Sitting of 26 April 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords].
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  IRISH FREE STATE.
  Dr. MORRIS-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any further communication has been received from the Irish Free State in regard to their declared intention to abolish the oath and the withholding of payments on account of land annuities?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No further official communication has been received from the Government of the Irish Free State, but there has been an important development of which I ought to inform the House. The Bill introduced in the Dáil last week has been published, and examination of its text shows that it is designed, not merely to remove the obligation now imposed on Members of the Irish Free State Parliament to take the Oath set out in the Treaty, but to go further. It purports to repeal Section 2 of the Irish
  184
  Free State Constituent Act of 1922 which provides that the Treaty shall have the force of law, and that any amendment of the Constitution in any respect repugnant to the Treaty shall be void and in operative. It also purports, by an amendment of Article 50 of the Constitution, to enable the Constitution to be amended without necessary regard to the terms of the Treaty. The text of the Bill thus confirms the general view of the situation expressed in my despatch to Mr. de Valera of the 9th April, namely, that what is actually raised by him
  "is nothing less than a repudiation of the settlement of 1921 as a whole."
  Dr. MORRIS-JONES: In view of the very grave statement which the right hon. Gentleman has read to the House, is he able to make any further statement with regard to what action His Majesty's Government propose to take?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have made it clear, on behalf of the Government, that we look upon this matter as a violation of the Treaty. That we have intimated to Mr. de Valera in clear and emphatic terms.
  Colonel GRETTON: Has that intimation been conveyed since the text of the Bill was published?
  Mr. THOMAS: Certainly not. As I have already said in my answer, my reply on behalf of the Government to Mr. de Valera intimated quite clearly that in our view his statement was a repudiation of the Treaty. The Bill which is being discussed in the Irish Parliament con firms that view, and, therefore, it is un necessary for me to go into it.
  Mr. HALES: May we take it that no possible compromise can be thought of by the Government?

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of prosecutions which have been instituted against cinemas for not having the requisite proportion of British films; and whether he is satisfied that the Act is being everywhere enforced?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman):Since the commencement of the Cinematograph Films

  185
  Act, 1927, 50 prosecutions have been instituted against exhibitors for failure to exhibit the required quota of British films. The statutory returns made by exhibitors are carefully examined and checked, and I am satisfied that there is general compliance with the provisions of the Act.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    HELM ORDERS.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to pre pare the personnel of the British mercantile marine for the change in helm orders which is ultimately to come into force?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board are at present in communication with representative associations of those concerned as to the best means of effecting the change in the helm order system. A statement for the information of all concerned will be published as soon as possible.

    FOREIGN SEAMEN.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the unemployment amongst British seamen, whether His Majesty's Government will consider legislation restricting employment on British ships to British subjects?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: While I am anxious to secure the greatest possible amount of employment for British seamen, I am, afraid that the course suggested would not necessarily help in this direction.
    Mr. ALBERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to consider partial restriction and is he aware that foreign nationals are employed on British ships?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It depends to some extent, of course, on the trade on which the vessel is employed. We do not wish to disturb, for instance, the employment of Asiatics in tropical climates.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentle man not aware that in Barry Docks a British crew were discharged and a body of Chinese put on board a British vessel?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could only answer that question after having had notice.

    SPEED BOATS (PASSENGER REGULATIONS).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the introduction of legislation for the better regulation of passenger-carrying speed boats at the sea side resorts of the country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Local authorities already have certain powers under the Public Health Acts as regards boats which ply for hire, and the Board of Trade have powers to deal with the safety of steam and motor boats which carry more than 12 passengers. So far as I am aware, there has been no general request from local authorities for further powers as regards speed boats carrying passengers, but, if such general representations were made, I should be pre pared to consider the matter in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very grave dissatisfaction among the public, who feel that there is a danger of inadequate inspection of boats carrying fewer than 12 people?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Some representations have been made to me, and I am in communication with one or two authorities. I believe that some of them have already taken powers under their own private Acts.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Has the right hon. Gentleman powers, over and above those held by local authorities, as to safety regulations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think we have, except in regard to boats which carry 12 passengers or more.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORTED CLOTH (MASKING).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that quantities of foreign cloths are being imported into this country and, having been marked London shrunk, are sold as English material; and whether steps will be taken to pre vent the public being misled into thinking that such cloths are manufactured in, England?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, prohibits the application to goods of a false trade description, but I am advised that in ordinary trade usage the term "London shrunk" means a particular process of shrinking, and is not intended to imply that the process was carried out in London. It would, therefore, not be possible to take action under the Act of 1887, unless, of course, the cloth in question had not in fact undergone this process. I should add that it is open to the interests concerned to make an application under Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, to require all imported cloth to bear an indication of origin.

    FACTORY SITES AND NEW INDUSTRIES (FOREIGN FIRMS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 43 foreign firms who have recently decided to open businesses in this country have actually commenced operations; the towns and villages where their factories or workshops are located; whether the business conducted in each case is new or a transfer from another firm; and will he state the number of persons actually employed in each case?
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of factories established by foreign firms as a result of, or in anticipation of, the various import duties that are now engaged in production: and how many persons are employed in them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade have now received information regarding upwards of 50 new undertakings which have been set up in this country during the last few months, and of these it is understood that 45 have commenced operations. The majority of the under takings are in or near London, the remainder being distributed between Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Midlands and other areas. These are, for the most part, new businesses, but in a few in stances they represent definite additions to existing businesses. I am unable to say how many persons are actually employed by the undertakings at the present time.
    Mr. DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these under-
    188
    takings have been taken over by foreign firms, or whether they are new under takings for the purposes of new businesses?
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Are any of these undertakings likely to be commenced in South Wales?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure that there are not already two or three in South Wales, but I would not like to trust my memory too closely on that point. With regard to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), as to whether these are more transfers from one name to another, what I was refer ring to are entirely new businesses or new extensions.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to see that these new firms stand by the wage regulations in this country? That is a very important matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these firms which are now beginning operations are offering wages upon which it is utterly impossible for people to live?
    Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in South Wales it is trade union regulations and terrorism that has prevented new businesses being started?
    Captain McEWENasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of applications to date of foreign firms for factory sites in Scot land; and how many have been actually acquired and in which counties?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that applications for factory sites by foreign concerns are not dealt with by Government Departments. The attention of the Board of Trade has, however, been drawn to six cases in which there have been proposals in the last few months to establish new undertakings or extend the production of existing concerns in Scotland, by, or with the assistance of, foreign concerns. I am unable to say whether factories have actually been acquired in these cases.
    Captain McEWEN: Does there exist any machinery for advertising these sites?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Nearly all the industrial districts now have development associations, which make it their special business to advertise the attractions of their district.
    Mr. PERKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply the development associations with the names of foreign firms who are seeking sites?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are very well aware of them, and most of them have been in communication with them.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMBasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken by his Department to -assist trade and employment in this country by putting manufacturers abroad who have previously exported goods to our market, and who now wish to pro duce here, in touch with manufacturing firms in Great Britain willing to co operate with them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have noted with interest that certain development and trade organisations have taken steps to collect particulars of cases in which British manufacturers desire to co operate with foreign concerns to manufacture goods previously imported from abroad. Any cases of foreign concerns desiring to enter into such an arrangement which come to the notice of the Board of Trade are referred to the appropriate organisations in this country.
    Sir J. LAMB: Is the right hon. Gentle man not aware that there is a very strong feeling in the North and the Midlands that, for some unknown reason, the South is getting very much more than its share of this trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could give the in stance of the Lancashire Industrial Development Council. It has set a very good precedent which is being followed elsewhere.

    RUSSIA.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will consider the desirability of terminating the trade agreement with Russia and entering into a new agreement whereby Russian imports to this country will be limited to an equivalent amount of manufactured goods ex ported from this country to Russia, any imports over and above such quota to be
    190
    subject to an import duty of 33⅓ per cent., a portion of which shall be applied to the formation of a compensation fund for British creditors?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question or securing a more satisfactory balance of trade between this country and Soviet Russia is under the consideration of the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in a reply to a somewhat similar suggestion on 11th April, His Majesty's Government do not consider that the claims of British creditors against Russia can be satisfactorily dealt with in this way.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for months past the Government have told the House that this matter is under their active consideration; and has not the time arrived when they should come to some conclusion, especially as the negotiations for a settlement which were part of the agreement for resuming trade relations, were broken off by the Soviet representatives?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there will over be any possibility of reaching a solution of the debt problem if trading relations with Russia are broken off?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In reply to the first supplementary question, it is true that the matter has been under consideration, but it is by no means as simple as appears on the surface, and we are most anxious to do nothing which would injure our own interests, which must, of course, be our first consideration. As to whether it would be possible to help our trade relations by cancelling or breaking off our trade agreement, that is one of the things that we are now considering. What we are impressed by is the fact that there is a very large preponderance of Russian business in this country in return for the comparatively small business which they do with us.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the business is not always direct between two nations, and that in the annual balance sheet it may be that trade between Russia and this country has been carried out through Germany?

    PRODUCTION (SMALL FACTORIES)
    Commander COCHRANEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will

    191
    state for the latest convenient year the proportion of the total production of the country which came from factories employing fewer than 250 persons?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the precise information specified by my hon. and gallant Friend is not available. Particulars are, however, available regarding the production reported in returns from employers of less than 200 persons, and also from employers of less than 300 per sons. Taking the production as measured by the values added to purchased materials (including fuel) in the establishments covered by the Census of 1924, the former group was responsible for 44 per cent., the latter for 48 per cent., of the total for all establishments. The aggregates represented by these percentages are inclusive of productive activities such as mining and building construction, and corresponding percentages for manufacturing industries alone are not available.
    Commander COCHRANE: Will further information be available when the Department has completed its survey of the returns under the 1930 Census of Production?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope further in formation will then be available and, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman then addresses me on the subject, I shall be glad to give him such information as we have.

