taken out a licence for a year he should be entitled to a rebate for at least one quarter, so that he can utilise that money for the purpose of getting a licence for a second car.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think there can be any ambiguity about the phraseology of the Clause. There is nothing in the Clause which limits the right to surrender a licence and to get a rebate in a case where the ear has been broken up.
    Lieut.-Colonel L. WARD: Laid up.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Reference has been made to the case where a car is broken up. I had this in my mind, that we should allow the rebate in the case of a, man who for any reason did not want to use his car for the remainder of the unexpired period of the licence.
    Lieut.-Colonel L. WARD: It must be the remainder of the unexpired period?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly; unexpired at the date of surrender. In regard to the request made by the Noble Lord that we should between now and the
    1098
    Report stage take into consideration the recommendations of the Committee which has been inquiring into the question of motor taxation. I am afraid I can give no such promise. I do not anticipate that there will be very much time before the Report stage is upon us, and it would be quite impossible to give adequate consideration to the recommendations in the short time available. I do not know what the recommendations are, but no doubt they will involve many changes in the method of motor taxation. If they were to be embodied in the Finance Bill it would mean Ways and Means Resolutions.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I rather hesitate not to utilise still further the unbounded energy of certain hon. Members on this side of the Committee, but the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) has stated more than once that I never concede anything. I am going to make a concession now. We have made fairly good progress. I am informed by one old Parliamentary hand that we have created a record, because never in the history of the House have 15 Clauses of a Finance Bill been passed through in one evening.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday Evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes before One o'Clock.
    The name of Miss Margaret Bondfield (Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour) was inadvertently inserted among the Noes, voting against the Motion for the Third Reading of the London Traffic Bill, on Thursday last. Miss Bondfield did not take part in the Division, and was absent from the House at the time.
    On the other hand, the name of Mr. R. Climie, who voted with the Ayes, in favour of the Bill, was omitted from the official lists of the Division.

HOUSING.
  WARWICKSHIRE (SUBSIDY).
  WARWICKSHIRE (SUBSIDY).
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES, CORNWALL.
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES, CORNWALL.
  DERBY (DIRECT LABOUR).
  DERBY (DIRECT LABOUR).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (SALES).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (SALES).
  HORSES (EXPORT).
  HORSES (EXPORT).
AGRICULTURE.
  COUNTY COMMITTEES (MEMBERS' EXPENSES).
  COUNTY COMMITTEES (MEMBERS' EXPENSES).
  REGULATIONS.
  REGULATIONS.
  WEATHER FORECASTS.
  WEATHER FORECASTS.
  PASSENGER BOATS (LIFEBUOYS).
  PASSENGER BOATS (LIFEBUOYS).
INDIA.
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (COMMITTEE).
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (COMMITTEE).
  WARRANT OFFICERS, INDIAN UNATTACHED LIST.
  WARRANT OFFICERS, INDIAN UNATTACHED LIST.
  GAOL ADMINISTRATION, ASSAM.
  GAOL ADMINISTRATION, ASSAM.
  JAMSHEDPUR.
  JAMSHEDPUR.
  UNCOVENANTED SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  UNCOVENANTED SERVICE (PENSIONS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SENIOR SURGEON-COMMANDERS.
  SENIOR SURGEON-COMMANDERS.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PENSIONER'S DEATH (ARREARS).
  PENSIONER'S DEATH (ARREARS).
  APPEALS.
  APPEALS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  FISHING RIGHTS, HILL'S ISLAND, LOWER LOCH ERNE.
  FISHING RIGHTS, HILL'S ISLAND, LOWER LOCH ERNE.
  PRISONS' ADMINISTRATION.
  PRISONS' ADMINISTRATION.
  PASSIVE RESISTERS AS MAGISTRATES (MR. A. E. DENT)
  PASSIVE RESISTERS AS MAGISTRATES (MR. A. E. DENT)
  ANGLO-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
  ANGLO-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
  SAAR (GENDARMES).
  SAAR (GENDARMES).
  VATICAN (BRITISH EMBASSY).
  VATICAN (BRITISH EMBASSY).
  LAW OF EVIDENCE.
  LAW OF EVIDENCE.
  JURY SERVICE.
  JURY SERVICE.
  IRISH FREE STATE (LIGHTHOUSE SERVICES).
  IRISH FREE STATE (LIGHTHOUSE SERVICES).
  PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES (COST).
  PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES (COST).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (EXCHANGE).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (EXCHANGE).
  SOUTH AFRICA (VISIT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  SOUTH AFRICA (VISIT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  IMPERIAL DEFENCE, EXPENDITURE.
  IMPERIAL DEFENCE, EXPENDITURE.
  RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, PALESTINE.
  RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, PALESTINE.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  OFFICE OF WORKS.
  OFFICE OF WORKS.
  PAY WARRANTS (RECEIPT STAMP).
  PAY WARRANTS (RECEIPT STAMP).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, can the noble Earl in charge of this Bill tell me when it is proposed to take the Second Reading?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I cannot say at the moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will repeat the question later.

LEGITIMACY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) AMEND- MENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Message from the Commons: That they disagree to the Amendment made by the Lords to the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, for which they assign a reason.

LIQUOR (POPULAR CONTROL) BILL. [H.L.]
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment, moved on Tuesday last by Lord Banbury of Southam, to the Motion for the Second Reading—namely, that the Bill be read 2a this day six months.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, when this Bill was discussed last week I ventured to suggest that the debate should be resumed to-day in order to have an opportunity of putting before your Lordships a considered view of what is the real question before this

1073
House. The discussion has largely turned upon details of the Bill. That, of course, always happens and is quite natural, and yet that discussion did not go to the real point. The Lord Bishop of Oxford, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, made it clear that he was putting forward a general principle. The Bill embodies an attempt to put that principle into detailed shape, but he did not tie himself to the details. What he desired was that your Lordships should pronounce on the principle and that then this Bill should go to a Select Committee, which might inquire into the fashion in which he had embodied the principle and express your Lordships' view upon the subject.
After listening to the whole of that debate, and after reading the report of it and re-reading the Bill, I have come to the conclusion that this discussion in reality turns on a great question that is foundational, and that we should make a great mistake in the interests of our own House if we bolted and barred our doors upon every project of this sort. The question raised is one which has excited vast public interest not only here but all over the world. If I understand the principle which the right rev. Prelate intends this Bill to embody, it is this: You cannot, by mere abstract legislation from some centralised body like Parliament, deal with the liquor question efficiently, nor would it do to leave it alone, for it is a question too urgent to be left alone. But there is a third course, and that is to lay down the principle that the authority of the State should be applied in conjunction with local opinion; in other words, you apply to this problem the principle which you have applied to other questions—the method of devolution. That mode of dealing with the matter was put into operation in the Carlisle system, and the general testimony has been that the experiment succeeded and that it was an experiment well worth considering. What I understand the right rev. Prelate to ask is that your Lordships should appoint a Select Committee to consider the principle, to consider the way in which it may be applied in this Bill, and, if necessary, to amend the Bill—in short, to deal with the whole subject in such a fashion that the principle comes to the front and the details are dealt with as, of necessity, subordinate.
1074
For this procedure there are many precedents. Your Lordships have dealt previously with grave, questions by the method of a Select Committee. A Select Committee can be given great powers. It can call for witnesses, it can call for Papers, and it can even go so far as to send down commissioners to inquire upon the spot into the working of institutions that are called into question. That was done in, among other cases, the Inquiry that was made into the sweating system some years ago, and I see no reason why it should not be done on this occasion. That, as I understand it, was the attitude of the right rev. Prelate.
The debate, however, at once took another shape. Speeches were made, on this side of the House in particular, which went in the direction of condemning the Bill merely upon its details. Of the details of the Bill I wish only to say that in many points I think that those speeches raised questions which must be closely considered. They are essentially questions with which the Select Committee would have to deal and they are essentially questions which require to be solved before we can make real progress. But they are questions which have to be dealt with on the footing of having first settled the large principle.
Upon this side of the House, it was said that Local Option had failed and that Prohibition in particular had been a failure. My noble and learned friend. Lord Sumner, instanced the case of Canada, where it is undoubtedly true that in one Province you have a liquor system of a certain kind and next door, in another Province, you have a liquor system of a different kind. This often leads to very curious results. In Ottawa, for instance, not one drop of alcohol is to be got, but if the members of a well-known club there choose to cross the river to the municipality of Hull they can get everything they desire. Very odd results occur, both as regards the wholesale and the retail trade, in Provinces which have set up different systems of liquor control. But although this has given rise to confusion, and in some cases even to a certain amount of harm, I have talked to public men of all kinds in Canada—I do not know if my noble and learned friend has done the same—and they have told me, be they lawyers, or merchants, or manufacturers or politicians, that,

1075
although the system of more control and less control gives occasion to inconvenience, and at times, indeed, to discomfort, yet on no account are the public in Canada likely to part with this control. The reason is that the workmen are better, people are more efficient, and a better state of things prevails generally, so that on the balance the varying systems have been a success.
If you turn to the United States, which were also called in question, you find the same thing. I dare say that there is an enormous amount of illicit drinking in the United States, and I have no doubt that the "boot-legger" drives a thriving trade, but you have to take these things on the balance, and I ask anybody in contact with American feeling whether he has ever been told that the United States are likely to go back on Prohibition. They are certainly not likely to do so just now, so far as I have discovered. Before the recent legislation there were a number of Prohibitionist States, and one of the things which moved the people of the United States to ask for the Amendment which embodied the Prohibition system was that the States which did not have Prohibition were obviously at a disadvantage compared with the States which had it. The workmen in the latter States were better, the tone of the people was better, and it was decided that it was good for the United States as a whole to adopt Prohibition, however inconvenient it might be and however liable to inflict a certain amount of hardship.
But you do not need to go to Canada or to the United States to see the operation of differential legislation. It is a great mistake to imagine that the old doctrine of recognising that opinion in one part of this country may be in advance of opinion in another part is obsolete so far as practice is concerned. I am not talking of extreme public opinion, but of bringing the trade into such shape that it can be carried on in accordance with the best interests of the public. If you go north of the Tweed you will find in operation an Act of which Lord Long made no mention, but to which he might usefully have referred. It is not a new Act but an Act which is three generations old. Under that Act not a public-house in the country is licensed to sell drink on Sunday. That results in a certain amount of discom-
1076
fort, for if you take a long walk on Sunday you are unable to get any stimulant of any kind—I have myself experienced the discomfort—but it is a hardship which is willingly submitted to by the people of Scotland in the public interest. Well, there is differential legislation. You will find it also in Wales, and you will find people prepared to model it in their own fashion according to local sentiment.
The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, declared his dislike of the whole system of local control and devolution. He has no sympathy with the desire to regulate the liquor traffic in such a fashion that each part of the country, in accordance with the standard of public opinion, should be able to model its liquor traffic. Again, the noble Viscount, Lord Long, went even further. The noble Viscount not only declared devolution of this kind to be an evil thing, but he said he opposed it in the interests of the Church and of local government. I do not dispute his claim to knowledge of local government, but I should like to know by what title he spoke in the name of the Church. Then Lord Sumner delivered a speech of a somewhat different complexion. He, too, took exception to the principle, but he also submitted the details of the Bill to criticism which was formidable, and he went into the question of the adequacy of the compensation fund. That is well worthy of consideration by a Committee, but it is not a point which touches the general principle, and what I should have liked to have heard more about was a direct argument in the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the principle of the Bill, if he meant, as I suppose, to oppose the Bill.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the son of a father who was well known in this House, was against Prohibition, and was against experiments that were not carefully thought out, but he was for the principle of the Bill and was in favour of the great experiment carried out at Carlisle—that is to say, devolution in the shape of disinterested management. It was a speech to which we may well attach weight, because I have not the least hesitation in saying that there is not only a large, but a growing, public opinion in favour of the view that something must be done with the liquor traffic, if the state of Society is to have a fair chance of becoming better than it is. The position in