    COASTING TRADE (FOREIGN VESSELS)
    Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the percentage of coastwise trade in the British Isles carried out by ships not under the British flag, indicating in each case the countries concerned and the proportion of such percentage each enjoys; and whether any of these nations benefiting by permission to carry on British coastal traffic give similar facilities to our ships and to what extent?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Of the total tonnage of arrivals and departures with cargo in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom in 1931 0.8 per cent. only was under foreign flags. The percentages of this foreign tonnage as shared between the various countries are as follows: Italy, 29.4; Holland, 28.8; Germany, 13.0; Belgium, 5.5; Sweden, 4.7; Norway, 4.3;
    192
    others, 14.3. The coasting trade of each of the countries specified is open to British vessels.
    Captain SOTHERON-ESTC0URT: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that shipping is receiving fair treatment in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should have to have that question applied to each of the separate maritime countries to be able to reply to it satisfactory. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to in quire further on the subject, I will see what I can obtain for him.
    Mr. ALBERY: Are not the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given based on the movements from port to port of tonnage, including large liners?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. They cover the whole of the clearances—arrivals and departures.
    Mr. ALBERY: Does not the inclusion of these liners which occasionally pass up and down our coast, make those figures very misleading as regards coastwise trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It cuts both ways, but ships pass up and down other countries coasts in the coasting trade.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that none of the countries mentioned permit passengers to be picked up and dropped on any of these coasts, as they are in this country?

    FOREIGN COUNTRIES (IMPOST QUOTAS).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the action to be taken in connection with the new restrictions imposed by the German Government on the importation of British coal into Germany; and whether any representations are being made in regard to the new regulations that have-put further difficulties in the way of the importation of bunker coal in particular?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As regards the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave on this subject on 19th April to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon

    193
    As regards the second part, I have seen reports in the Press that new regulations have been issued governing the amount of foreign exchange that may be made available for the purpose of paying for United Kingdom bunker coal at German ports. I am making inquiries into the matter.
    Captain MACDONALD: What is the cause of the delay in the negotiations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid it is entirely due to the fact that other Governments do not act as speedily as we do.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will this Government act more speedily in pointing out that this is a decided breach of the treaty?
    Sir PERCY HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade what countries, since 1st November, have instituted quotas on goods imported by them from this country; and what goods are affected?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Since 1st November, quota restrictions which apply to imports from the United Kingdom have been instituted in France, the Netherlands, Latvia, Switzerland and Turkey. In Turkey the quota system covers all goods except raw materials and certain goods, such as machinery, which are considered essential to Turkish industry. In the Netherlands, Latvia and Switzerland the range of goods covered is not so extensive, but still includes many kinds of goods of interest to United Kingdom trade. The case of France is the subject of another answer to-day. Full particulars of the restrictions are published in the "Board of Trade Journal" from time to time.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Does not this fact suggest that the result of the Abnormal Importations Act has not been to do away with tariffs, but to substitute a new form of injuring our trade?
    Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the French Government has introduced a quota system on any other imports from this country in addition to coal; and, if so, what imports?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. The quota system has been applied to many kinds of goods. Complete particulars are
    194
    published in the "Board of Trade Journal" immediately information is available. The goods of greatest interest to United Kingdom trade so far brought within the scope of the system are certain kinds of iron and steel manufactures, machine tools, electrical goods, cotton yarns, and fabrics and leather.
    Mr. WELLS: May I ask whether any action is being taken in this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are not entitled to take any action in respect of this matter except in cases of discrimination, and where there has been discrimination we have been in consultation with the Government concerned.

    EXPORT TRADE (PROPAGANDA)
    Mr. MANDIERasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what action is being takes with reference to the use of films for propaganda purposes in connection with our export trade, in view of action of this kind which has been taken by the United States of America?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): In several overseas countries the representatives of the Department of Overseas Trade have been able to assist in securing opportunities for the exhibition of industrial films belonging to United Kingdom firms and further endeavours are under consideration in conjunction with the accredited representatives of industry.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member, in considering the report of the Public Accounts Committee, insist upon the preservation of the film section of the Empire Marketing Board as a valuable help to British trade?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I will bear in mind the point raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade in how many countries at the present time there is any trade propaganda on the lines of the "Buy British" campaign; and whether he will take steps to propose a simultaneous abandonment of the campaign in the interests of export trade?
    Mr. COLVILLE: According to reports which have reached the Department of Overseas Trade, there are a number of countries, especially in Europe, in which official support has been given to the

    195
    movement in favour of buying home pro ducts. As the hon. Member is aware, the "Buy British" campaign recently organised by the Empire Marketing Board has been conspicuously successful, and I see no sufficient reason for the adoption of the suggestion in the second part of the question.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Member not try to break up this international suicide club?
    Mr. COLVILLE: These efforts on the part of foreign Governments are not all detrimental to British trade. For in stance, in Finland in the "Buy Finnish" campaign they have the slogan "Buy Finnish, and, if you cannot, buy from Britain, Finland's best customer."
    Mr. MANDER: Does my hon. Friend intend to adopt that suggestion in connection

    The following table shows the total weight of iron and steel baths and stoves, grates and ranges for domestic cooking and heating imported into the United Kingdom, as registered during each month from September, 1931, to March, 1932, inclusive. The number imported is not recorded.

    Month.

    Baths of iron or steel (porcelain enamelled or other finish)

    Stoves, grates and ranges of iron or steel for domestic cooking and heating.

    For coal and other solid fuel.

    For gas.

    For liquid fuel.

    1931.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    September

    …

    …

    872

    283

    8

    69

    October

    …

    …

    720

    139

    13

    97

    November

    …

    …

    1,272

    91

    3

    117

    December

    …

    …

    665

    52

    —

    25

    1932.

    January

    …

    …

    369

    30

    2

    211

    February

    …

    …

    309

    10

    6

    49

    March

    …

    …

    217

    25

    2

    5

    MANCHURIA.
    Major THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to enter into trade arrangements with the new State of Manchuria?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The existing treaties with China are applicable in Manchuria, and in the circumstances the question of special trade arrangements need not be considered.
    Mr. COCKS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a bogus State set up by Japan?
    with the "Buy British" campaign as an alternative?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I shall continue to ask the people to buy from our best customers, the Empire.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Has Fin land adopted that slogan since the Import Duties were passed in this House?

    HARDWARE (IMPORTS).
    Mr. JAMES REIDasked the President of the Board of Trade what respective quantities of baths of iron or steel and of stoves, grates, and ranges for domestic cooking or heating have been imported into the United Kingdom during each month since September, 1931?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    FINANCIAL FACILITIES (NEW INDUSTRIES)
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to grant financial facilities to those starting industries in this country to replace the goods that have hereto fore been mainly imported?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): No, Sir. I do not think that the matter is one in which the introduction of legislation is desirable.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if that were done it would provide employment?

    ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS DUTIES.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the customs have recently charged duty under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act on a British camera used at Mombasa on work at the new harbour there, although it was certified that the camera was of British manufacture; and whether he can state the reason for this action?
    Major ELLIOT: I am informed the duty on the camera in question is being repaid.

  BRITISH ARMY

    STAFF APPOINTMENTS
    Lieut.- Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, in view of the necessity for close co-operation between the Regular and Territorial Armies, he will arrange that service as an adjutant to a Territorial unit should be one of the necessary qualifications for entrance to. the Staff College?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is impracticable, as it is not possible to give every officer eligible for the Staff College entrance examination the opportunity of becoming a Territorial Army adjutant. At the same time in considering nominations credit is given for the successful performance of the duties of that appointment.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Would officers who have passed the Staff College be attached to a territorial unit before receiving a Staff appointment?
    Mr. COOPER: I cannot guarantee that all officers who pass through Staff College will be attached to a territorial unit. No, Sir.

    BARRACKS, ALDBRSHOT (ELECTRIC LAMPS).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that electric light bulbs
    198
    of foreign manufacture have been in stalled in certain barracks at Aldershot recently by the Royal Engineers; and whether he will consider the desirability of using British rather than foreign bulbs in future?
    Mr. COOPER: The Army contracts pro vide for the supply of British-made electric lamps only, and therefore the use of foreign-made lamps should be precluded. If, however, my hon. Friend will furnish me with details regarding the cases which he has in mind, I will cause investigations to be made.

  SCOTLAND

    REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH
    Sir PATRICK FORDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the reorganisation of the Register House, Edinburgh, on the lines of the recommendations of the Fleming Report, is likely to be effected; and whether, if this is likely to be long delayed, immediate steps will be taken to redress the admitted grievances of the second-grade, clerks employed therein?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) on the 19th instant of which I am sending him a copy. I hope that it will be found possible to deal with the claims of the second class clerks without long delay; but I must not be taken at this stage as admitting that the case of these clerks calls for redress except in so far as changes may be justified in connection with reorganisation.
    Sir P. FORD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as far back as 12th November, 1930, his predecessor in office referred to the settlement of 1923, and said that any claim arising out of changed conditions would receive careful attention; and does not he think that there has been sufficient time for his office to take steps in the matter?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: My hon. Friend will see, if he refers to the answer, of which I am sending him a copy, that such steps are now being taken to effect the necessary reorganisation.
    Sir P. FORD: How long will it take?

    RASPBERRIES (MARKETING SCHEME).
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he is aware that the proposed scheme for the reorganisation of the marketing of Scottish raspberries has failed to gain the approval of the majority of Scottish growers, mainly be cause the crisis that has overtaken the industry during the past two seasons has been caused not by inefficiency within the industry but by unrestricted imports of foreign fruit, which imports are not affected by the proposed scheme; and will he therefore consider the advisability of proceeding no further with the projected marketing board;
    (2) how many growers are parties to representations received from growers in Scotland against the proposed scheme for the reorganisation of the marketing of Scottish raspberries; and what acreage do they represent?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Representations against the approval of the scheme have been made to me by 107 growers stated to occupy l,833 ½ acres. I am not, how ever, aware that the scheme has failed to gain the approval of the majority of Scottish growers. The objection to, and criticisms of, the scheme contained in the representations referred to are now being considered in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act. My Noble Friend will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the result of that consideration.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to his right hon. Friend that raspberries be placed upon the free list if the raspberry growers fail to co-operate?

    HOUSING.
    Mr. TRAINasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of houses built under the Addison scheme in Scotland; and what is the amount subscribed per annum by the State in respect of these houses?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The total number of houses built under the Addison scheme in Scotland is 25,550. The annual amount subscribed by the State under the scheme varies in accordance with the yearly deficit. For the year ended the 31st March, 1932, the contribution of the State amounted to £976,995.
    Mr. TRAIN: Is it the case that a number of these Addison scheme houses have been sold, and is it the policy of the present Government to sell as many as possible, in order to relieve the State of part of the contribution of £1,000,000 of which my hon. Friend spoke?
    Mr. SKELTON: It is the case that, of some 400 Addison houses built by public utility societies, 198 have been sold, and that to that extent relief has been given to the public contribution. I am afraid that I cannot say that any practicable method of an enlarged scheme of selling has yet been thought of, but personally I should be very glad to see the process of sale encouraged and extended.
    Sir J. LAMB: Can my hon. Friend say how many of these houses were almost sold?
    Mr. SKELTON: That will require another question.

    SHEEP STEALING.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases of sheep stealing that have been reported in Scotland in each of the last five years?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The numbers of cases reported to procurators-fiscal for each of the last five years are as follow: 18 in 1927, 14 in 1928, 12 in 1929, 16 in 1930, and 22 in 1931.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many analogous cases have occurred in the last 500 years?

    PIG INDUSTRY (RE-ORGANISATION COMMISSION).
    Mr. McKIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to announce the name of the Scottish member of the Agriculture Marketing Re-organisation Commission for Pigs and Pig Products?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir, I am glad to say that Sir William Haldane has consented to serve on the Commission as the Scottish member. The Commission has been formally constituted.

    ROAD EXPENDITURE
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Transport if he can give an estimate of the saving that would be

    201
    achieved if all first-class roads were reduced to a second-class basis for upkeep and repair?
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. It is not clear whether my hon. Friend desires to suggest a reduction in the rate of grant to highway authorities or a general lowering of the standard of maintenance irrespective of the nature of the traffic using the roads in question. Perhaps he would discuss the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister of Trans port.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS)
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Labour the number of males in England and Wales between the ages of 18 and 25 who are registered as un employed; the number receiving full un employment benefit; the number on part benefit; and the number who have run out of benefit?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

    AGRICULTURE (WATER LOCATION).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture what assistance was given to agriculture and farmers by rhabdomancers during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1931; and whether the Department has utilised the services of rhabdomancers in locating water in areas where the supply is limited?
    Captain HUDSON: My right hon. Friend has no information as to the ex tent to which the services of water diviners are utilised by farmers and others. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH CONTRIBUTION)
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount paid by His Majesty's Government as the United Kingdom share of the expenses of the League of Nations for the last period of 12 months?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The contribution of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the League of Nations, including the International Labour Organisation, for 1931 amounted to 3,225,042.12 gold francs, the sterling equivalent of which was £127,908 0s. 9d.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can myhon. Friend say what proportion that amount bears to the total expenditure?
    Mr. EDEN: I will endeavour to do so if my hon. Friend will give me notice of the question.
    Mr. HANNON: Does the amount include the salary or proportion of the salary of the head of the International Labour Bureau who has insulted this country in the last few days?
    Mr. MANDER: Are we not spending 1,000 times as much on preparation for war?

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Health (1) whether any extra officials will be required in his Department in the event of the Town and Country Planning Bill passing into law; and, if so, how many;
    (2) the estimated expenditure which, would be caused to his Department and to local authorities, respectively, by the passing of the Town and Country Planning Bill?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): It is not possible at the present stage to give any estimate. Some increase in the staff in charge of town planning will be requisite, hut my right hon. Friend does not anticipate any increase in the staff of the Ministry as a whole. In the case of local authorities, he would expect that the savings from planning ahead will exceed any expenditure.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Am I to understand that in this time of financial stringency no consideration has been given to the cost; and has any allowance been made to local authorities under Section 135 of the Local Government Act?
    Mr. BROWN: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, this Act is a matter of guarding the heritage of the nation not merely with regard to amenity but with regard to economy as well.
    Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that it is economy when he knows that it will cost the country a very large sum of money?

    NATIONAL BIRTH CONTROL ASSOCIATION (CONFERENCE).
    Mr. POTTERasked the Minister of Health if his sanction has been sought for medical officers of health and their staffs to attend the conference of the National Birth Control Association to be held in London in the near future?
    Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend has received and has under consideration an application from one local authority in respect of one of their medical officers.

    FOREIGN SECURITIES (CONTROL).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the acceptation of the principle of protecting British industries against unrestricted importations of foreign productions, he will ask his advisers to contrive suitable methods for controlling the flotation in Britain of foreign securities for the investment of British savings?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Farnham Division (Sir A. M. Samuel) on the 12th April.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    TOBACCO DUTY.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that tobacco is being grown in this country; whether he will consider the question of the remission of the excise duty on this tobacco; and what would be the estimated loss to the Treasury of this remission?
    Major ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
    204
    affirmative and to the second in the negative. Tobacco grown in this country already enjoys a preferential reduction of duty of 2s. 2½d. per lb. as compared with imported non-Empire tobacco. To remit the Excise Duty entirely would, on the basis of the present home production, cost about £1,000 per annum only, but the ultimate cost would undoubtedly be very considerable if as a result of the remission the home-produced article were to displace imported duty-paid tobacco to any appreciable extent.

    WAR DEBTS (RUSSIA).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total indebtedness of Russia to Britain at the end of the last financial year and the amount of interest due for that year; and whether such interest was charged to current exchequer account or added to the total debt?
    Major ELLIOT: The War Debt of Russia to this country as at the 31st March, 1932, amounted to £1,066,480,000. The amount of interest due in respect of the last financial year was £53,324,000; this amount was added to the capital and is included in the total given above.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade and get a move on with regard to the public and private debts owing to this country by Russia? The country is getting very discontented at the serious delay which is occurring in this matter?
    Major ELLIOT: This matter is engaging the anxious attention of the Government, but the question of "getting a move on" is a very difficult one.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Not at all.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how the total debt of Russia compares with the amount we gave to Italy and France when settling war debts?

    EXPENDITURE.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplates introducing any further measures during this Session to achieve a reduction in the National expenditure?
    Major ELLIOT: As my right hon. Friend stated in his Budget speech the

    205
    estimates presented to Parliament already achieve savings of £79,000,000 from the aggregate sum estimated last September to be required for Supply Services in 1932. To this I can only add that the possibility of further reductions of National expenditure will of course engage my right hon. Friend's continuous attention.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that, although the Estimates for this year show a decrease over last year, the Estimates for the whole of the Government Departments show an increase over 1923–24 and that that is a very serious aspect of the financial situation, in view of the very grave position of the country?
    Major THOMAS: Are we to understand that the Government have no definite ideas in regard to future economy?
    Major ELLIOT: The position in regard to future economies must be the main pre-occupation of the Government, but it is impossible to give a plan, as I have seen it suggested in certain newspapers, for a reduction of expenditure.
    Major THOMAS: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that the Government might well appoint a committee to go into the whole matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make a big reduction in the number of Civil Servants employed?

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INCOME TAX).
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state the names of the members of the committee on co-operative trading and taxation; the terms of reference; and when it is anticipated the committee will commence its work?
    Major ELLIOT: Steps have already been taken with a view to setting up this Committee. It is not yet possible to make an announcement, though my hon. Friend may be assured that there will be no avoidable delay.
    Sir B. PETO: If I put down a question a week hence will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be able to give us the names and be able to say when the Committee will get to work?
    Major ELLIOT: I cannot promise it in a week's time, but I will discuss it with my hon. Friend.
    An HON. MEMBER: Will the Committee when it is appointed be encouraged to report with the least possible delay?
    Major ELLIOT: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would desire that they should report as promptly as they possibly can.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is there any point which is not thoroughly well known in connection with this long-standing matter?

    BEER DUTY.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the depressed condition of the allied brewery trades in Birmingham and the Midlands, resulting in a serious increase of unemployment; and if he will consider some modification of the Budget proposal relating to the tax on beer in the provisions of the forthcoming Finance Bill?
    Major ELLIOT: With regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully aware of the position of the trades in question. With regard to the second part, the paramount consideration must be revenue, and there are no resources available for the purpose.
    Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the rising tide of feeling throughout the country on this subject, and are not the masses of the working people of this country entitled to some consideration in the Budget arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that they may get their healthy glass of beer at a reasonable price?
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that a very great loss of revenue is likely to occur in the next 12 months owing to the fact that the industries referred to by the hon. Gentleman are down about 50 per cent. already?

    HORSE TRAFFIC (TAXATION).
    Mr. CHALMERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since horse traffic does as much damage to

    207
    the roads as motor traffic, he will consider taxing horse traffic according to load, similarly to motor traffic?
    Major ELLIOT: I am unable to accept the assumption made by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question, and the second part does not therefore arise.

    INCOME TAX (ARREARS).
    Major McLEAN (for Sir GERALD HURST)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Surtax and Super-tax payers are in arrear in respect of their taxes; what is the total amount of such arrears; and over how many past years such arrears extend?
    Major ELLIOT: For the purposes of the Budget it was estimated that, at the 31st of March last, the amount of Surtax and Super-tax in assessment and unpaid, which will ultimately prove to be collectible, was about £14,500,000. I cannot say how many persons are covered by this figure. The greater part of the £14,500,000 represents the Surtax for the year 1930–31 which was payable on the 1st of January last, and practically the whole of the remainder represents tax due for the two preceding years.
    Major McLEAN: Can the hon. and gallant Member say how far these arrears are due to bona fide disputes as to liability, or how far they are due to the fact that the taxpayer is unwilling or unable to pay promptly?
    Major ELLIOT: It is difficult to dissect what proportion is unwillingness and what proportion is powerlessness. The Treasury always assumes that it is unwillingness until it has been proved to the contrary.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is it not an indication that the limit of direct taxation has now been reached?

    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (STAFFS).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the numbers of the staffs employed by the trustee savings banks in England and Wales and in Scotland, respectively, stating the number who are in full-time employment and the number of those who are in part-time employment?
    Major ELLIOT: The trustee savings banks make appointments to their staffs in accordance with requirements and at their own discretion, but a list of staff is included in the annual returns made by the banks to the National Debt Commissioners. The returns for the year to 20th November, 1931, show the following numbers employed—England and Wales, 1,164; Scotland, 664. The returns do not distinguish those in part-time employment.

    COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Royal Commissions and special committees have been appointed by the present Government; the dates of appointment; how many of these are still sitting; and how many of those appointed by the previous two Governments are still sitting?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of commissions and committees set up by the present Government since the election, excluding the Tariffs Advisory Committee and those set up under the Horticultural Products Act, and their estimated cost to the public?
    Major ELLIOT: Six commissions and committees have been set up by the present Government since the election, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of these bodies on the lines of the table circulated on 9th December last. It is not practicable at present to give any satisfactory estimate of their cost to the public. Of the committees and commissions appointed by the previous two Governments, 20 are still sitting.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman stop wasting public money without considering how he is going to get a return for it?
    Major ELLIOT: I have just been asked to appoint another committee from the House.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. and gallant Member go easy on this matter in order to give future Governments a fair chance?
    Following are the particulars:

    Committees, etc., appointed since 10th November, 1931.

    This List does not include Statutory or Standing Bodies, Sub-Committees, nor Departmental Committees composed exclusively of Officials.

    Name of Commission or Committee.

    Terms of Reference (Abridged).

    Date of appointment.

    Department primarily concerned.

    Probable Date of Report.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    Traffic Signs

    To consider the existing system of "traffic signs" as defined in Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and to make recommendations as to the exercise by the Minister of Transport of his powers under that Section.

    2nd December, 1931.

    Ministry of Transport.

    —

    Dormant Funds

    To inquire and report upon existing arrangements relating to Dormant Funds in the High Court, and to unclaimed balances and other balances in the County Courts, and to make such recommendations in respect thereof as the Committee may think fit.

    15th December, 1931.

    Lord Chancellor's Department.

    —

    Post Office Constitution.

    To inquire and report as to whether any changes in the constitution, status or system of organisation of the Post Office would be in the public interest.

    23rd February, 1932.

    Post Office

    —

    Road and Rail Transport.

    To consider (1) the facts relating to the incidence of highway costs in relation to the contributions of the different classes of mechanically-propelled vehicles, (2) the nature and extent of the regulation which should be applied to goods transport by road and by rail, and (3) to make recommendations to assist the two sides of the industry to carry out their functions under equitable conditions.

    9th April 1932.

    Ministry of Transport.

    End of July.

    Agricultural Marketing Re-organisation Commission for Milk.

    To prepare a scheme (or schemes) for regulating the marketing of milk and to investigate—

    21st April 1932.

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    —

    (a) The extent to which the operation of the scheme may be facilitated by co-operation between the board administering it and any corresponding body in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

    (b) Any other matter affecting the operation of the scheme.

    Agricultural Marketing Re-organisation Commission for Pigs and Pig Products.

    To prepare a scheme (or schemes) for regulating the marketing of pigs and pig products and to in vestigate—

    18th April 1932.

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    —

    (a) The extent to which the operation of the scheme may be facilitated by co-operation between the board administering it and any corresponding body in Northern Ireland.

    (b) The manner in which its operation could be facilitated by the quantitative regulation of imports of pigs and bacon, etc.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TRANSFERRED OFFICERS).
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if any of the civil servants, numbering approximately 600, recently transferred to the Customs, Excise, and Inland Revenue Departments, were surplus to the requirements of the Departments in which they were previously serving?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the answer which I gave on the 14th April to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee), of which I have sent him a copy.
    Mr. CAPEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) the total number of clerical officers transferred to the Customs and Excise Departmental clerical class during the past six months; the number of men and women from each Department, respectively; and the seniority at the date of transfer of the transferees in groups rising from one year onwards;
    (2) the total number of clerical officers transferred to the Customs and Excise headquarters offices for the last six months, showing the allocation to each office, the number from each Department, respectively, and the seniority at date of transfer of the transferees in groups rising from one year onwards:
    (3) the number of P-class clerks transferred from other Government Departments to fill vacancies in the Customs and Excise Department during the last six months, stating in each case the name of the Department making such transfers and the number of transfers it has made?
    Major ELLIOT: I am sending the hon. Member statements giving the figures asked for.

  PALESTINE.

    JERUSALEM (MUNICIPAL ELECTION).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to hold the election for the municipal authority in Jerusalem; and what measures it is proposed to take to ensure that the franchise shall be on a widely democratic basis?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): I am unable to make a definite reply; but when the matter was raised some time ago it was the intention that elections to municipal councils should be postponed until after the enactment of a new Local Government Ordinance. I understand that a draft Ordinance is shortly to be laid before the municipal councils for their consideration. I have no doubt that in framing the new Local Government Ordinance the Government of Palestine will have paid due consideration to the point raised in the latter part of the question.

    TOURIST TEAFFIC.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government propose to take any steps to stimulate tourist traffic to Palestine?
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I have no information as to any new proposals in connection with tourist traffic to Palestine, but I am quite sure that the Government of Palestine is fully alive to the importance of this matter, and may be relied upon to do all that is practicable.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the present members of the advisory committee under the Cinematograph Films Act?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate the names of the committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these members represent American interests?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as I know, none of them.
    Following are the names of the Committee:
    The following are the members of the Advisory Committee under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927:

    Sir Laurence N. Guillemard, G.C.M.G.,

    K.C.B. (Chairman),

    Sir Robert Blair,

    Mr. St. John Ervine,

    213

    Mr. G. R. Hall-Caine, C.B.E., M.P.,

    Mrs. H. A. L. Fisher,

    Mr. John Maxwell,

    Mr. C. M. Woolf,

    Mr. S. Rowson,

    Mr. F. W. Baker,

    Mr. E. Hewitson,

    Mr. A. B. King, J.P.,

    Mr. F. H. Cooper,

    Mr. E. Trounson.

    COAL INDUSTRY (LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE).
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. GORDON MACDONALD)asked the Secretary for Mines the number of collieries working in Lancashire and Cheshire at the latest date for which figures are available?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): At 16th April, 195 pits were producing coal in Lancashire and Cheshire.
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. MAC-DONALD)asked the Secretary for Mines the number of Government inspectors employed in the Lancashire and Cheshire coalfield, and the number of underground inspections made during the latest 12 months for which figures are available?
    Mr. FOOT: The total inspectorate in the North-Western Division, which includes Lancashire and Cheshire, consists of 15 whole-time inspectors and three who also have duties in other divisions. In Lancashire there are six whole-time inspectors of mines in addition to the divisional inspector and two others who have responsibilities elsewhere. The Cheshire collieries are dealt with by inspectors who are mainly employed in North Staffordshire. The number of underground inspections in Lancashire and Cheshire during 1931 was 1,395.
    Mr. TINKER: May I ask whether these inspections were surprise visits, or whether notice is sent to the colliery company, and, if so, what length of time is given?
    Mr. FOOT: I cannot answer as to the length of time given, but some of these inspections are by arrangement. Where an offence is anticipated it would be a surprise visit.
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. MAC-DONALD)asked the Secretary for Mines
    214
    the number of accidents on the coal face in Lancashire and Cheshire during each of the last three years ended 31st March, 1932?
    Mr. FOOT: The numbers of fatal and non-fatal accidents due to falls of ground at the coal face in Lancashire and Cheshire during the years 1928, 1929 and 1930 were 3,174, 3,384 and 3,209 respectively. The number during 1931 will be available in about a month's time. I regret that separate particulars for the coal face are not 'available with respect to any other class of accidents.

    DARTMOUTH NAVAL COLLEGE.
    Mr. WALLHEAD (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty under what circumstances ex-King Alfonso recently took the salute at a parade of the cadets at Dartmouth Naval College?
    Captain McEWEN: On a point of Order. Is it correct, and in accordance with the traditions of this House, to refer to a sovereign who has not abdicated as an ex-King?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We decided last Session that that is a suitable title.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): During his recent visit to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, as a parent of one of the cadets, King Alfonso did not take the salute at a parade of the cadets, and the question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. HANNON: May I ask you, Sir, whether questions of this kind, which are so offensive, should be put? Last year the question was raised, and you kindly considered it, and there was a sort of understanding in this House that offensive references to ex-Kings or foreign potentates should not be made.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is the hon. Member aware that not only was King Alfonso there, but that it was broadcast through all the picture-houses in this country? Is this an appropriate thing, having regard to the friendly relations which exist between this country and the Spanish Government?
    Lord STANLEY: King Alfonso went to Dartmouth to see his son there, a natural

    215
    thing to do. The question asked is whether he took the salute. He was there as a member of the house party, and was merely standing near the saluting base. He did not take the salute, and therefore the question does not arise.
    Mr. MAXTON: The film must have lied about it.
    Lord STANLEY: It only shows that if the camera cannot lie, it sometimes deceives.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the Noble Lord aware that the film which I saw myself stated that he took the salute?

    HACKNEY WICK (SLIPPER BATHE).
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS (for Dr. SALTER)asked the Minister of Health whether he will reconsider his decision in the matter of sanctioning expenditure toy the Hackney Metropolitan Borough Council of £3,000 for the purchase of a site in Hackney Wick for a branch slipper bath establishment; and whether, in view of the fact that in Hackney Wick few of the houses have baths, the erection of the building may be proceeded with?
    Mr. E. BROWN: A loan of £3,000 for the purchase of the site has been sanctioned in this case. Progress with the baths was deferred in present financial circumstances and the matter will, my right hon. Friend understands, be further considered by the council at a later date. It is not one in regard to which he feels that he can take any special action.

    KENYA (DEFENCE FORCE ORDINANCE).
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS (for Dr. SALTER)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reason for the decision of the Government of Kenya Colony to put into force the Kenya Defence Force Ordinance of 1927?
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I would invite reference to the reply returned by my right hon. Friend to a question on the subject from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) on 14th April, of which I am sending him a copy. The Kenya Defence Force
    216
    Ordinance has been in operation since 2nd July, 1928.
    Mr. WILLIAMS (for Dr. SALTER)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any explanation of the reason for the passing of the Kenya Defence Force Ordinance without any provision enforcing an oath of allegiance to His Majesty?
    Sir R. HAMILTON: As stated in the reply to a question on the 28th July, 1927, provision for an oath of allegiance was omitted from the Kenya Defence Force Ordinance on the representation of the Secretary of State's military advisers in this country that an oath had been regarded as inappropriate in many cases of compulsory military service, for example, service under the National Service Acts at home.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what the business is for Friday?
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Friday, as already announced, is a Supply day and the Vote to be taken is the India Office Vote.

BILLS REPORTED.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday.