1077
which we stand to-day is that on the principle of the Bill we have to give a decision, and it is a decision which must be clear. The people will not be content to hear that the House of Lords found that certain details of the Bill were so open to criticism that they rejected the measure. They will want to know what was the attitude of this House towards the general principle of which I spoke.
The real controversy is as to whether there should be power of popular management of an adequate kind. When I say "popular management" I mean management in the interests of the people themselves, as shown by what the authority that they have set up desires. The principle of the Bill is to set up a State Department which is to work in accordance with local decision, ascertained in a certain way. It may be that certain matters of detail will be required to be examined more minutely, and that the question whether the compensation is adequate will have to be considered more closely. But these are essentially matters with which a Select Committee of this House is well fited to deal. It must be borne in mind that in this Bill there are certain features which distinguish it from previous attempts to deal with the subject. Reference has been made to the Scottish Act of 1913. I do not think that the Scottish Act has been an immense success, but it must be remembered that in the Scottish Act there was no option of disinterested management. It was purely a quesion of no-change or no-licence. The present Bill allows the sale of liquor under strict supervision. That provision was not in the Scottish Act, and therefore you cannot compare the Scottish Act with this measure.
Of course, this Bill will impose some sacrifice. Some people will find it a hardship that they will be unable to obtain liquor between certain hours. Other people will not mind that, but at the same time in these large matters it is essential that there shall be some sacrifice. The question is whether the majority is to be sacrificed to the interest of a minority. I think the decision which we have to take to-day is a very grave one. It is, as I have already suggested, whether we will bang and bolt the door on the broader principle that in the time in which we live some step forward shall be taken, as it has been taken in other
1078
countries, for reducing the volume of a very great evil. It is not necessary to go to extremes. The Bill does not call upon us to go to extremes, but it does call upon us to introduce better standards and more moderation.
It is no use making speeches like Lord Long's, which belong to a period of thirty years ago and are wholly inadequate for to-day. To let it go forth that this House speaks, and insists upon speaking, in that way on a great question of principle is really to invite your Lordships to dig your political graves. The sentiment of the country is against it, and I, for my part, think that it would be the most serious error if you were to reject the broad principle which is all the Lord Bishop of Oxford is contending for in this measure. For my part, it seems to me that the only wise course that we can take, not merely in the public interests but in our own interests, is to assent to the principle which underlies the Bill and then to see that there shall be a searching examination into its details.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, from the interesting speech which the. Lord Chancellor has just made I detect one surprising omission. I had, indeed, expected that he rose with the object of explaining to your Lordships what is the attitude towards this Bill of the Government of which he is an ornament. Now that his speech is concluded I am left completely in the dark. Is the Labour Government in favour of legislation that proceeds upon these lines? And will the Lord Chancellor inform the House at some convenient moment whether or not—I assume it to he so—the speech he has made represents the policy of the Labour Party? I should entertain no doubt upon this point except that he used the expression on several occasions "for my part." If the noble and learned Viscount was merely expressing his own opinion, while we should listen to him with the respect which is always accorded to that opinion, we should, of course, feel that we were a little unfairly deprived of the guidance which should be given by some spokesman on behalf of the Government addressing the House when vital and most widely ranging proposals are made upon an immensely important social problem.

1079
I had the curiosity to count how often the noble and learned Viscount used the word "principle" in the course of his speech. I think, if he will find time tomorrow to check my figures, it will be seen that he used the word "principle" no fewer than seventeen times. And so prodigious is the gift of the noble and learned Viscount for using the most eloquent and nicely chosen language without contributing greatly to the clarity of the immediate discussion—unless, indeed, that is his purpose—that I do not know-even now what was the principle which has excited his enthusiasm. I am in honest doubt on the point. I listened to every word that he said, and the only principle I could extract from his mellifluous observations was that something must be done. I have always found that that expression, either in public or in private life, that "something must be done" is the hall mark of weak and undecided people who have not the slightest idea what ought to be done, or why it ought to be done.
The noble and learned Viscount said repeatedly that we might send this matter to a Select Committee and decide in this House upon the principle. It is the fault of this Bill—almost the most obscure Bill, almost the most badly drafted Bill that I have encountered in twenty years of Parliamentary life—that it contains at least twelve principles, all of them bad. It is absolutely impossible that any one could deal with these merely as if they were matters of unimportant detail about the pasture of which a Select Committee might be permitted to browse at large with the obscure indication that this House has approved of some principle imperfectly understood and not at all defined. Any legislative assembly which assented to this Bill, approving its broad principle upon the Second Reading, will be responsible for the most mischievous admissions, made at this moment of all others, for which this House has ever been responsible.
The noble and learned Viscount says the question cannot be left alone, that something must be done. A great thing was done in the year 1904. A Bill, bitterly and most unfairly opposed by the Liberal and the Labour Parties of that day, was passed, a Bill which, for the first time in the licensing history of this country, has effected a real and
1080
permanent reform. My noble and learned friend Lord Sumner, in a most incisive and powerful speech, made last Tuesday in this House, recalled the attention of your Lordships to the fact that 30,000 redundant licences had been swept away under the Act of 1904. I do not think I do the noble and learned Viscount any injustice when I recall the fact that of that Act he was a strong opponent. He and those with whom he was then co-operating assailed it with every bitter word which they could think of—and there were many—and this Act has removed 30,000 licences. It has been in operation for twenty years. Give it twenty years more. It should, by that time, have operated upon nearly 40,000 more redundant licences, and it will have operated without the slightest sense of injustice, and with an immense resultant gain to the moral health of the nation.
I could have understood it if the noble and learned Viscount had said: "We accept, though late in the day, the principle of the Act of 1904, but we do not think that the trade are paying quite enough by way of compensation." If he had said that the rate of reduction could be increased, accepting the broad principle of that Act, I am not authorised, of course, to make any observations as to what the view of the trade would be, but I can at least say what my view would have been. I should have considered any such proposal with the greatest possible degree of consideration and respect. It may be that, proceeding upon these non-revolutionary lines, honest lines, lines reconcilable with the methods by which we have always dealt with our social problems, we could have greatly accelerated the rate of reduction of those licences which must still be pronounced redundant.
I could not help thinking that the noble and learned Viscount had derived a somewhat odd and unaccountable impression from his visit to the United States and Canada, or from the conversations which he has doubtless held with persons competent to speak for both those great countries. I have visited them both more recently than the noble and learned Viscount. At the time when I visited Canada, of which he spoke first, and of which I will speak first, the materials for forming a judgment were somewhat more clearly defined than at the moment, I think, when the noble and learned

1081
Viscount may have formed his impressions. I travelled all over Canada from the West to the far East. I discussed this problem, as the noble and learned Viscount did, with lawyers, politicians, and statesmen, to borrow his own reminiscent phraseology, and I think I equipped myself with some information on the subject. The surprising circumstance—I think I am right in saying this—is that, every single Province but one has now reverted to the pre-Prohibition state of affairs. The noble and learned Viscount said it was only in some districts.
Surely the noble and learned Viscount is aware of this: that even in those districts, with the solitary exception of the one Province which is still Prohibitionist and where, I may warn the noble and learned Viscount, a poll is likely to be taken at an early date—with the single exception of that one Province and even in the districts which are under public control, wines and beer are served at the hotels under the law precisely as they are in London. The only difficulty in the matter of spirits is this. If you desire to obtain either whisky, or brandy, or any spirit you must either go yourself, or send your servant, to the Government shop and he or you can be accommodated with one bottle. But this not very severe disability has its own alleviation, because if you send your servant six times he can be accommodated on the same day with six bottles, and if your need is even greater, he has only to multiply the number of his visits. So that I cannot imagine that this particular reform will bring much comfort to those on whose behalf the Lord Chancellor spoke.
The noble and learned Viscount used a phrase which astonished me. He said that Canada was feeling solid upon the point. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount has appreciated the astonishing reactions which the existence of American Prohibition has produced upon the financial situation in Canada. The noble and learned Viscount named Ottawa, and spoke of severe restrictions obtaining in the capital city of Canada, and the fact that by making a most agreeable excursion two miles out of the city, you might not only take part in any form of sport which appealed to you, but you might be entertained to any form of
1082
alcohol in assuaging the thirst which the particular sport had caused.
There is great solidity in Canada on the subject of sharing in the financial benefits which art accruing and will accrue to that great Dominion by the partial American abstention from alcohol. Great hotels are springing up all over the Dominion to accommodate the people from America who are not yet completely converted to the admirable system which they have put into force in the United States. On this the noble and learned Viscount's views were most interesting. When I say that I do not mean that others were not of interest. I have never, in any country, been brought face to face with such deliberate and general violation of the law as I have observed in the United States of America, and the startling circumstance about it is that it is not men in humble stations in society who are most conspicuously violating the law—as so many in all stations are doing—but men of the highest position, men who would never break any other law, men who have never broken any other law. Nevertheless, openly, without any disguise, they break this law because they feel that it is an intolerable usurpation of the domain of private conscience.
But the noble and learned Viscount says that you will meet many people in the United States of America who tell you that it is not in the least likely that this law will be repealed. The noble and learned Viscount upon this point is right, because no one knows better than one who is so great an authority upon Constitutional Law as he is that the reformers in the United States were ingenious enough to protect the change which they made, which would not have been possible except under the sentimental emotionalism which was produced at the period of their late entry into the war. They have carefully upheld the bulwarks of their Constitutional Law, and it can only be altered with all the formalities with which any change in the Constitution must be attended. Your Lordships need only read the proceedings of the Democratic Convention, as recorded in to-day's newspapers, to realise how largely the purely political issues enter into this question. The real truth, as I understand it, in the United States is that neither great Party is in the least likely to assume the burden of making