  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL,
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Major Renwick; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ramsden.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Rochdale Corporation Bill,
  South Wales Electric Power Bill, with Amendments.
  Gas Undertakings (Powers of Investment),—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee on Gas Undertakings (Powers of Investment), and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

  SKY-WRITING.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Dickinson to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on Sky-writing.—[Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  REPORT [19TH APRIL].
  Resolutions reported;

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.

  TEA.
  1. "That—

  (a) As from the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, there shall on the importation into the United Kingdom of tea be payable a duty of customs at the following rates:

  Tea, not being an Empire product within the meaning of that expression as used in Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the Finance Act, 1919 … … … the lb. fourpence;

  Tea, being such an Empire product as aforesaid the lb. twopence;

  (b) An excise duty at the rate of two-twopence the pound shall be payable on tea which was imported before the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, and is in the ownership or possession of any person who holds more than one thousand pounds thereof, but not including any such tea which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have been intended for use by the person in whose ownership or possession it was and not to have been intended for sale or for use in the preparation of a beverage for sale;

  (c) The enactments relating to the allowance of drawback on blended tea prepared from teas on which customs duties have been paid shall extend to blended tea prepared from teas in respect of which either of the duties payable under this Resolution has been paid."

  SUGAR.
  2. "That on and after the twentieth day of April, nineteeen hundred and thirty-two—
  (a) there shall be payable in the case of sugar consigned from and grown, produced or manufactured in a colony or other country to which this Resolution applies, in lieu of the preferential duties of customs now payable on such sugar, the following reduced duties:

  Article.

  Rate of Duty.

  In the case of sugar accompanied by a quota certificate.

  In any other case.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 99 degrees

  the cwt.

  3

  6.5

  4

  8.2

  Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98 but not exceeding 99 degrees

  the cwt.

  2

  7.2

  3

  8.2

  Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 76 degrees

  the cwt.

  1

  4.2

  1

  10.8

  Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 76 degrees and not exceeding 98 degrees

  Intermediate rates varying, in the ease of sugar accompanied by a quota certificate between 1s. 4.2d. and 2s. 7.2d. the cwt., and, in the case of an; other sugar, between 1s. 10.8d. and 3s.8.2d. the cwt.

  In this paragraph the expression "quota certificate" shall mean a certificate issued by the Secretary of State certifying that the sugar in question forms part of the quantity of sugar which may be imported from the Colonies and. other countries to which this Resolution applies at the lower rate of the reduced duties payable as aforesaid;
  (b) There shall be payable, in lieu of the duties of excise now payable on sugar, the following reduced duties:

  s.

  d.

  Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 99 degrees

  the cwt.

  4

  7

  Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98 but not exceeding 99 degrees

  the cwt.

  3

  7.1

  Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 76 degrees

  the cwt.

  1

  10.2

  Sugar of A polarisation exceeding 76 and not exceeding 98 degrees, intermediate rates varying between 1s. 10.2d. and 3s. 7.1d. the cwt.;

  (c) there shall be payable, in the case of molasses, glucose, and saccharin consigned from and grown, produced or manufactured in a colony or other country to which this Resolution applies, in lieu of the preferential duties of customs now payable on such molasses, glucose, and saccharin, the following reduced duties:
  Molasses (including all sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be completely tested by the polariscope), if the sweetening matter contained therein—

  s.

  d.

  amounts to 70 per cent. or upwards

  the cwt.

  3

  0

  exceeds 50 per cent. but does not amount to 70 per cent.

  the cwt.

  2

  2

  does not exceed 50 per cent.

  the cwt.

  1

  0½

  Glucose—

  s.

  d.

  Solid

  the cwt.

  3

  0

  Liquid

  the cwt.

  2

  2

  Saccharin (including substances of a like nature or use) the oz.

  1

  6½

  (d) there shall be payable in lieu Of the duties of excise now payable on molasses, glucose, and saccharin the following reduced duties:
  Molasses (including all sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be completely tested by the polariscope), if the sweetening matter contained therein—

  s.

  d.

  amounts to 70 per cent. or upwards

  the cwt.

  2

  11

  exceeds 50 per cent. but does not amount to 70 per cent.

  the cwt.

  2

  1½

  does not exceed 50 per cent.

  the cwt.

  1

  0½

  Glucose—

  Solid

  the cwt.

  2

  11

  Liquid

  the cwt.

  2

  1½

  Saccharin (including substances of a like nature or use) the oz.

  1

  6

  (e) The colonies to which this Resolution shall apply shall be all the colonies except Southern Rhodesia, and the other countries to which this Resolution shall apply shall be territories under is Majesty's protection and territories in respect of which a mandate of the League of Nations is being exercised by the Government of the United Kingdom, being territories to which section five of the Import Duties Act, 1932, for the time being applies;
  (f) In the application of this Resolution to any duty chargeable on manufactured or prepared goods under section seven of the Finance Act, 1901, the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, shall be substituted for the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

  SUGAR (DRAWBACKS).
  3. "That—
  (a) on and after the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, there shall, in lieu of any drawbacks which would otherwise be allowed in respect
  228
  thereof, be allowed, in the case of the following articles, that is to say—

  (i) sugar on which there has been paid a customs duty at a colonial preferential rate or an excise duty;

  (ii) sugar produced in the United Kingdom from material on which such a duty as aforesaid has been paid;

  (iii) molasses produced in the United Kingdom from material on which such a duty as aforesaid has been paid;

  drawbacks at the rates provided in the following tables, but subject to all provisions applicable to the drawbacks which may now be allowed in the case of sugar and molasses:
  Provided that—

  (i) the reduction of the rates or amounts of any drawbacks shall not have effect in relation to any goods as respects which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty was paid at the rates in force before the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two;

  (ii) the grant of a specified amount of drawback in respect of a specified weight of any article includes the grant of a proportionately less amount of drawback in respect of any less weight.

  1. SUGAR.
  Degree and polarisation and rate or amount of drawback.
  Of a polarisation exceeding 99 degrees:
  Where the rate of duty paid was 4s. 8.2d., 3s. 6.5d., or 4s. 7d. the cwt., a drawback at the same rate as the duty paid.
  Where a customs duty was paid on the higher colonial preferential scale at a rate less than 4s. 8.2d. the cwt., a drawback at the rate of 3s. 10.9d. the cwt.
  Where a customs duty was paid on the lower colonial preferential scale at a rate less than 3s. 6.5d. the cwt., a drawback at the rate of 2s. 9.2d. the cwt.
  Where an excise duty was paid at a rate less than 4s. 7d. the cwt., a drawback at the rate of 3s. 9⅔d. the cwt.
  Of a polarisation not exceeding 99 degrees:
  Where a customs duty was paid on the lower or higher colonial preferential scale, a drawback equal to the duty chargeable on sugar of the like polarisation in accordance with the scale on which duty was paid.
  Where an excise duty was paid, a drawback equal to the excise duty chargeable on sugar of the like polarisation.

  II.—MOLASSES.

  Nature of molasses.

  Amount of drawback.

  Where customs duty paid on higher colonial preferential scales.

  Where customs duty paid on lower colonial preferential scales.

  Where excise duty paid.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  If containing not more than 60 per cent. of sweetening matter and weighing sot less than 14 pounds to the gallon.

  0

  11

  0

  8

  0

  11

  If containing more than 60 per cent. but not more than 60 per cent. of sweetening matter.

  1

  4½

  1

  0

  1

  4½

  If containing more than 60 per cent. but not more than 70 per cent. of sweetening matter.

  1

  10½

  1

  4

  1

  10

  If containing more than 70 per cent. but not more than 80 per cent. of sweetening matter.

  2

  6½

  1

  9½

  2

  6

  If containing more than 80 per cent. of sweetening matter.

  2

  11

  2

  0½

  3

  10

  (b) In this Resolution—
  The expression 'customs duty at a colonial preferential rate' means a customs duty charged by any Resolution passed in the present Session on sugar or molasses consigned from and grown, produced or manufactured in a colony or other country to which that Resolution applies;
  The expression 'the lower colonial prefertial scale' means the scale of the duties chargeable under the said Resolution in the case of sugar accompanied by a quota certificate;
  The expression 'the higher colonial preferential scale' means the scale of duties chargeable under the said Resolution in the case of sugar not accompanied by a quota certificate.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

  SILK.
  4. "That as from the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, a person importing for his own use and not for sale an article of apparel made wholly or partly of silk (including artificial silk) shall cease to be entitled to the option conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section five of the Finance Act, 1926, of having the article charged with duty by reference to the whole weight thereof.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

  AMENDMENTS OF IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932.
  5. "That it is expedient to amend the Import Duties Act, 1932, in the following particulars, that is to say:

  (1) The Treasury may be authorised, on receiving a recommendation from the Import Duties Advisory Committee, by order under the said Act to direct that goods of all or any of the classes or descriptions specified in the recommendation shall be removed from the First Schedule to the said Act;

  (2) Provision may be made for allowing, in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Import Duties Advisory Committee and approved by the Treasury, a drawback of any duties chargeable under Part I of the said Act, in the following case and subject to the following conditions, that is to say—

  (a) Drawback may be allowed—

  (i) in the case of goods manufactured in the United Kingdom, being goods of a class or description specified in the scheme;

  (ii) in respect of such quantity of any material of a class or description so specified as is contained in the goods or is specified in the scheme as being the average quantity of material of that class or description so contained, and as respects which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, in accordance with rules to be made by them, that duty has been paid;

  (b) the rate of drawback, which shall be fixed by reference to weight or some other measure or quantity, shall be a rate specified in the scheme, and shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the average amount of duty paid in respect of material of the kind in question;

  (c) the drawback may be allowed for any period or periods, whether continuous or not, or without any limit of period;

  (d) the Committee in preparing, and the Treasury in approving, the scheme must be satisfied that, haying regard to all the circumstances, including the interests of any producers in the United Kingdom of materials of the kind in question, it is in the national interest that drawback should be allowed as provided by the scheme.

  (3) Provision may be made for exempting from the duties chargeable under the said Act any consignment of machinery in respect of which the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

  (i) that the machinery belongs to a class or description to which the Import Duties Advisory Committee have recommended that the provisions of this paragraph should apply; and

  (ii) that the Treasury, after receiving the recommendation from the said Committee to the effect that machinery of the kind in question is not for the time being procurable in the United King-

  231
  dom, and that it is expedient to allow its importation duty free, and after consultation with the Board of Trade, have by licence authorised such importation;

  (4) Provision may be made for the variation or revocation of any Order in Council made under the said Act declaring that Section five thereof (which relates to colonial preference) shall apply to a territory in respect of which a mandate of the League of Nations is being exercised by the Government of the United Kingdom."