1083
any change in this law, because neither Party is quite sure how it is likely to operate politically. The noble and learned Viscount knows as well as I and other noble Lords how cautious and how sensitive are the great political organisations in the United States of America, and how slow they are to commit themselves to any change of policy which may produce unfavourable reactions at the time of the Elections.
There really is no particular reason, let me assure the noble and learned Viscount, why anybody in the United States of America should make unusual efforts in order to obtain a change in the law. He spoke most candidly to the House. He spoke of the hardships he had sustained, or might sustain, if he found it possible at some time to repeat his visit to the United States of America. He could very readily and swiftly compensate himself for any hardship he may have to suffer. Nothing could show more clearly how strong an influence political issues have on the great political Parties of the United States than the fact that they will not take up a question at all until they are sure that, in their own phrase, it is what they call "a winner." You have only to read the discussions which took place yesterday on the subject of the Ku Klux Klan. I do not propose to enter upon the constitution, the character, or the aims of that interesting body, but it is indeed a somewhat remarkable circumstance that the Democratic Party, roughly corresponding with the Liberal Party in this country, should have spent eight hours of heated debate in deliberations, in which the members were prevented from doing any violence to one another by at least a thousand policemen, and finally decided that, after all, it was a religious matter and, therefore, had nothing to do with politics.
The noble and learned Viscount further added that Scotland had, on the whole, gone back. I had hoped to hear a word from my noble and learned friend on the subject of that picturesque village which he honours by his residence, and to which a fugitive attention was directed by my noble friend Lord Banbury on the-occasion of our last discussion. I understand that what happened at Auehterarder was that Auchterarder was persuaded—I know not whether by my noble and learned friend or not—to "go dry." and accordingly it voted "no-licence."
1084
Thereupon the village proceeded to reap the harvest which it had sown. I most sincerely trust that my noble friend, whose generous hospitality has been gratefully appreciated by me over a long period of years, did not find his cellar understocked at that grave and critical moment. He gives me the reassurance for which I had hoped. But observe the singular position of the inhabitants of Auchterarder. I do not know how many they may be, but I am sure it is a considerable place. Let us suppose that there are five hundred inhabitants. They voted, in a moment of aberration, "no licence." I suspect my noble and learned friend, who, no doubt, is provided for for the rest of his days, gave a vote in the same sense, because nothing is more agreeable than to lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven by the inexpensive method of confiscating other people's treasure. My noble and learned friend could give such a vote with a very considerable degree of composure and indifference. The whole ballast and anchor of Auchterarder might be gone, but there remained the cellar of which my noble and learned friend is the proprietor.
Observe the still further consequence. Under the Scottish Act any Scottish village, or any voting area, which declared for no-licence was at least afforded the opportunity of changing its mind. Auchterarder has changed its mind, there is not the slightest doubt of that. Having contemplated with great envy the more sensible regimen of my noble and learned friend, they changed their mind. Under this Bill you do not allow the people to change their mind. What would Auchterarder be doing to-day? It would be "dry" if the Bill which the noble and learned Viscount desires to see given a Second Reading were the law of the land. The people of Auchterarder, whom we now know to be thirsty, would be driven by the right rev. Prelate and by the noble and learned Viscount to a course of drought which they have found to be unsatisfactory to their appetites, and incompatible with their interests. The noble and learned Viscount shakes his head.
We were told by somebody who was replying to the argument of my noble friend Lord Banbury, that the reversion of Auchterarder to what most of us consider to be a more rational scheme of life

1085
had produced unfavourable reactions upon their health. The noble Viscount nods his head to that. I am not much impressed by that, because think of the deprivations that they have been through. Think of the anxieties they must have suffered as to what would be the result of the poll. Furthermore, no sooner have they recovered from the first of these horrible trials than they are face to face with this new peril of which the right rev. Prelate is the author. Indeed, it would require men of great solidity and stability to support a series of trials so great.
My principal complaint against this Bill, if I may say so without imputing any criticism to any noble Lord or the right rev. Prelate who is responsible for it, is that it is from beginning to end, a most obscure and extremely disingenuous Bill. I am quite certain that the right rev. Prelate has not realised the circumstances which I hope to make abundantly plain. The truth is you cannot master the licensing system of this country in the cloisters of Oxford, and suddenly take up and deal with a most complex organism which has developed and grown up with centuries of our life. You can no more become an adequate and intelligent reformer in this respect than you can, at the age of fifty or fifty-five, go suddenly into the practice of law or medicine. The whole business, give me leave to tell the right rev. Prelate, is one of the most extraordinary nicety and complexity, and to attempt by measures of this general kind—I hope to make this more plain—to deal with it without the advantage of most careful preparation is to invite a sure and certain failure.
The Memorandum itself illustrates as clearly as any other part of this amazing Bill which I could select what I have called the disingenuousness of the proposal. The Title, to begin with, is extremely misleading. It is called the Liquor (Popular Control) Bill. There is no popular control in the Bill. It is not popular control. If there is any control at all it is the control of the Commissioners nominated by a bureaucratic Minister. If you use the words "popular control" with political accuracy or precision you must mean that this problem is to be removed henceforth from the hands of Parliament in London, and that control is to be given to localities. What does control mean? It means
1086
full control; it means that if they wish to have licences they are to have licences; it means that if they have decided to try the experiment and wish to revert they are to have the power of reverting. This is not a Bill to give popular control. It is a Bill of which every clause is the direct opposite of popular control.
Then the free use of the term "compensation" is disingenuous. To keep the illustration within a simple limit, take ten men living in one town. You say: "For moral reasons we are going to prevent one of you from carrying on his trade any more, but we are going to compensate you, because we are going to make the other nine who have not any particular wish to get lid of you compensate you." So we have the situation of a man unwillingly excluded and unwillingly compensated, and nine other men who are unwilling to compensate him forced to do so. The Memorandum deals with this aspect of it with the greatest enthusiasm, stating that not a penny of public funds will be touched. My noble and learned friend Lord Sumner showed, in a part of his speech which the noble and learned Viscount airily waved away as a detail, the strongest ground for supposing that the whole scheme would start bankrupt, that it would be bankrupt in the middle of its operation, and would be bankrupt equally at the end. If the scheme is bankrupt, who is going to finance it? From what source are subventions to be drawn? They can only be drawn from public sources. Not the slightest attempt has been made to justify the finance of this Bill.
Indeed, the truth is plain. No Bill of this' kind ought to be introduced except under Government authority and with the authority of Government figures, got out by public Departments accustomed to deal with these vast sums, and given to us with some actuarial reassurance as to the solvency and permanency of the scheme. We do not even know who has advised the right rev. Prelate in relation to this matter. Not one word of reassurance or argument has been vouchsafed to us of the solvency of the financial side upon which the whole Bill depends.
The next point to which I would call attention is a statement made in the Memorandum to which I take the greatest possible exception, particularly as this Memorandum was published in the Press

1087
for propaganda purposes before this debate took place. It says that "the Bill extends to the members of the licensed trade the principle of contributory insurance against certain definite risks." Anything more disingenuous than to suggest that the principle that exists at the present moment is being extended cannot be imagined. There is no such principle as this known to English law. When the Memorandum assumes that it is merely creating an extension of an existing principle it has not the slightest foundation in fact for such an assumption.
It then states that the basis of compensation recommended unanimously by the Government Committee in 1917 has been adopted. Lord Sumner has completely destroyed that contention, and that has been done with the incomparable authority which this House always accords to one who has been Chairman of a Government Committee. The real truth, of course, is that the only respect in which this Bill is founded upon the Report of the Committee relates to the scale of compensation. The Memorandum says that the basis of compensation is the same. No more ludicrous mis-statement was ever made. The basis of compensation recommended by the Sumner Committee was that the money was to be paid by the taxpayer. Is it not an astonishing circumstance that in a Bill of this kind, of which the outstanding feature is that the trade are themselves to be compelled to pay what is euphemistically called compensation, we should be told that the basis of compensation was taken from the Sumner Committee, when the basis of compensation adopted by the Sumner Committee was that those whose licences might be interfered with should be compensated by the State? I wish to make it perfectly plain that it is a matter of principle, and that I intend to vote upon the Second Reading according to that view.
Other matters which the Bill contains are equally matters of principle. There is the choice of three options which, the Memorandum lays down quite arbitrarily, has to be exercised under conditions which in my judgment are grossly unfair. As to the reorganisation resolution, I detect signs of that kind of insinuating attempt to do a thing without saying you are going to do it which is so extremely distasteful. Why is it called reorganisa-
1088
tion? Why do not the framers of this Bill take their courage in their hands and say that this is nationalisation of public houses, for that is what it really is. Reorganisation might mean that you are but obtaining the services of a new landlord or a new bar keeper. That would be reorganisation; but what this Bill means is, that you are going to nationalise the trade. Just as we are told that this is a Bill to obtain popular control when it is in reality a Bill to destroy popular control, so we are told that it is a Bill to reorganise the trade when its sole object is to nationalise it.
Further, the options have to be exercised under conditions which are grossly unfair. If a reorganisation resolution or a no-licence resolution is in force in an area, the voters in that area are not allowed to vote in favour of the restoration of the present system. Why not? Are we still a free country? I thought that under a Socialist Government we at least should have been even more active believers in democracy than we have been in the past; yet, if one of these areas or ten of these areas, should form a conclusion at one period of time, try it, and discover that they dislike it, then, in the name of democracy, or in the name of morality, they are to be told "You are stereotyped for all time; you have deprived yourselves of your freedom of choice." And this is popular control
Let me consider another point. The noble and learned Viscount spoke of the difficulties which are introduced when one district adopts either reorganisation or no-licence and the district immediately contiguous refuses to adopt it. Does the noble and learned Viscount and his friends really imagine that such a system, either in the name of sobriety, or decency or convenience, could be tolerated in this country for a moment? All that would happen is that the thirsty population of one district would spend all its holidays in the other, with very agreeable results for those who enjoy the catering conveniences in the other district. But whether the inhabitants of that district, who do not specially wish to become the attraction centre for the thirsty neighbours in the adjoining village, will regard such a system as admirable I do not know. It would be perfectly legal. There will be whole areas in which one district will vote no-licence and another district will vote

1089
in the opposite; direction. I should have thought that the illustration of the United States of America, and the problems which have arisen from the contiguity of Canada to the United States, would have shown us how unwise: and how impossible it is to attempt reform on these partial lines.
Here I must associate myself with the observations of a very general kind which were made by my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner last week—and this, too, I should have thought was a point of principle. My noble and learned friend made the claim boldly and generally that the very attempt, to place responsibilities like these upon small voting bodies in the provinces involve the repudiation, the cowardly refusal, on the part of Parliament to handle this problem as a national one, though we all know that it is, in fact, a national problem. I am not intending to cover all the ground which was so admirably covered by my noble and learned friend, because I desire to respond to the appeal made by the noble and learned Viscount, that those who are opposed to the proposal should attempt to indicate some broad grounds of principle upon which we refuse to accept the Bill, and which will induce us to go into the Lobby against it on the Second Reading.
Let me say that as a broad point of principle I, for one, repel absolutely the claim of the State to step in and confiscate—that is the true word; it is not the word used in this Bill, but it is the word I use—the property of law-abiding-citizens, nor is this the time of all others that we should select for this House to give an example and point a hand in the direction of that policy. Let me, in a few general sentences, state why this is a matter of principle. I may be told that in the Licensing Act of 1904 compensation was introduced in the same sense in which it is spoken of in this Bill. The claim would be ill-founded, but it presents an appearance, a plausible resemblance, which is enough to make it convenient that I should make some observations upon it.
In the first place, it was clearly recognised by those responsible for the beneficent Act of 1904 that, even in the conditions which prevailed then and having regard to the limited range of those proposals, it would not be a fair or reason-
1090
able thing that any Conservative Party should attempt to carry such a Bill without the most close and intimate discussions with those who were to lie affected. And such discussions took place. I do not maintain that those who represented this widely spread industry were completely satisfied with the arrangements which preceded the passing of that Act. But they took part in the discussions; they did not feel that they were being plundered; they felt that they gained some advantages at the cost of some disadvantages, and they had the feeling that they were making some contribution to the solution of a most perplexing social problem.
Furthermore, there was this prodigious distinction between the two cases. The argument which was used with great force in the days of 1904 was this. The Act is applied in cities and rural districts, but the funds are local in their origin, and, therefore, the probability is overwhelming that he who pays for the suppression of a redundant house would in the accession to his trade derive some advantage from that suppression. Here you have a national fund to be administered by nominees of the Home Secretary of the day, and you may take away a man's livelihood, you may give him, if your fund is not already bankrupt, such compensation as you can, but you make all contribute to a national fund without the slightest probability that any one of those who contribute will gain by the suppression of public houses around them. This distinction is fundamental and prodigious, and it is extraordinary that any one who advocates and supports this Bill should found himself upon the principles that were laid down in the Act of 1904.
When we are told that there is one other option besides that of no-change and no-licence, it is very proper to ask ourselves, has the experience of the last few years increased or diminished the prestige of the case for Nationalisation? We enjoyed a singular experience, in four crowded and agonising years, as to the capacity of public servants to manage great public enterprises. I should imagine that we have hardly yet forgotten the experience of those days. Has anyone, for instance, lost the memory of the handling of the railway companies when the Government had control of them? Is