  BICYCLES (EXCISE DUTY).
  6. "That in lieu of the excise duties now chargeable in respect of bicycles under paragraph (1) (a) and (b) of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, there shall on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be charged the following duties of excise, and references in any enactment to the full amount of the duties chargeable in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles shall be construed accordingly.

  Description of Vehicle.

  Rate of Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Bicycles:

  Where the cylinder capacity of the engine thereof—

  (a) does not exceed 150 cubic centimetres

  …

  15

  0

  (b) exceeds 150 cubic centimetres but does not exceed 250 cubic centimetres

  …

  1

  10

  0

  (c) exceeds 250 cubic centimetres

  …

  3

  0

  0"

INCOME TAX.

  Charge of Tax.
  7. "That—

  (a) income tax for the year 1932-33 shall be charged at the standard rate of five shillings in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;

  (b) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1931–32 shall have effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1932–33.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

  HIGHER RATES OF INCOME TAX FOB 1931–32.
  8. "That Income Tax for the year 1931–32 in respect of the excess of the total income of an individual over two thousand pounds shall be charged at rates in the pound which respectively exceed the standard rate by amounts equal to the amounts by which the rates at which Income Tax was charged in
  232
  respect of the said excess for the year 1930–31 respectively exceeded the standard rate for that year.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

  INCOME TAX (VOLUNTARY PENSIONS).
  9. "That—

  (a) where a person has ceased to hold any office or employment and any pension or annual payment is paid to him, or to his widow or child, or to any relative or dependant of his, by the person under whom he held the office, or by whom he was employed, or by the successor of the last mentioned person, then, notwithstanding that the pension or payment is paid voluntarily or is capable of being discontinued, it shall be deemed to be income for the purposes of assessment of Income Tax and shall be assessed and charged accordingly;

  (b) for removal of doubts it is expedient to declare that the words 'annuity' and 'pension' in the charging provision of Schedule E to the Income Tax Act, 1918, and in sub-section (1) of section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1923, include respectively an annuity and a pension which is paid voluntarily or is capable of being discontinued.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

STAMP DUTY.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES AUDIT.
  10. "That section sixty-one of the Finance Act, 1921, shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect as if, in all cases whatsoever where by virtue of any enactment the accounts of any local authority are subject to audit by district auditors, it required the stamp duty chargeable in respect of the audit to be calculated in accordance with the scale fixed under that section."
  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in line 7, to leave out the word "four-pence," and to insert instead thereof the word "twopence."
  The House will remember that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement he produced a new duty, an impost of 4d. per lb. on tea, with 2d. per lb. on the Empire product. It falls to me to move that the 4d. be reduced to 2d. We have tabled this Amendment as the best means that we

  233
  know of showing our opposition to any duty whatever on tea. We are, of course, opposed to even a 1d. duty on this commodity, but we felt that by moving to reduce the duty by 2d. we might be able to carry the Government with us for once. Our first objection to this duty is that it is an indirect tax. It is imposed just to hoodwink the people that they are not contributing anything at all to the revenue, while in fact every time they drink a cup of tea, after the passage of this Budget, they will be contributing to the cost of the last War and the cost of armaments for future wars. [An HON. MEMBER: "By how much?"] It is not the amount that matters, but the principle. In fact this Government has done nothing at all since it came into existence but to impose indirect taxation on the people who are least able to bear it, and they will go down in history as the Government of indirect taxation.
  While I shall deal with tea exclusively in my few remarks, I think I am entitled to point out exactly what the Government have planned by way of indirect taxation up to the present. They began by imposing duties on horticultural products and thereby increased the price of certain vegetables forthwith. They then imposed a general duty on manufactured goods and compelled the consumer to hand over small donations to the industrialists on almost every article that he bought. Later on they called upon the consumers of bread to contribute £6,000,000 per annum to the farmers of this country. Every step that the Government have taken to deal with the finances of the country has been in favour of indirect taxation. The policy is now carried further still. The Budget is full of proposals for indirect taxation, and the meanest proposal of the lot is the tax on tea. There is to be no general increase in Income Tax or Super-tax or Death Duties. In fact financiers are going to have a lift by the way by the establishment of the Exchange Fund of £150,000,000. Manufacturers are to have protection against the foreigner in the imposition of additional duties, and the result will be an increase in the price of their commodities, which will mean a further additional tax on the consumer. Collectors of taxes are to receive compensation, too.
  234
  This new duty on tea is a very serious imposition to the poorer section of the community. Statements about the poorer sections of the community have been received with a degree of contempt on the other side when we have made them. I hope to prove what this Tea Duty actually means in the homes of average working-class people in the country. I am very much afraid that some hon. Members have no idea what it means to the working folk to add even 6d. a week to the cost of living. I am sure it has never dawned on them. Some of them get their money so easily, and some of them probably get their money they do not know how or where. Consequently they have no conception of what 6d. a week means. I propose to analyse what this 4d. a 1b. on tea actually means. If I know anything about the wholesale and retail trade, those in the retail trade in any case will see that they make no distinction between Empire and foreign tea, and the consumer will have to pay the 4d. a lb. on all teas alike.
  I am very glad to see the Lord President of the Council present, because he was in the House when Lord Snowden of Ickornshaw moved the abolition of the Tea Duty. Lord Snowden was a Yorkshireman, and I am a little astonished that he belongs to a Government that is to reimpose the duty. He ought to take a hint from a little tea party that took place in another part of Yorkshire last week—in Wakefield. Wakefield, by the way, was an indication of the mind of the people on this Tea Duty. But let me come down to details. Let hon. Members picture the home of the ordinary working man, a painter, plumber, bricklayer, or even a collier. They would find that a workman, a wife and four children would consume as much as 2 lbs. of tea a week. An hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may understand about the buying of tea wholesale, I am positive that he does not know what is happening in working-class homes by way of consumption of tea. Let me give him the actual facts.
  Take the case of the man and his wife and four children. Where the man goes out to work this is what happens to him, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite would find such cases by the score

  235
  in their own divisions. The workman gets a cup of tea before he starts out in the early morning. He takes tea with him for his breakfast and lunch. Hon. Gentleman opposite will know at any rate, if they consult their good ladies, that when tea is used in that way, broken up in small quantities for use at several meals by individual members of the family, it means that more tea is used than when all the family remain at home for all their meals. Consequently it is not an over-statement to say that a working-class home of six persons will sometimes consume 2 lbs. of tea per week. See what that means. It does not mean much to hon. Gentlemen here, but, according to the calculations which I have here, if these people buy the tea which they desire, or, indeed, if they buy any tea, then in spite of the preference of 2d. to Empire-produced tea, they will pay roughly an additional 4d. per lb. That will be an addition to their cost of living of 8d. per week or about 35s. per annum. In other words, it represents a reduction of 8d. a week in their income. When we remember that some of these people are unemployed and that some of them are subject to the means test, we must recognise that 8d. means a great deal to them.
  The tragedy of it is that the incidence of this tax is grossly unfair. I should imagine that the poorest people buy the cheapest tea, probably at 1s. 6d. a lb. Hon. Gentlemen in this House probably have tea at 3s., 4s. or even 5s. a lb. in their homes. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] In any case, tea at 3s. or 4s. a lb. is sold in this country and somebody must buy it. But let me deal with the 1s. 6d. tea, and show how unfair is the incidence of this new tax. An addition of 4d. on 1s. 6d. represents about 22 per cent. An addition of 4d. on tea at 4s. per 1b. represents very much less and consequently this tax weighs very much less upon the people who are able to buy the best quality of tea, than upon the poorer people who buy the 1s. 6d. tea. At a rough guess, I estimate that of the £3,000,000 which the Exchequer expects to get out of this Tea Duty about £2,500,000 will represent a decrease in the income of the working class. It is, practically, a reduction in wages of £2,500,000 per annum. True, it is a tax imposed on
  236
  the afternoon tea of the rich; but it is a tax imposed on almost every meal consumed by the poor. It falls more heavily on the navvy than on the banker, and hits the operative much more severely than the employer. Such is always the case with a tax on the food of the people.
  Another aspect of the problem must be borne in mind. A duty of 4d. per lb. cannot be divided into small fractions by caterers and by keepers of refreshment establishments, in fixing the price of tea supplied, as in restaurants or railway station refreshment rooms, for instance. While 4d. per lb. may not add one-tenth of a farthing to the price of a cup of tea, it is practically certain that the charge will actually be increased by a halfpenny per cup if not by one penny. That does not mean much, as I say, to the man who can afford to go anywhere and buy anything and spend 10s. or 15s. a day on his meals. But it affects the poorer section of the community. What happens in practice in fixing the price of tea? If a retailer has been selling tea at 2s. 7d. per lb. before the imposition of the duty, he will now have to add 4d., making it 2s. l1d. per lb. It is very much easier, however, to say 3s. a lb., and so when the Government impose a duty of this kind, not only is the duty added to the price, but the wholesaler and the retailer might easily take advantage of the imposition of the duty to make a profit actually out of the transaction itself. I think I know a little about the wiles adopted for that purpose.
  Mr. PIKE: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence that that has happened in the past?
  Mr. DAVIES: I am surprised at the innocence of the hon. Member.
  Mr. PIKE: I am asking for evidence.
  Mr. DAVIES: I suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like these arguments but they are arguments which they will have to meet and there will be an opportunity of doing so in due course. It is worth while knowing that we are the largest consumers of tea in the world. The figures are interesting. The total tea consumption of the importing countries is 900,000,000 lbs. per annum, and in this country alone we consume more than half. That figure, of course, leaves out China and India where tea is pro-