1091
there anybody who seriously disputes the enormous improvement, both practical and financial, which has taken place in the running of the railways since the national management of them was abandoned? I should very much like to ask what reason there is to suppose that the Government will run public-houses better than anybody else. I know of absolutely none.
Your Lordships will observe, too, how illogical in motive is the substructure upon which this Bill depends. We are told that the taxpayer will not have to pay a farthing for compensation because he will be assisted by the contributions of the nationalised houses. May 1 ask what is the policy of the Bill? Is it the policy and the conception of the Bill—for we are dealing with this matter in the spirit of moral reformers—that these nationalised houses shall be conducted upon business lines?—though not, indeed, with the object of pushing alcoholic refreshment upon intoxicated men, for I can assure the right rev. Prelate that this is not a policy of any licensee who knows his business to-day. Is it to be a policy of making the house productive in a business-like way? I know the answer that is always given to this question. We are told that the management of these houses will not specially push the sale of alcohol, but will have ginger-beer and tea and coffee.
The right rev. Prelate may reassure himself upon this point: If he also provides beer, whether the house be nationalised or not nationalised, far smaller demands, however insidiously they may be pressed upon the purchaser, will be made for these delighful beverages than for one of which Englishmen for a long period of time have been traditionally fond. If, therefore, it is really the scheme and the idea of the Bill that, having nationalised these houses, you should by every conceivable means discourage the sale of alcohol, I, for one, venture to predict that, the scheme will fail, and, differing a little from what I understand to be the view upon this point of my noble and learned friend, I rather anticipate that, in this matter a very considerable contribution will be made from the nationalised houses, and a contribution which will only be smaller than that which would be made from the ordinary public-houses simply because the management would be at once less competent and less experienced.
1092
I should like, if I may, to add a word upon another subject, and to make an attempt, perhaps a bold one, to reply to the question of the noble and learned Viscount when he said in effect: "Something must be done; what do you suggest?" I have already suggested that, possibly with some increase in the compensation fund, you could advantageously, under our old Act, accelerate even more the process of reduction, so that in twenty years more we should have suppressed since 1904, in a period of forty years, some 70,000 or 80,000 houses. But I would add that this is not the true and only road of temperance. The stupidity in this matter of benches of magistrates all over the country has always astounded me. They have always gone upon the principle that they are not doing their duty unless they make public-houses as squalid, as unattractive, as impossible for women as they can be. In the days when I used to practise at the Bar they did not even allow people to play draughts in a public-house. I have heard it solemnly brought up before the Liverpool bench as an objection to a licensee that he actually allowed people to play draughts upon his premises in the afternoon. I have heard an objection taken by the police, and warmly received by the bench, to a licensee who had actually been guilty of the enormity of establishing a telephone, in his house.
That is looking back, I suppose, about twenty years, but I question whether the policy has even changed. Certainly, it is true that there has never been an intelligent attempt to see that the true solution of this problem lies in making public-houses really respectable and agreeable clubs for working men. When a man has finished a harsh day's work and returns to a not particularly amusing home, not with resources for enjoyment and pleasure, but to a house whose scanty range is embarrassed, perhaps, by three or four children and a tired wife, it will be in the social interests of the whole of society that such a man—yes, and his wife, too, after her day's work—shall be able to go to some place where they can enjoy reasonable refreshment, a place the atmosphere of which degrades neither her nor him. That, and that alone, is the road of true temperance. This is a Bill which will close the door to that road indefinitely, and will do it upon lines

1093
which are an affront not only to the social sense but to the elementary conceptions of morality which many of the citizens of this country entertain.
One final word of criticism and of objection. I assert, plainly that if once we, the House of Lords, admit the principle that because some of you do not like a particular trade in which, with the encouragement of the Legislature and for a long period of years, the savings of citizens of every class in the community have been invested—if once you admit the principle that you may, for your own moral purposes, appropriate. their property, not giving them anything in compensation from public funds, as Lord Sumner proposed, but taking from the pockets of their competitors and their survivors the funds with which to pay them out, unwilling as they are—once you admit that principle in relation to this problem, then with what consistency, with what power, with what success is this House going to confront the proposals with which, believe me, we shall be called upon to deal within the next ten years? Let us stand firm now, and not be deluded by the talk of details and principles. Upon at least five points I have raised vital points of principle which, if this Bill is once sent to a Committee to be considered and discussed we shall never again be able on a similar subject to challenge, and each of these points is individually destructive, and the whole of them are completely destructive in their cumulative force, of principles upon which alike the House of Lords and the Party to which we belong have depended through the ages.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, no one is a greater admirer of the eloquence of the noble Earl than myself, and the speech to which we have just listened is indeed a lit subject for admiration. But the serious nature of his criticism was chequered, as it usually is in the speeches of the noble Earl, by the play of a. fancy which I do not possess, and with the exercise of which I do not intend to compete. But I would beg your Lordships not to let the influence of those passages remove from your minds the gravity of the subject which underlies this Bill. Indeed, I cannot help thinking that every speech that has been made on this occasion does lip service to the cause of temperance, however unwilling any one of the spokesmen
1094
who opposed the Bill may have been to accept the method by which that cause can be advanced.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, in a striking phrase, said that we should have faith in time, but if you accepted his view, if his hopes were realised, and if the pleas for sobriety of the right rev. Prelates upon the Bench opposite were to prevail, what would you have done? You would have ruined the whole of the drink trade of this country as effectively, and far more effectively, than would be done by the operation of this Bill, and I should like to know why, if it be accepted that the promotion of temperance and sobriety in this country is a great national aim which enlists the support of all members of every Party, you should refrain from attempting to help the efforts of those social reformers who seek to amend the habits of some of our people by the introduction of law? I am left entirely unmoved by the statements which have been made as to the probable effects of this Bill upon the pockets of the industry, because, after all, this industry stands by itself. There is no other industry you can think of whose prosperity must be measured in terms of national thriftlessness and may be measured in terms of national degradation. There is no other industry whose prosperity is dangerous to the State, and I doubt if any one, even the; noble Earl, could deny that the unchecked and unlimited prosperity of the brewing interest is so dangerous.
I approach the Bill from a point of view totally different from that of most previous speakers. I approach it from the point of view of a man who is anxious to see whether it does not afford some means by which we can further promote habits of temperance in this country. I am met at once with the criticism of Lord Banbury and Lord Long, which, I must admit, leaves me somewhat troubled. I cannot imagine how people who, I do not doubt, would be as glad as any one else to see England a sober nation, can approach the Bill in the spirit which is manifested by their speeches. Lord Banbury said, and Lord Birkenhead repeated, that we had an example of the fearful effect of any such Bill as this in the Prohibition Act in the United States. Indeed, Lord Banbury gave us to believe that the effect of Prohibition in the

1095
United States has been to increase the very evil which it set out to remove, and Lord Birkenhead, although he did not say so, certainly lent colour to the idea that that was his view.
I agree entirely that it is not easy to get trustworthy statistics to prove what has happened, but I will say that the mere figures of convictions for drunkenness are perfectly worthless. That is not the source to which you should look to see what has happened under Prohibition. I want to know whether the gaols are getting empty, whether the workhouses are closing down, whether the savings bank deposits are growing owing to increased savings by the working classes, whether industrial efficiency is increasing, and whether the working people are better cared for. Those are the statistics that we want to have. I do know that before Prohibition was introduced in the United States I was dining with a man who knew America as well as most men—he was a very eminent American—and he said that Prohibition would certainly come. We treated his observation with polite incredulity, but he repeated that it would come, and when I asked why, he said: "Because the example of the States which have gone 'dry' is so strong that it cannot be gainsaid, and the other States are bound to follow in their trail."
When we are told of hotels that are being built and of people in New York who are breaking the law—and, to their shame, it is the better-to-do who are breaking the law—those statements leave me entirely unmoved. The only evidence that that affords is evidence of the mischief that may result when you combine undisciplined liberty with unconscionable wealth. The danger does not come from such a Bill as this, as has been suggested, but it comes from the example set by people who ought to know better, and if not from the approval, from the abstention from public disapproval, of these methods of lawlessness. These examples are the things which will certainly quicken the impatient steps of those who seek to overthrow the whole social system.
Let us turn away from the example of America and see what it is that this Bill proposes, and why it is that those who support it ask that it should be read a second time. I agree that there are criticisms made against it by the noble
1096
Earl and by Lord Sumner which are deserving of the closest attention, and although I may be unable to answer those criticisms to their satisfaction, I will do my best. After having heard what was said by Lord Banbury and Lord Long about this Bill, your Lordships, I cannot help thinking, must have been given, not intentionally, of course, an extremely misleading idea as to its contents. Lord Banbury said that he had spent long evenings reading this Bill, and that it has been his habit so to read Bills year after year. I rather gathered that he thought this Bill was by far the worst Bill that he had ever read. That might have impressed me if I had not heard from him very much the same observation with regard to many other Bills, and of all the Bills that he has read during the last eighteen years I do not believe you can find three Bills which have received his support. I believe that during the last eighteen years he has been prepared to oppose nearly every Bill which has been introduced, and therefore I do not think the fact that he is opposed to this Bill is a matter which need cause us undue alarm.
If the Bill were anything like what he suggested it was, I can understand its being opposed. He pointed out that this Bill is a Bill in which you have what he called a Star Chamber Commission set up, appointed by people who apparently are selecting their instruments not for the purpose of exercising the power which the Bill gives them but of carrying out the wishes of the Minister who appoints them. Now the Commission which he called a Star Chamber—and I suppose that it was in order to give the matter an ecclesiastical flavour that he introduced the name of Archbishop Laud—is a Commission of which the Lord Chancellor appoints one member, who is to be a barrister of at least ten years' standing, the Home Secretary appoints another, who must have special qualifications in valuation, and the President of the Board of Trade appoints a third. Then the noble Lord says that he does not think a barrister will have learnt anything at all in ten years, and he regarded it as a matter of jest. Some of the finest work done in this country is done by County Court Judges, and the Statute under which they are appointed requires that they shall have seven years' standing at the bar. If seven years is

1097
sufficient qualification for a man who exercises the powers of a County Court Judge, I cannot help thinking that ten years' standing is a very adequate period as the qualification of a commissioner who is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who also appoints the Judges
Then the noble Lord said, in effect: "Oh, if there is a vacancy this is what will happen: The Minister may say, ' Here is a man who should not try this ease, because I do not think he is very sound. He is not going sufficiently strongly against the brewers, and I will appoint a Commissioner whom I know and who will decide as I would have him decide,' and he will appoint one of his own creatures who will do as he is told." If the Government of this country sinks down into such an abyss of corruption that it can find its ready tools and instruments to carry out judicial duties by doing what they are told, you need not trouble about Licensing Bills, because the whole structure and foundation of our social order will have disappeared. I do not believe such a thing has happened, and I do not believe it will happen in the future.
When the noble Lord said that this is a Star Chamber, he never told you that the whole duty and function of this Commission is to assess values. That is all that it has to do. And there is an appeal from that Commission to the Court of Appeal on any question that involves the construction of the Statute, the proper basis of compensation, and all the matters which are necessarily subjects of appeal; and from the Court of Appeal to your Lordships' House. To talk about Star Chambers in connection with a Commission such as that is, I think, to show that, notwithstanding the noble Lord's industry, he has either imperfectly understood the Bill or he has imperfectly read history.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, appears to me to have floundered in the same morass. He seems to think that one of the worst features about this Bill is that it is going to destroy all the local authorities, that the burden that is going to be put on the borough councils, the county councils and the larger urban district councils is so great that they will collapse under the duties that are thrown upon them by this Bill, and what will happen when that collapse takes place is something
1098
that the noble Viscount is really-afraid to contemplate. Would you really believe that all that apprehension is founded on the fact that the local authority has power to nominate one half of the Advisory Committee, which is then to be appointed by the Secretary of State? That is the beginning and the end of their duties. If their shoulders are so frail that they are going to sink into ruin because that added burden is laid upon them. I cannot think that they are very well lifted to discharge the duties which at the present moment I believe they satisfactorily perform.
I should not have dealt in this detail with these speeches but for this reason. It shows you that when a Bill of this kind is brought forward there, are quite a number of people who are prepared at once to say: "Here is another of these Temperance Bills. Let us get rid of it at once. It must be a bad Bill. It deals with a subject which necessarily must make it a bad Bill, and therefore do not let us hear anything more about it." I do not think that is the way in which this Bill should be dealt with. There is a principle involved in the Bill, a principle on which your Lordships may very well take different views, and I realise that some of you may hold very strongly-indeed that that principle is one to which you cannot accede. But if that principle be accepted, the whole of the rest of the discussion is really a matter of criticism either by such a Committee as the right rev. Prelate suggests or on the floor of this House.
What is the principle? The principle is this: that the inhabitants of a district should be at liberty to say how the drink traffic within their area is to be controlled. Nobody imagines that this is anything new. It has been advocated on the political platform for twenty-five years at least, if not for longer. And when people hold up their hands in horror and suggest that this is the beginning of some general period of confiscation, for which we all may tremble, it should be remembered that during the sober days of their own Government, and of Governments now long passed, this very same principle was being urged upon the platform and accepted at the polls, and that a large number of people were returned to Parliament pledged to its support. Why is it wrong? Surely, if there is one thing that is undeniable it; is that there are

1099
areas whore the presence of public-houses tends to deteriorate the whole social value of the district. That is just as indisputable as it is to say that there are other areas where their presence does not. Who can best know which are those areas? It seems to me that it is the people in the locality who are best qualified to judge, and all that is necessary is to secure that the area within which the vote is taken should be properly defined, so that, this power can be fairly exercised.
Then it is said: "Oh yes, but what you are going to enable them to do is to confiscate the property of the brewer," and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, led astray a little, I think, by the inspiration of Lord Banbury and Lord Long, proceeded, first of all, to attack the Memorandum of the Bill and its provisions by saying that they are obscure and misleading. It is perfectly true that, if you take up a Bill which deals with a complicated matter, you will have to read it very patiently in order to find out what it means. But I have not found this Bill unusually obscure, though that may be because my mind is not sufficiently acute to apprehend the difficulties. Nor do I find the Title misleading. What is there misleading about saying that this is a "Liquor (Popular Control) Bill"? You cannot have the Title of your Bill an essay. A phrase must be chosen, and to say that this is a Popular Control Bill does not seem to me to matter in the least.
We are next told that there is no compensation, that all that happens is that money is taken out of the pockets of certain members of the trade and put into the pockets of those who lose their licences. The noble and learned Earl was acute enough to realise that such an argument would lend itself at once to the answer that that is precisely what happens at the present time, the only difference being that now it is the magistrate who has to say which licences are redundant, while under this Bill it is to be determined by the people of the area. And why the noble and learned Earl thinks there is any difference in kind between a levy made for the purpose of suppressing these licences under the present system, and suppressing them under this Bill, I cannot see, nor why "compensation" should be a fit description to use in speaking
1100
of the one and wholly misleading to use of the other. Without binding himself in any way—and I am certain that anybody who opposes this Bill will never bind himself as to how he is to effect the same object—he suggested that if we did not like the present compensation scheme we could enlarge it. But, supposing you did enlarge it, and on exactly the same scale as under this Bill, what is left then? There is nothing left except this question—which I have admitted freely throughout is a question which may well exercise men's minds—as to whether you should in those circumstances leave power unrestrained in the hands of the magistrates of the locality.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If the noble and learned Lord will look at Clause 31 he will see these words
"… as the Commissioners shall determine, and no appeal shall lie from such determination."
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes, and you will find that that means the determination of the question of fact, and the noble Lord, who has no doubt pursued his investigations into this Bill since we last met, knows perfectly well that under this Bill there is an appeal from those Commissioners to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. I would call his attention to Clause 13, and I would beg your Lordships to follow this. That Clause states:
"No appeal shall lie from the Commissioners upon a question of fact."
That is exactly what I said, and I do not see why the noble Lord thought fit to interrupt me. Then there comes a provision saying that, unless otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie to the High Court. In other words, the only thing that is excluded is the question of fact.
Let us turn, for a moment, to two other matters. First of all. it is said that the Bill is wrong because, once people have determined that there shall be no licences, they cannot go back. I agree that at first sight it appears as though you only enable them to move in one direction, and that is true so far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned. But have your Lordships ever thought what the result would be if you allowed the licences to be completely extinguished throughout a whole area, and the area remained in that condition, say, for ten years, and then you suddenly

1101
re-established the drink trade in it? How would you arrange matters? Are you going suddenly to have a bench who will grant licences indiscriminately over the whole area? Though I agree with what, is said about the difficulty of seeing that this Bill puts full popular control into the Lands of the people, I ask: When once you have excluded licences how are you to get over the difficulties of letting them come back? Those difficulties are so great that personally I should be prepared to support the Bill as it stands. But there would be no trouble in amending the Bill in Committee. Yon have only to add a very few words to one of the clauses.
Then we come to what is, no doubt, a very formidable part of the criticism against the Bill—namely, the criticism which was directed against it in the very able speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner. He apprehends that the compensation fund may be wholly inadequate and that, if it be wholly inadequate, the Bill makes no arrangements as to where the money is to come from. I agree with him to this extent: it is impossible to foretell in advance everything that is going to happen; but there certainly is no particular reason to think that this fund is going to be inadequate. In the first four years there will be a fund of £8,000,000 collected under this Bill, and when the noble and learned Lord suggests that in areas in which re-organisation is attempted the necessary-result may be that there will be a loss caused in those areas, I can hardly think that he has given full attention to the example which we have already of precisely this kind of management in Carlisle. The public-houses of Carlisle were taken over in 1916. The cash indebtedness to the Exchequer on account of these properties at the end of March, 1923, was less than £300,000, and the value of the assets was about £900,000. Fifty per cent. of the breweries and 40 per cent. of the retail premises have been shut down, and if they maintain their present rate of payment they will have paid off all the money advanced within a period of ten to twelve years. Surely, that is a very remarkable illustration of what may-happen when you have reorganised your trade under the provisions that this Bill sets out.
I certainly do not flinch from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, said. He said that if this money cannot
1102
be provided out of the central fluid, supplemented by a hypothetical profit made by the Board of Management, the only resource is the Exchequer. I quite agree; but I cannot see any risk, any measurable risk that is, with which we nerd concern ourselves, of that happening. If it arose, it would arise when the sale of liquor would have so dwindled throughout a large part of this country that we should have done something in the country for which we ought to be willing to compensate by paying money out of the taxpayers" pockets.
It is also said that this Bill is a confiscatory measure, that it is a measure based on principles of Nationalisation, and, indeed, many even harder words were used against it. In its very essence it is a national measure. It is intended, so far as legislation can secure it, to redeem this country from a vice which has been its reproach for years past, a vice which impedes the efficiency of our industry, which renders barren and miserable the homes of many of the poor, stunts the children of many of our working classes and deprives them of that opportunity of further development in life which a little more money would readily provide. It is because I believe that the Bill aims at removing and relieving those conditions that I support the Motion for the Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am moved to say a few words on the subject of this Bill because this discussion has made it abundantly clear that a vote which is unexplained is also a vote which is liable to be much misunderstood and misrepresented. I am very anxious indeed that it should not be supposed that I am one of those who, to use Lord Buckmaster's words, are inclined to say: This is a temperance Bill, therefore let us get rid of it. That is very far from being in my mind. I should be disposed, on the contrary, to say that this is a Bill which seeks to promote a great cause the importance of which I am the first to recognise, and which is recommended to us by men whose splendid efforts in the cause of temperance we should all of us be ready to admit with gratitude. Therefore I do not start with any feeling of hostility to the Bill because it is a Temperance Bill, and certainly there is nothing that would give me more pain than to be an instrument in bringing

1103
about a decision of this House which might be regarded as a rebuff to the right rev. Prelates opposite. But when they invite me to follow their banner I am obliged, as a prudent man, to ask where they are going to lead me. It is because when I look ahead I think I see that the path is one which is undermined by pitfalls and surrounded by quagmires and morasses, that I hesitate before I commit myself to a journey upon it.
I listened attentively to the speeches which were made by the right rev. Prelates last week. It seemed to me that the major premise in the argument of the Bishop of London was his statement that alcohol was a dangerous poison, a dangerous narcotic and that it did incalculable harm to the bodies and the minds of those who used it. He based himself largely upon the Report of the eight experts who had investigated the subject. I have the greatest respect for the experts. I am ready to be guided by them if we are to discuss questions of chemistry or hygiene; but if I am asked to accept their guidance in regard to matters concerning practical politics and the daily life of our people, I ask permission to examine rather carefully what it is they are asking us to do. Surely it is not too much to say that if this tremendous indictment of alcohol—an indictment which has been repeated by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster—be sustained, we ought to make it our business to extirpate the evil, to give no quarter to the enemy, and at any cost to put an end to so pernicious an attack.
But that is not by any means what this Bill asks us to do. This Bill asks us to make terms with the enemy. It invites us to allow him to entrench himself as strongly as he pleases in those areas in which the conditions are favourable, and when once he is entrenched in those areas I do not exactly see how you are going to get him out of them. What seems to me the worst feature is that you divest yourselves of the responsibility which really ought to rest on the shoulders of the Government of the day, and shunt that responsibility on to the shoulders of bare majorities in these different areas—areas in which a majority of a very few people, perhaps very emotional, excitable, ill-informed people, may have a determining voice in the decision of the question so far as it
1104
affects their own particular district. These people may be advocates of sobriety, but what security have we that they will be sober in their own judgment; when they are dealing with these grave questions? I own that I have little confidence in them.
As has been very well pointed out, there is no choice given to the country in this matter. In every area, whether it wishes to do so or not, there must take place this triennial appeal—an appeal most unsettling and most fraught with dissension and recrimination. When the decision has been given, it cannot be denied that if it is in favour of no-licence the decision is irrevocable and becomes riveted for all time upon the area concerned. That is a tremendous power to give to a bare majority in an area which may perhaps be ill-informed and liable to great waves of excitement. I think my noble and learned friend pointed out that when a similar law was introduced into Scotland the prudent Scots took the precaution of leaving open a line of retreat, and I think we were told last week that in 1921 forty-one areas voted for no-licence, and that of those forty-one thirty-one have retraced their steps. "What kind of thing are we to look forward to if a locus penitentiæ is denied to an area which, under this Bill, may condemn itself for all time to the no-licence system? I shiver when I think of the kind of aftermath of recrimination, resentment and ill-feeling which is likely to follow in cases where, perhaps by a small majority, the no-licence system has been imposed upon a large and reluctant minority. These are the things which may happen when the no-licence decision has been arrived at.
But supposing the area accepts one of the other alternatives. Supposing it decides for what is called, in this Bill, reorganisation. The immediate result of that is the erection of a colossal piece of bureaucratic machinery unlike anything to which we have yet been accustomed in this country. It is a tremendous edifice. At the top of the pyramid you find the Secretary of State, who may be a man of very extreme views. Then you come to the Board of Management and the Central Advisory Committee, and below that again to the advisory councils, and, finally, to the Compensation Commission. The Board of Management is really