  237
  duced. To give an illustration of what this problem means to us I may point out that while we consume over 400,000,000 lbs. of tea per annum, the United States, with a population of 120,000,000 has a total tea consumption of only 88,000,000 lbs. and Germany with a population of about 70,000,000 consumes only 11,000,000 lbs. of tea per annum. The unpleasant fact to us is that this new impost will be passed on to the consumers at a time when wages are declining and when unemployment benefit has already been reduced. An hon. Gentleman opposite seemed rather to doubt my statements just now. Let me read something from "The Grocer," a weekly periodical:
  "We fully expect to see the usual crop of schemes to catch the unwary. Whatever form the schemes may take, it does not require much intelligence to know who pays for the supposed concession. A 2d. duty is after all a 2d. duty and has to be paid for to the Customs by someone and at once. If the consumer is not asked to pay directly, then you may be quite sure he will have to pay indirectly."
  Mr. PIKE: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any evidence that directly or indirectly, he is called upon to pay 3d. where only a 2d. duty is imposed. He said just now that 5d. was paid in respect of a 4d. duty.
  Mr. DAVIES: I am again astonished at the innocence of the hon. Member.
  Mr. PIKE: And I say again that I want evidence.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. DAVIES: I think I recollect that when Parliament increased the duty on beer by about a halfpenny or three-farthings a pint the price to the consumer was increased by a penny a pint. But I hope to provide the hon. Member if he likes with a statement of facts later on. I am very sorry that the Government are so touchy upon these points. I notice hardly one Liberal on the Front Bench. I do not know how they feel about this matter. I come now to the protest which I desire to make against the increase of indirect taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) in the Debate on the Budget said that, on the present Budget, indirect taxation would account for 41 per cent. of the revenue compared with 36 per cent. last year. This figure of 41 per cent., becomes all the more striking
  238
  if we go back to the War period. The House will, I feel sure, allow me to analyse what has been happening in this country as a result of the increase of indirect as against direct taxation. In my view, direct taxation is the only honest way of taxing the people. Indirect taxation has always been held to be a back-door method of raising revenue. It is assumed that the people do not know that they are paying anything because it is an indirect form of taxation. Therefore these figures are very interesting. In 1917–18 the percentage of revenue from indirect taxation was only 17 per cent. of the total. That percentage rapidly increased until 1923. There was a drop in 1924 as one would expect because there was a Labour Government in being. The percentage went down, but there was a steady increase during the next administration and it went up to 39 per cent. There was a drop in 1930–31 until in the latter period the percentage was 33.84. The increase of 7 per cent. in indirect taxation in this Budget, I am informed, is the sharpest increase in any Budget during modern times. That is a very important factor in the situation as far as the working people are concerned.
  Part of the new duty, of course, is of a preferential character and it is expected to yield £3,600,000. If it were not for the preference given to Empire products, I believe that the revenue would gain £7,000,000. One is bound to assume that as soon as the present stocks of tea are exhausted, the tendency will be to raise the price of Empire tea as nearly as possible to the price of the foreign tea, plus the duty, and that the working class consumer will pay the duty of 4d. or nearly 4d. a lb. on all tea. It will mean that from four-fifths of the consumers the Treasury will receive only 2d. a lb., while the wholesaler and retailer will see to it that they exploit the preference for their own advantage. The Treasury will hardly gain anything by that process, because the price of the Empire product will naturally gravitate as soon as possible to the price of the foreign product without the Treasury having any advantage at all.
  Let me analyse the position as it affects Lancashire. The poor cotton operative who is practically down and out

  239
  will be charged this duty on his tea to subsidise Indian and Ceylon producers. On the other hand, India levies heavy import duties upon cotton piece goods, and is competing successfully against Lancashire. I have yet to hear that Great Britain enjoys any substantial preference for her imports into Ceylon. I would like to know how much British capital is behind some of these so-called Empire producing tea firms. I heard a, statement only to-day as to what capitalism can do nationally and internationally, and there would not be as much opposition to this preference on Empire tea as far as I am concerned if I felt that this patriotism was as genuine as it is supposed to be. When patriotism comes up again capitalism and international capitalism it becomes mere sham and hypocrisy, and I would like to know whether in giving this preference on Empire products we are not actually handing over an advantage to foreign capitalists operating in the British Empire. The capitalist of course knows no frontier of any kind anywhere.
  As I have said, we are the greatest consumers of tea in the world, and of course the Treasury is always anxious to take advantage of that fact. One should judge of this duty, after all, by what is the standard of a good tax. Such a tax should be, at any rate, equitable; it should be economic, it should be productive, and it should not fall upon the necessities of life. The Government proposals, in my view, do not comply with any one of those standards. The tax is not equitable, since it bears heaviest upon the poorest classes of the community who purchase the cheapest tea. It is uneconomic because the process of calculation involves bigger profits and larger cost to the consumer than the amount actually reaching the Treasury. I have looked into this duty with as much care as I can, and I am positive that had the electorate last October known that this was to be one of the Government's proposals, not so many of their supporters would be sitting in Parliament to-day. For those reasons, that the duty is a new one and an indirect tax which bears in the main upon the working classes, I move the Amendment, and I hope that the Treasury will see its way clear to adopt it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: After the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), I feel prouder than ever that I have been an Assam tea-planter. When I think of the comfort and solace that the planters of Assam have given to the working people in this country, I can indeed feel proud. The hon. Member for Westhoughton suggested that there were some people who made money easily. I can assure him that no planter makes money easily; at present, in fact, it is extremely easy to lose money in planting, and I am now speaking on behalf of people who have no votes or influence in this House—the tea-planters of Ceylon, of Kenya and of India. I would point out to the hon. Member for Westhoughton that it was not Viscount Snowden who abolished the Tea Duty; it was the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who pointed out at that time that it was a very old duty which had always been imposed in this country since the days of Queen Elizabeth, and that between the days of Queen Mary and the right hon. Member for Epping there has always been a duty of some kind on tea. According to history, when Queen Mary died full of remorse, the word "Calais" was written upon her heart. Had it not been for the prompt action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps the right hon. Member for Epping might have died in similar circumstances not with "Calais," but with "Indian Tea" written upon his heart full of remorse because he had destroyed that great industry.
  When we think of this Tea Duty, there are four considerations to be borne in mind. The hon. Member for Westhoughton has mentioned the consumer, and I agree that the consumers are the first people to be considered. I put immediately after the consumer the producer of tea, I mean the actual labourer who plucks it and manufactures it. In 1929, when I was on a garden in Assam, and we got the horrible news in the middle of April that preference had been abolished, I had to point out to my labourers why we would not pluck Section 2 this year, that another section somewhere else had to be abandoned, that we could not allow them to work on Saturdays and Mondays, and that we should have to cut down their tasks

  241
  because the industry must be able to pay its way. That is what happened in April, 1929, and is happening to-day. It is no use to say to these Indian labourers what the right hon. Member for Epping did, that we had proposed to abolish the preference for tea grown within the British Empire and help the foreigner in every possible way we could. The Indian labourer simply turned away from me and said, "Puggalah Sahiblog," which, being interpreted, means, "The mad English people, quite true." The men we next had to consider were the educated natives, men who could read and write very well, educated very much on the lines of Macaulay when he originated the system and they read regularly the vernacular papers. The cancellation of the Empire preference is a handle all over India for disloyalty to the British Empire. How could I stand up and pretend that this Mother of Parliaments was thinking all the time of India when it took away their livelihood? It could not be done.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the right hon. Member for Epping responsible for the disorder in India?
  Sir W. SMILES: I say that education and the vernacular Press are largely responsible for it, and this preferential duty will help the loyal people in India to counteract this insidious propaganda against us. It may be that the hon. Member for Westhoughton scorns the preferential duties which are given in India to imports from Great Britain, but it is very difficult for the planting members of the Legislative Assembly or the Provincial Councils in India to point out the preference we give in England to Indian produce. Next week they will be able to point out a very definite preference which will do a tremendous lot to encourage good feeling among the Indians. After the labourer and the Babus I talk about the European planters. The planters do not mind what you do to them; they will be loyal to this Government because they have the same sort of unreasoning loyalty that you get from the six counties in Ulster—the more you illtreat them, the more loyal they get. Most of these planters are Scottish and many of them trade unionists, and if a man is a Scotsman and a trade unionist, he must be thrifty and energetic. Therefore, it cannot be the
  242
  fault of the planter that the industry is not making money at the present time. [Interruption.] Some of the greatest benefactors to the tea industry have come from Aberdeen, and when a company wants to get a new assistant, it is a standing joke out there that you should set 'a brick trap outside Aberdeen and bait it, not with a bottle of tea, but with a bottle of whisky, and you are certain to get a useful man.
  I would point out to the hon. Member for Westhoughton that, for all he said, tea is still the cheapest drink in the whole world. You can and do get 150 cups of tea out of a pound, and you can get no other drink at the present time in the British Isles to compare with that. I take grave exception to the hon. Member's figures of the amount that is taken for tea out of a working man's income. I went into consultation this morning, having seen to my horror such an Amendment as this on the Paper yesterday evening, with the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Indian Tea Association in Mincing Lane. We worked it out most carefully and found that a fair estimate would be 9d. per adult per annum. I admit that with the exception of Australia this country drinks more tea per head than any other country in the world. It is very nearly 10 lbs. per head, but the hon. Member for Westhoughton need not think that because a duty of 2d. per lb. has been put on Empire tea, the cost to the consumer will be 2d. per lb. The most optimistic estimate of a tea grower is that we expect to get more for our tea next year to the extent of about three farthings per lb.
  Looking up the Debate on the 1929 Budget, I see that there were two Members who spoke vigorously against the preference for British Empire tea growers being abolished. One was the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the other was the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). I know they always sit close together in this House, but I would not say that for that reason they always vote in the same Lobby. The hon. Member for Bridgeton said on that occasion that he was thinking of the Indian labourers on the tea gardens in Ceylon and in Assam. The Indian tea planters have had very excellent chits for the way in which they look after their labour, from two official reports. One was the Royal Commission