1105
the mainspring of the whole machine, and it is about the position of the Board of Management that I wish to say a few words. In the Preamble to the Bill we are told that its powers are limited, but I should like the House to consider for a moment what are the powers which, within those limits, are granted to the Board of Management.
They are, in the first place, limited to the "production and distribution of intoxicants." If those words have any meaning surely they mean that the Board of Management, or the members of it, may set to work to brew beer and distil whisky, I suppose in competition with the great firms which in the past have made themselves famous by the fortunes which they have earned in this industry. Some representatives of those firms are to be found in your Lordships' House. I see that under this Bill members of the Board of Management are ineligible for seats in the House of Commons so long as they are members of the Board. Is it too much to imagine that a turn of the wheel may perhaps find places for them on these Benches?
What is their second duty? It is to decide what public-houses are redundant in any particular area. That is a pretty stiff job. In the next place, they are to be entrusted with the task of making such structural alterations as may be necessary in order to turn public-houses into places for the supply of food and non-intoxicants. That may sound a simple matter, but it is clearly a work which the Board of Management could not undertake unless it had a competent and large staff of people used to structural work. Next, the Board of Management is to supervise hotels and clubs in the reorganised areas. I do not know whether it will give your Lordships any comfort to find, when you betake yourself to the club that you have perhaps frequented all your life, that you are under the paternal ægis of the Board. Finally, this Board of Management is, under the Bill, bound to keep in touch and work with the local authorities and the committees which are to be called into existence.
In a word, this Board of Management will be a sort of huge official octopus with its tentacles extending in every direction all over the country—perhaps not in every direction because the areas in which it is set up may adjoin other
1106
areas which have voted no-change, and you will have the absurd inconvenience of having two areas, separated only by a road or fence, one of which is under the paternal control of this bureaucratic machine and the other rubbing along as it has always done. That such a piece of machinery cannot fail to be enormously costly both in men and money seems to be a mere truism, and I will not pursue it.
Nor do I propose to examine in detail the financial provisions of the Bill. That was done with great completeness and success by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, and I notice, not without satisfaction, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, in referring to his speech, did not put up a very energetic defence to the criticism which was made but rather took the line of saying that these were defects which might possibly be removed without difficulty. I think we may take it as certain that there is the possibility that very heavy expense will be involved, and that the taxpayers may become liable. But the main count in the indictment against this Bill is that it opens the way for what seems to be a very dangerous and far-reaching invasion of the rights of the British subject. It is an invasion which if it ever comes into practice will be tremendously resented by the people of this country.
The tide of temperance is, in my belief, flowing strongly in the direction which the right rev. Prelate desires. I refuse altogether to accept the gloomy pictures which are sometimes drawn of the state of the country in this respect. I agree with what the noble and learned Earl said as to the legislation of 1904, and I am sure that if you wish to go further on those lines, if you can make out a case for dealing more severely with drunkenness and with those who give improper facilities for the consumption of alcoholic liquors, public opinion will back you up. I have always felt great sympathy with the kind of legislation which I remember my noble friend the late Lord Grey used to advocate in and out of this House, and which the noble and learned Earl suggested might be pushed further. But I honestly believe that you could not do a greater disservice to the cause of temperance than to entangle it in the kind of network of inconsistencies, con-

1107
troversies and disputes which this Bill, if it were passed into law, would inevitably create. I shall give my vote against the Second Heading of the Bill.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, it is common ground that the consumption of alcohol in this country is too great, and the expenditure upon it too large. Perhaps there is no section of the community which has a closer and more intimate and, I might even say, a more tragic acquaintance with the results of an excessive consumption of alcohol than the section of the community to which I have the honour to belong. There is no section of the community that can in like measure see its evils, and we are the last persons to view those evils light-heartedly or place obstacles in the way of any remedy which would bring about a better state of things. But in searching for a cure we need to be watchful that our proposals do not replace one evil by another, and I should like to express doubts as to whether the proposals contained in this Bill are likely to produce the good effects which its proposers would fain believe. I am not enamoured of the constant quotation of America. I would point out that the conditions in America are different from the conditions here, and I do not like to think that we are so sterile in imagination that we cannot find remedies for our own social evils.
I am met at the threshold by this difficulty: If alcohol is wrong, if its effect on the health of the community is bad, then the only thing to do, the straightforward thing to do, is to admit it and let us have Prohibition brought in for the whole nation. I admit that if the necessity arises, if the needs of the State require it, then it is open to the State to take away or impair individual liberty, but the onus of proof lies on those who wish to impair that liberty, and they must hold out substantial grounds for believing that the result will be as they prophesy. Surely, the best remedy is that which is founded upon causes and conditions: and I hope to show your Lordships that this country is not only becoming temperate but is becoming temperate at an accelerating rate, and that if the conditions which are responsible for the improvement are
1108
only fostered and furthered, we can face the solution of this dire problem with greater ease of mind than in the past.
With regard to the effect of alcohol in moderation on the individual, I notice that there is no agreement amongst the supporters of this Bill as to whether alcohol is good or bad. The right rev. Prelate who introduced it gave one the impression that wine and beer in moderation were in no way harmful to the community, but later in the debate the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London, came forward with a "no-compromise" speech. To him alcohol was the accursed thing, a narcotic, which did no good to any one, though he would hesitatingly admit that in small doses it might do no harm. The right rev. Prelate claimed that expert opinion supported his view. With great respect I must say that this is a travesty of expert opinion on the matter. The word "narcotic" has crept in in a very curious way. Experts are accustomed to use a word which expresses the extreme effects of a substance, and a narcotic is a substance which produces stupor, sleep, coma and death. Next time, therefore, that you pass to your friends a glass of claret or a glass of beer, you must really say to them: "Will you take a little narcotic?" This word is used in a manner which is open to misapprehension, and it is the reverse of the truth to say that a glass of beer or of claret can be honestly and fairly described as a narcotic.
It may be taken that the opinion of the medical world, both in this country and abroad, is by a very large majority in favour of alcohol as a useful substance, a beneficent agent, when taken in proper quantities, at proper times and by the people whom it suits. Any argument based upon the contrary view is opposed to the facts. Perhaps I might add that the large majority of the medical profession themselves drink wine, though, as I need hardly add, in strict moderation. It is perfectly true that the action of alcohol is seldom useful to those who are occupied in physical or mental labour. That is admitted; and it is further admitted that, although it is a food, it is an unsuitable and wasteful food to those who are in health. But the action of alcohol upon the nervous system is beneficent and useful when taken in proper quantities and at the proper time. In these days of

1109
specialisation of labour, where the same part of the brain and the same muscles are used hour after hour, it will often happen at the end of the day that a man feels a weariness and a sense of bondage. There is then an inability on the part of the individual to get out of his groove and to gain that freedom of content which will enable him to rest and prepare himself for the work of the next day. It is almost a matter of common knowledge that a glass of alcoholic liquor at the end of the day will lighten the mental horizon, brighten the outlook, enable a man to drop those grey-coloured spectacles with which he views the world after the hardships of the day and give him content, case of mind and happiness. In that way he is able to prepare for the duties of the day that is to come.
I am sure your Lordships have only to call upon your own personal experience to seek confirmation of this obvious truth. At any social gathering consisting of tired people you can see how very dull and drab is their outlook, and how, after a. very small quantity of alcohol, the company will brighten and social intercourse will be helped. I would put it to your Lordships that we ought to do nothing which will diminish the cheerfulness and the measure of sociability which are so useful in helping us along our mortal road. This is equally true of the masses. You can see amongst the masses the effect of a moderaf.3 quantity of alcohol, just as you can witness those tragic effects which are produced by excess. If one turns to the realms of literature, can it be said that we should have had some of our finest literature, music and painting on a régime of ginger beer? I should doubt it. All I ask is that, in considering this question and in coming to a decision upon it, we should at any rate consider the debit and credit sides of the account. I do not think that we are helped forward by denunciations of alcohol as a narcotic. If alcohol is wrong, then the whole community ought to give it up. One of my difficulties in accepting this Bill is that it is class legislation, for it will never interfere with the man who is able, to have alcohol in his cellars, and one needs a very strong case, in my opinion, for an attempt to take away the opportunities of the masses to have alcohol if they think well.
1110
The next point which I should like to bring before your Lordships—it is, I think, a matter of some interest and has not been touched upon in this debate—is the steady growth of temperance in our midst. Not only is that growth steady, but it is proceeding at a rate which perhaps very few of your Lordships realise. Watch the people on holiday to-day as compared with a few years ago. Take the Bank holidays, and the charges at our police courts that follow a public holiday. I speak from my own observation when I say that in all directions you may see an increase in temperance.
I will now refer, if I may, to the evidence afforded by disease. It is true that the figures which may be collected from hospitals are small in number, but they have two advantages. One is that their results are accurate, and the other that the hospital is a very fair mirror of the life of the community which it serves. I will take first the test of delirium tremens. If a man has been intemperate and by some ill-chance has an accident or is stricken by fever he is liable to develop delirium tremens. I take the figures of one large hospital, and I will be as brief as I can because I do not want to overload your Lordships with statistics. I am going to refer specially to three decades comprised between the years 1804 and 1923. If we take the figures relating to delirium tremens for these three decades in that large hospital, we, shall find that, beginning at 27·8 per year, they go down to 17·6 in 1904–13, and finally to 10. I may add that delirium tremens has diminished to such an extent and has become so very much lighter in its intensity, that the ward of that hospital devoted to it has been closed and is being used for another purpose.
I will next take another well-known disease which is produced by alcohol— namely, cirrhosis of the liver—and I will take the same three periods. The average admissions in the first of those decades numbered 61·4; in the second, 53·2; and in the third, 20. It is admitted, I may say, by all those who have to deal with these cases that the cases are materially fewer, and are steadily diminishing. I will take next a disease which is more common amongst women than amongst men—namely, alcoholic peripheral neuritis. The figure is 23·8 in the first decade, 14·1 in the second, and five in

1111
the third. If you put all those figures together they afford you very satisfactory cumulative evidence that the diseases due to alcohol are diminishing.
Now, side by side with those figures, I will put the statistics of the consumption of beer for the same years. In the first decade the consumption was 29·52 gallons per head of the population; in the next decade, 28·91; in the next 26·66; and when we come down to the last year the figure is 15·80. As to the consumption of spirits, if you take the first decade, the figure was ·87 gallons per head of the population; for the second decade, ·85; for the third, ·59: and at present ·31. I would like to point out to your Lordships that this improvement in the matter of spirits took place about the years 1909 to 1912. It took place before the war, and before the duty on spirits was raised. Therefore, the evidence to be derived from those figures is of greater value. I think those figures show what I contended a short while ago—namely, that not only is the consumption decreasing but the improvement is taking place at an accelerated rate.
I admit that we cannot draw inferences only from the diseased, and I would like to give your Lordships examples from healthy people. I will take a class of workers in a big insurance company. They represent people of small means, living in small houses. I investigated two hundred cases in order. The investigation was conducted carefully, no names were mentioned, and there was no difficulty in getting at the truth. In looking at the returns what impressed one most was the extreme moderation which almost invariably prevailed. If you take those two hundred you will see a striking difference between those over forty and those under forty years of age, and in judging of temperance in this country you have to pay attention chiefly to those under forty. Those who are over forty have contracted their habits and are of relatively little importance. Of those over forty, 21 per cent. took nothing at all in the way of alcohol. Of those under forty, 40 per cent. took no alcohol, and of those who did take alcohol only one-fourth took spirits. Although this is a small number, it corresponds to the evidence obtained from other quarters.
I will pass to an equally interesting class, and turn to the study of the
1112
young soldier. It is the experience of all observers that the young soldier drinks less and less, and in many cases nothing. It is the "dry canteen" which is crowded now. At a recent territorial training, during an "easy" time, there was a queue to the barrel for ginger-beer, and other non-alcoholic drinks, and only a scattered remnant made for the beer barrel. Let me quote from an officer who has had years of experience under varying conditions. He says this:
"Since the great war I have paid particular attention to this subject during all my inspections, and have made a point of visiting the regimental institutes between the hours of 11 and 12.30, and the largest number of men I have found in the beer bar of any institute has been eight, and the average about five, the majority, i.e., several hundreds, being in the other part of the institute, drinking tea and cocoa and eating sweet cakes."
That last remark is in accordance with experience. Where there has been a reduction in the consumption of alcohol the consumption of sugar has increased. The officer in question continues:—
"The consumption of alcohol and drunkenness in the Army is now negligible. One cannot dogmatise on the cause, but in my opinion it is chiefly due to the very great interest now taken in the comfort and well-being of the soldier and in his education."
I should like to supplement that by saying it is estimated that the consumption of beer in the canteens is less than half what it was before the war.
What are the reasons for this accelerated improvement in temperance? They are education, improvement in the young man's outlook on life, better homes, and, equally, the fact that the barracks are made into homes. What striking results are these! They tell us, I venture to say, the lines along which reform should go. I would say: Leave these restrictive measures alone, and proceed on the lines which these investigations indicate. Give people better houses, increase the number of recreation grounds, and they will do the rest. They are doing the rest.
I will trouble your Lordships with the result of one more investigation which I venture to hope will give a valuable indication from another point of view. There are becoming established in our great cities large popular restaurants where, every kind of meal can be obtained, and where people sit, enjoy good music, smoke, and

1113
talk to their friends. Some of these huge restaurants have full licences, and therefore afford us very useful indication of what the effect is of giving to a large restaurant a full licence. I have visited these places, and if your Lordships should visit them you will find there, a collection of every class of the people, with this one common distinction, that they are all people of moderate means. There you find artisans, professional men, business men of every kind. You can witness there the breaking down of old social divisions and the arising of a new social order. It! you watch these people you can see them enjoy their music and tobacco. You can see them enjoy their beer and their cider, but you cannot fail to be struck with their temperance and moderation in taking alcohol.
The number of those taking alcohol at all is relatively small, but I am not going to ask you to accept impressions. I will give a few figures, the result of investigations. I will take one of the largest of these popular restaurants with a full licence. Over 10,000 people a day are customers there. Taking the figures of all the consumers, it will be found that no less than 76 per cent. of the people take no alcohol at all. Of the 25 per cent. who take alcohol, no less than 80 per cent. partake of beer, cider, and light wine, and only 20 per cent. partake of spirits and heavier wines. Those are very striking figures. They show that temperance is growing among the people. I would willingly accompany the right rev. Prelate to witness this at any time-he chooses, perhaps in less formal garb than we are accustomed to adopt, and a most interesting investigation it would be.
Has any class in the whole community shown social progress comparable to that of the artisan class during the last two decades? I call to witness the wider sphere of their enjoyments. Look at their appreciation of the cinema and the drama: look at the way in which they utilise their holidays; recall their dress, its tidiness, its good taste. And all this has come about in the last two decades. I judge them by cleanliness and the cleanliness of their homes. In the year 1908 no fewer than 30·5 per cent. of the children in one town were not clean. In 1917 that had gone down to 7 per cent. I take another town, where the cleanliness of the children improved from 19·1 per
1114
cent. of children that were not clean to 1 per cent.
What, has done all this? Why, good homes, the extension of the means of recreation, and education. I would like to add one other cause, and that is the unpopular "dole." There is no doubt that the "dole" has improved the temperance of the people. Before the "dole" existed any workman who was out of work had the spectre of poverty before him, and that led him to pawn his tools and his belongings, and that again led to depleted and unhappy homes, and unhappy homes led to drink. Although the workman cannot now be said to be free from anxiety, Heaven knows! if he is out, of employment, he is. at any rate, free from that, anxiety; he no longer has the fear of destitution for himself and his family. Those are the measures which make for temperance, and those are the lines, upon which useful reform should go.
When the right rev. Prelate asks what are the practical proposals which the opponents of this Bill would put forward, I would say this. Whatever measures are proposed, let them be proposed by the existing central or local Governments. Let us have fair play all round. Do not let us have restrictive legislation, which would take away the right to alcohol from one class and not from another. I would restrict the hours of sale as at present, I would forbid alcohol to the young, and I would imitate the example and the experience of the large popular restaurants to which I have referred. Experience has amply shown that you can allow alcohol at a big popular restaurant, and that if those places are run on proper lines there is no fear of that excessive consumption of alcohol of which many people are afraid. I think the figures which I have given, taken together, produce a large body of cumulative evidence that such is the truth. In the country I would encourage the idea of the inn, which has been so successfully run by several Trusts in the Home Counties.
But, above all, I would depend upon education. Institute health lectures throughout the country. Do not, in those health lectures, specially refer to alcohol, but rather give lectures which concern the know-ledge of health—fresh air, proper food, and ventilation, and last,

1115
but not least, tobacco. If I might digress for a moment I should like to sound a warning against the dangers of tobacco, for the excessive smoking of tobacco is not confined to those who take wine, but is equally found among those who are total abstainers. Many of those who began to smoke in excess in their twenties are now in their fifties, and we are able to see the results, which are by no means to be lightly passed over. I would have those health lectures spread about the country, commending the virtues of moderation in alcohol, among other things, to the people. I think a substantial subsidy from the Government for the institution of such lectures would bring about better results than the cumbersome machinery of this Bill. At no time have the working classes been so receptive as they are now of anything in the nature of knowledge. There is a keen desire among the young men and women to be fit, and they would respond to appeals to their intelligence and their desire for knowledge, while they would never yield to any form of duress imposed by others. Such instruction would produce results, not by arbitrary decision imposed from without, but by bringing conviction to the heads and hearts of an intelligent people.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord into the interesting question of the physiological effect of alcohol. He is more qualified to speak on that aspect of the question than I am. I am sure he will agree with me, however, that the profession of which he is so distinguished a member is not entirely united upon this question. As regards his views on the social side of drink, they are very much what mine used to be before I was made a member of the Control Board. A noble Lord, speaking the other day, referred to me as a fanatic. If I had seen my mother suffering from the degradation which is caused when alcohol comes into the home, if I saw my children now going to bed hungry or suffering because of drunkenness in the home, I should then be a fanatic. But I have been spared this. I have never blamed anybody for being a fanatic because he had alcohol in the home, or prejudicing the welfare of a dear friend.
My interest in the drink question is entirely due to experiences which I had during the war as a member of the Con-
1116
troll Board. So far as I know, I was put on that Board because I had no particular knowledge of the drink problem, and no particular view as to how it was to be solved. I was, therefore, eminently qualified to deal with it from the evidence which was submitted to us. And I venture to say that any of your Lordships who had had the experience which I had during the war as a member of the Control Board would be on the same platform as I am to-day. After eighteen months of attempting to deal with the drink trade the Control Board reported unanimously to the Government that it was impossible, even with the drastic powers of D.O.R.A. which had been given to us, effectively to control the drink trade. It is impossible to reconcile private interests with national interests. The trade is so powerful that the Control Board, even with its enormous powers, was not able to give the maximum results for the prosecution of the war.
Then I had another interesting experience. Somewhere about 1917 I became Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. It was the task of the Ministry of Food to fix the prices of all articles of consumption. They fixed the price of potatoes, of bacon, and of everything else after a careful examination of the accounts of the vendors of those particular commodities. Naturally, those who had potatoes, or bread, or bacon to sell did not particularly like a Government Department looking into their books, and it was only with the greatest reluctance that they submitted them to the searching inquiry that was necessary in order to fix prices. The point I want to put before your Lordships is that the only trade the prices of whose commodities we had to fix without access to its books was the drink trade. We had to fix the price of spirits and of beer without having access to the books and accounts of the industry. That made me realise how enormous was the influence exercised by this trade in our national life. I am not blaming the members of the trade for opposing measures of control or licensing legislation. I only ask your Lordships to face the fact that we have here an enormous organisation which is a serious factor in our public life.
The points of the Bill with which I want to deal in the main to-night relate to its financial aspect. The noble and

1117
learned Lord, Lord Sumner, in the very powerful and fair speech that he made the other day, said that what your Lordships had to consider was whether the compensation fund proposed by the Bill was fair and whether the people who were entitled to compensation were likely to get the money to which they were entitled. He very rightly pointed out that the success or failure of the Bill depended very largely upon the compensation fund. That fund has three sources of income including the sale of redundant premises and the levy. The levy which it is proposed to take and increase was not imposed by a desperate Radical or Socialist Government; it was established by a Conservative Government in 1904. Lord Banbury of Southam, in a very interesting speech which he delivered last week, seemed to imply that there was a large accumulated fund in existence which it was proposed to raid and take over. There is no such thing. The money which has been raised year by year by the premiums has been spent year by year. There may be small unexpended balances, but broadly spanking there is no accumulation of the levy which has been raised since 1904.
Let me make one other reference to that levy. If a person takes out a policy against the risk of fire and is lucky enough not. to have his property burnt, ho does not expect the return of the money he has contributed year by year. I think we should compare the premiums which are levied under this Bill with the premiums which are paid when one takes out a fire policy rather than the premiums which one pays when one takes out a life policy. The third source of income for the compensation fund is derived from the profits in re-organisation areas. The noble and learned Lord asked whether there was any likelihood of profits being made. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, said that when a monopoly was established anybody could manage it. The exact words used by the noble Lord were—
"Anybody can manage a company.... which is a monopoly.... with.... success."
I entirely agree with him. When an area indicates that it desires to acquire, or to corsume, or to buy a particular commodity—intoxicants in this case—and a complete monopoly is given to a corpora-
1118
tion to meet that demand, I agree with the noble Lord that it is almost impossible to conceive of a loss being made. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, pointed out earlier in the debate, Carlisle has made profits not by increasing the sale of alcohol, not by stimulating its consumption, but by reducing enormously the cost of production and distribution. In Carlisle half the breweries have been closed down, over forty per cent. of the retail premises have been closed down, and no money is now spent on advertising. That is to say, the profits in Carlisle have been made not by increasing or stimulating consumption, but rather by enormously reducing the cost of production and distribution.
In reference to the liabilities of the compensation fund, that fund may be called upon to find money in two eases: first of all, if an area votes for the no-licence resolution, and, secondly, if an area votes for reorganisation. If an area votes for reorganisation before the expiration of the time limit money has to be found for two sorts of property—bricks and mortar and the licence values. It is essential to realise the fundamental difference between property in land, or in bricks and mortar, and property in a licence. Anybody may sell potatoes, or beef, or groceries; but the community only permits a limited number of selected individuals to sell intoxicants. For generations the community has recognised the fundamental difference between alcohol and other articles of consumption. It is possible for the Ministry of Health, in the national interest, to make such regulations that the retailers of milk would not be able to continue their business unless they came up to a particular standard. If they are not able to continue their business it is not proposed that they should receive compensation. If, after due notice—I entirely support the principle of due notice—the State is able to say to A, B or C that he is not to carry on business if he cannot come up to a particular standard but shall go out of business, then I say that the community has a perfect right to withdraw the monopoly right of selling intoxicants which it has given to a limited number of people.
On what principle do we estimate the capital value of the properties which either have to be taken over or to be com-

1119
pensated for in the case of a no-licence vote? The capital value of the undertaking is arrived at under the Bill so far as possible upon the lines which were recommended by the Committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, was Chairman. That Committee advised that the pre-war profits of an undertaking should be taken, and that the capital value should be arrived at by giving a definite number of years' purchase. The Committee recommended that fifteen years' purchase scaled down to post-war conditions would represent a fair capital value of a normal undertaking. I was refreshing my memory the other day by re-reading the Report which was issued by the Committee. That Report says that "an income which, on the pre-war basis of capitalisation, was worth fifteen years' purchase is at present worth a much smaller one." So that it is not unfair to take twelve years' purchase as an adaptation of the recommendations of the Committee over which the noble and learned Lord presided.
Then we have to consider whether it is fair to take the basis which was recommended, because the profits taken by the noble and learned Lord's Committee were pre-war profits. The brewers certainly cannot complain of the datum period recommended in this Bill. The noble, and learned Lord's Committee recommended giving something like twelve years' purchase of pre-war profits. This Bill proposes to give twelve years' purchase of post-war profits at the first vote, and post-war profits are enormously greater than pre-war profits. I, therefore, suggest to your Lordships that the brewers have no legitimate complaint when we take the number of years' purchase which was recommended by the noble and learned Lord's Committee, and apply that to post-war instead of prewar profits. The Bill attempts to adapt fairly the recommendations laid down by the noble and learned Lord's Committee.
As regards the bricks and mortar, the Bill proposes to give what I call a hundred per cent. compensation whenever those are taken over, whether it is after the first, or second, or third appeal, or after the expiration of the time limit The fact that the noble and learned Lord's Committee recommended twelve years' purchase of the income of the property indicates that his Committee recog-
1120
nised the fundamental difference between land or houses and licence values. I am quite convinced that if the noble and learned Lord's Committee had been trying to estimate what would be a fair number of years' purchase at which to acquire land that they would not have put it at fifteen, fourteen or twelve years' purchase, but would have given something like twenty years' purchase. The fact that they gave a maximum of fifteen years, with a strong recommendation that it should be reduced, indicates that in their opinion the property in licence values is fundamentally different from, and cannot be compared with, property in land, or bricks and mortar. The Bill proposes to give a hundred per cent. compensation of the value of the bricks and mortar.
With regard to licence values, the Bill proposes to give full value for licences which are closed down or taken over at the first appeal, because no notice has been given to the existing owners. The Bill also, however, recognises that it is fair to apply the principle of the time limit after the expiration of which no compensation should be given for licence values. Then it is only a question of adaptation and arrangement. It is fair to give a hundred per cent. before any notice has been given, and it is fair and right that no compensation should be given to the trade after full notice has been given and after the time limit has run out. Whether the time limit is twelve, or fifteen, or twenty years, I do not at the moment want to discuss, but I say it is perfectly right and fair that compensation for licence values should be given on a descending scale while the time limit is running out, and that is what the Bill proposes to do. At every poll the amount of compensation due for licence values will diminish. One hundred per cent. will be given at the first poll, the amount being reduced after subsequent polls to seventy-five per cent., fifty per cent., and so on. If your Lordships, at a subsequent stage, do not think it is fair to scale down this compensation from twelve years' purchase to nine, or from nine to six, we can consider whether it should be scaled down from twelve to ten, or from eight to six. After all, that is, I suggest, a Committee point.
I want to look next at the crux of the question. The noble and learned Lord asked, and was entitled to ask, whether

1121
the scheme would work; whether enough money was provided by the Bill; more particularly, whether working capital would be available when and as required; and, finally, whether there were due safeguards for the solvency of the compensation fund. Luckily, Carlisle provides us with the answer to many of those questions. I was a member of the Control Board when they bought Carlisle, and I can say from my own recollection that the compensation paid for Carlisle was at least as generous to the late owners of the licence trade as would have been their compensation under the Sumner Committee's Report. That is to say, the money given for Carlisle is, broadly speaking, the same amount of money as would be provided at the first appeal if Carlisle voted for reorganisation under this Bill.
What do we find? We find that Carlisle will have paid for itself, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said earlier this afternoon, in from ten to twelve years' time. If Carlisle can pay back the whole of the purchase money in from ten to twelve years when twelve years' purchase is given for licence values, is it not obvious to your Lordships that if only nine years' purchase, or only six years' purchase is given for licence values the money required to meet the obligations of the compensation fund are ample.' If Carlisle can pay off in from ten to twelve years what is equivalent to twelve years' purchase paid for licence values, it is obvious that when nine or six years' purchase is given for two-thirds of net profits—that is to say, for the proportion which represents licence values—the scheme is solvent. Where you have a monopoly you cannot help making profits. I agree entirely in that with the noble Lord. Lord Banbury. As this Bill proposes after the first poll to give compensation on a lower scale than was given at Carlisle, I am entitled to claim that our experience at Carlisle proves absolutely that the central fund is solvent.
We propose under the Bill to repay owners who have to be compensated. If the amount of money which they are entitled to is less than £500, it is proposed to pay them in cash. If, however, the amount is more than £500 it is proposed to pay them in terminable annuities. It is proposed to give them annuities terminable in a maximum period of
1122
fifteen years, and terminable in not less than twelve years if the interests are acquired at the first appeal. As has been pointed out early this afternoon, when the first vote is taken there will be an accumulation of £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 or, it may be, even £10,000,000, in the compensation fund. That means that it would be possible for fifteen Carlisles to go "dry" at the first vote, and to be compensated immediately if it is proposed to give them cash. But it is not proposed to give them cash: it is proposed to pay them off gradually. It means that it would be possible for something like eighty Carlisles to be taken over under a reorganisation vote, and to be paid off gradually out of the compensation fund. Nobody has imagined that, at the first vote, fifteen areas like Carlisle would go "dry." I have never heard anybody suggest that eighty areas of the size of Carlisle would vote for reorganisation. We are far too conservative, to go in for change on such a large scale. I am convinced that if any areas vote for change if will be a limited number of enterprising areas. It is only as a result of the experience gained in those areas that, at subsequent votes, a larger number will vote for reorganisation or no-licence.
I hope I have proved that there is enough income or capital to meet all possible and reasonable contingencies, and that we are able to base that assumption upon the actual experience of Carlisle. The Bill provides other safeguards. Borrowing powers are given to those who manage the compensation fund. In addition to that, by Clause 3, the Home Secretary is able to postpone the coming into operation of the second or third vote, thereby getting for the compensation fund the product of one more year's levies and profits from the reorganisation areas, and, in addition, reducing the liabilities of the fund by one year's purchase. I hope I have shown your Lordships that the annuities are a perfectly good security, that there is enough money provided by the levy to start tie scheme, and that the income we may expect from profits, the sale of redundant property, and a continuance of the premiums, is sufficient to meet all reasonable and fair calls which may be made on the compensation fund. I only wish that someone else had been called upon to explain the, very difficult,

1123
intricate, and complicated financial proposals of this Bill. I realise fully my own limitations, but I hope I have made the financial proposals reasonably clear and proved to your Lordships that this Bill cannot be lightly dismissed as unpractical, unsound, unfair, or unworkable. You may disagree with the details, but I suggest that it does contain a reasonable, workmanlike and defensible scheme.
I have only one word more to say. The noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, who spoke just now, referred to the improvement, which we are all glad to recognise, in the condition of the country now compared with what it was before the war. We must not forget, however, that there has been a serious loss since the war. We have to compare ourselves not with what we were at our worst but with what we were at our best. The right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London, indicated the nature and extent of those losses. He indicated that twice as many women were convicted of drunkenness after the war, and are convicted now of drunkenness, if you compare the figures to-day, or in 1920 and 1921, with what they were at the time of the Armistice. We cannot lightly accept such a loss to social welfare as is represented by those figures. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in his lucid speech the other day, indicated another aspect of the problem, the political aspect. You have there a problem with which we are not now dealing but which we cannot shirk or avoid.
I am entirely against trying to commit the country to any drastic change as a whole. I recognise that to the present system there are two alternative remedies which are supported by large numbers of people in this country. Some people look for a solution to shutting down altogether; others think that the right solution is disinterested management. I suggest that the only possible way to find out which is the right solution is by allowing experiments in these various alternatives to be made and tested side by side. The only way you can convince a Prohibitionist that he is wrong is by letting him try the experiment, and if the fears of the opponents of Prohibition are justified then it means that other areas will not adopt this particular remedy. This Bill does not commit a locality which votes for no-licence to no-licence in perpetuity. An area can become "wet"
1124
again, as I am perfectly certain the noble and learned Earl will realise if he reads Clause 2 of the Bill. It is necessary that we should face realities. I have spent a great deal of time explaining to Prohibitionists that the country does not want Prohibition now, but I suggest with all humility that the country is anxious for an improvement and that there is an increasing volume of support for legislation, broadly speaking, on the lines contained in this Bill.
Reference has been made to the experiments conducted on the other side of the Atlantic. I have been in Canada. I was there two years ago, and I took an opportunity of discussing the matter with leading representatives of the different political Parties. I found that people there were not agreed as to whether Prohibition or disinterested management was the right solution, but all were agreed that they were determined not to go back to private ownership. It is important that we should recognise what has been done in Canada. I realise fully that in all Parties there are people of good will who are anxious to solve this difficult question. Cannot we see whether we can co-operate in order to try to get a national rather than a Party solution for this vexed and complicated question? I suggest that this is a serious, fair and moderate attempt to deal with the question. Therefore I hope that your Lordships, when it comes to voting, will give this Bill a Second Reading and refer it to a Select Committee with the deliberate intention that that Committee shall, if possible, make the financial provisions even fairer than they already are to the interests concerned, but at the same time make the Bill consistent with the aspirations and the interests of the nation.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I understand that it is impossible to conclude this debate this evening and that this would be a convenient stage to move the adjournment. I therefore beg to move that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow week, Tuesday, July 8.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned accordingly till Tuesday, July 8.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.