  243
  on Indian Labour, presided over by Mr. Whitley, and the other was the report of the Agricultural Commission in India. Both these blue books gave excellent chits to the tea planters. Mr. Whitley pointed out that these labourers came up from Madras and other parts of India and, after four or five years' work, were independent, owning their own land, with capital of their own, and were able to work six months on their own land and six months on a tea garden—a very much happier condition of affairs than we have in these islands at the present time. We have practically native savages who come up to the planters in Assam, having never worn a rag or any kind of cloth in their lives before, and I am glad to say that, after a month or two, they are wearing good Lancashire cloth, and plenty of it, have good homes, and are independent.
  This morning I looked into the "Financial News," in which, on every Monday morning, may be seen a report on the tea gardens and their sales to date in Mincing Lane, and how they have fared this year as compared with last year. I picked out a company which, fortunately for me, I have never noticed before. They made a heavy loss last year, and possibly if I had seen the name before, I might have been unfortunate enough to invest in it. I picked out the Surmah Valley Tea Company. It can be seen in the "Financial News" of last Monday that their average of sales to date of last year's crop was 7d.; that was the actual cost price per pound that they received for their tea. I turned up one of the books issued by a firm of stockbrokers, Messrs. De Zoete and Company, and I looked to see what they got for their tea in 1928, the last year in which there was a preference for British Empire tea, and the average then was l0¾d. On the 1928 working that company made a profit of £4,000, and on the 1930 working they made a loss of £12,000. The 1931 accounts are not out yet, but I expect that they will have made a loss of about £16,000.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton admitted that the consumer of tea gets a great deal of enjoyment, pleasure, and stimulus out of tea, but can he expect these producers to go on making losses like that? You cannot expect anything for ever to be sold at under the cost of production. Doubtless the hon. Member
  244
  also is interested in the labourers and would like to hear that they were paid proper wages. I heard the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) telling us last night a true and graphic story of the trials of the dockers at the present moment. It does not make the trials of the dockers any easier because the people in Lancashire or the colliers in Wales are in the same bad way. It makes the dockers feel all the worse, and I am sure that the dockers, the people in the coal mines, and those up in Lancashire feel just as badly about the people who work in the tea gardens of Assam and do not want to feel that they are not getting a decent and a proper wage. I would also point out to the hon. Member for Westhoughton that it is not the poorest people who buy the cheapest tea. If I had tea to sell that was really good tea, I would very much rather run my chance of selling it to the peasant people in the West of Ireland, near Galway, than I would in Park Lane. There is no doubt that tea is sold every day still in Galway for 4s. 6d. per lb., and you will be extremely lucky to get more than 2s. 6d. in the West End of London.
  The right hon. Member for Epping, at the beginning of his speech on Thursday last, said he wished that a similar preference of 50 per cent. on British goods going into India and Ceylon could have been arranged first. I quite agree, and I am in entire and absolute sympathy with him there, but the difficulty is the size of India. It is just as easy to say to a person in Bombay, "Look here, they have given a preference to Assam tea; what about some further preference for Lancashire cotton?" The distances are so great that it is very difficult to convince these people that India is a nation when it comes to the subject of preferential tariffs. It would be just as easy for the President of the Board of Trade, when he is trying to arrange an extra quota for British coal admitted into France, to say to the French people, "I suggest that you might allow more British coal into France because we are allowing more oil to come into this country from Rumania," because the difference between the people of Rumania and those of France is not as much even as the difference between the people of Bombay and those of Assam. They wear different

  245
  clothes, they speak different languages, they are different castes, they cannot understand each other, and indeed the only tie and the only common language that bring them together are the British tie and the English language.
  Already this House has very generously granted a decided preference to the British Colonies. Lots of foreign goods have been taxed anything from 10 to 20 per cent., and nothing at all has been put on any of these goods coming in from the Colonies. That is a fair and generous measure, and it is likely to encourage the Colonies to meet us on a fair and equal footing at Ottawa. But when you are doing that sort of thing, you cannot leave India out. The Indians are very ready, especially at present, to look for any slight, and it is up to us to do exactly the same fair and generous thing to encourage them at Ottawa as we have done with the rest of the British Empire. After all, we have been telling people that India stands in exactly the same position in the British Empire as the rest of the Colonies, and it is necessary to make them feel that their interests are not being sacrificed. I understand that India is going to Ottawa as an independent party and that there will be four or five Indians going there, to look after Indian interests, who, I believe, will be paying a visit to this country on their way. It cannot do anything but good that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have granted them this preference for Indian tea.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton talked about capitalists and an international ring. I believe there is hardly £1,000, as far as I know, of foreign capital invested in the tea industry, and I am talking now not only about the producer, but about the distributor here. Firms like Brooke Bond, Lyons, Maypole Dairy, Mazawattee are run, as far as I know and believe, entirely on British capital. There is no ring or cartel of any kind among either producers or distributors. The position in India at present is that in the planting industry there is approximately £76,000,000 of British capital invested, and of that capital I admit that 10 or 12 per cent. is Indian capital. If the hon. Member for Westhoughton or the right hon. Member for Epping wish to ruin the British tea industry, they should remember that for every nine Englishmen whom they ruin they will only
  246
  ruin one Indian. It is a great sadness to me that there are not more Indians who have got money in tea. The reason is that the Indians have not been so far-seeing as British people in tea, and that they have not built up strong reserve funds, and when these different crises came along the poor chaps had to go to the wall.
  Only this year I have seen two letters from Indian planters wishing to sell their gardens. I wrote back to them for two reasons. The first is, of course, that I could not advise any company in which I was interested to buy, because when things are very cheap the natural thing is that nobody has any money with which to buy; and the second reason is that I did not want to see those Indians ruined. We want plenty of Indians interested in tea when further responsible government is given to that country. I said to them, "Hang on till the middle of April and see if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a preference to Indian tea." I am sure that those two Indians are glad to-day that they have hung on and still see a chance. We have had plenty of crises in tea before. Take the Assam Company. At one time it owned a territory almost as large as the whole of Assam, and had powers almost the same as those of the old East India Company, but there was a time when their £100 shares were selling as low as 2s. 6d., and you could hardly give them away. It is like the rubber industry to-day. The shares of rubber companies may be good things to hand on to your great grandchildren; that is, of course, if the hon. Member for Bridgeton has not nationalised the whole industry before then.
  There have been so many crises in tea, and those companies which have had huge reserves behind them have again and again seen the weaker ones go to the wall. Take 1920, when it was stated by the Indian Government in the Legislative Assembly that the exchange was going to be stabilised at 2s. Admittedly in those days they had not a reserve fund of £150,000,000 with which to stabilise the exchange, and the first thing that happened was that the exchange went up to 2s. 10d., at which it stood for a time, and then back it came to 1s. 3d. You can imagine what the people who were interested in tea were feeling then.

  247
  They did not know from day to day how to carry on, and the weak companies, which were mostly, unfortunately, the Indian companies, went to the wall. In 1931, I can assure this House, 80 per cent. of the tea companies in India were definitely making a loss, and in my opinion there are only 20 per cent. of those companies which will be able to show a profit on 1931 working. It is only those companies that could make really stand-out, fine tea which is bought by the poorer people who are able to make a profit. The hon. Member for West-houghton was talking about 3s. 6d. being a good price to pay for tea. There are people still who are willing to pay 10s. 6d. per lb. for tea, and not wealthy people either, but they are connoisseurs of tea and appreciate a good thing when they see it.
  4.30 p.m.
  The twopence preference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes will enable 70 per cent. of the tea companies in Assam to make a profit in 1932. I admit that there will still be 30 per cent. of them which may make a, loss. One reason is that they own old gardens and gardens which have been planted on soil which is not suitable, or are in districts in Sylhet where the climate is not so good as in Upper Assam, or they have not been looked after in the way that they should be. I know two gardens, one in the Purniah Valley and one in Darjeeling. The first is fit for nothing but a snipe bog and the other only suitable as a grouse moor. If people plant tea in places like that they must expect to make a loss. When the planters in Assam read the good news in the "Statesman" last week, I know the first thing of which they thought was how they could show their gratitude to the British people. The first thing they will do is to make large crops of good tea because the British Empire growers are able to supply every pound of tea that is consumed in these islands and the British Empire. There is no reason to import any Dutch tea at all. Then they will see how many orders for hoes they can place in Birmingham, for pruning knives in Sheffield, for fencing in places like Darlington, for machinery in places like Gainsborough, and for oil engines in Manchester and
  248
  Coventry. Tea planters have been going through bad times during the last two or three years, and they will now be able to replace their worn out agricultural implements with British goods. I know of companies which refuse to accept cheaper foreign goods because they want to place their orders in Britain where they sell their tea.
  There will also be an effect on the Income Tax. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get a good deal more for the Income Tax from those tea companies which are registered in England than he did last year. If, however, the preference is reduced to a penny, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, I can assure the Government that there will be no extra Income Tax to be expected. There might be another 10 per cent. of the companies able to make a profit in 1932, but it will not help the situation in Assam very much. Another thing which the planters can do is to use all their efforts to encourage good feeling between this country and India. I can assure the Committee that the Indian planters have a good record on both the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly for doing their best to work with the Indian peoples. It does not mean that they agree at once with anything that is proposed by the official Government. I remember how once in Assam they stood up for the ryots who were getting their property and crops destroyed by wild elephants. These things do not come before this House, but such events are vital and commonplace in Assam, for elephants are a monopoly of the Government of India and the Government of Assam make a good deal of money out of them. The interests of the planters and the ryots are identical, and the planters championed the cause of the peasants against the Government of Assam on this occasion. I am glad to say that the Government of Assam gave way gracefully, but I hope that the British Government will not give way on this Amendment.
  We have to thank a number of Viceroys for what they have done for the tea industry. Lord Curzon was not appreciated when he lived, but he was the first man to point it out to the tea planters what they should do to en-

  249
  courage their markets. He said, "You are talking about markets all over the world, but here is a fine market in India," and he encouraged and helped the planters to subscribe a farthing per pound of tea in order to undertake propaganda for Indian tea all over the world. They spent over £1,000,000 in advertising tea in America, Australia, in these islands, and on the Continent. Our competitors the Dutch were asked to come in, but they refused to subscribe. They said, "We are doing very nicely; you are doing all the advertising and spending all the money for us. You have created a very fine market for us in the British Isles, and why should we subscribe a farthing?" As a matter of fact, they lived up to their reputation as a nation that has always been inclined to give too little and to ask too much. I have done my best to give a frank and fair summary of the whole situation. I have not tried to gloss over it in any way. If the preference is not given, it will mean the ruin of at least 40 per cent. of the tea gardens in Assam. The measures that are proposed by the Government have created light hearts among my friends the planters in India. I know of one man, a Scotsman, who wrote to me and said, "I have a garden in Sylhet. I am under notice to go, but the proprietors are holding on until the 19th April to see if the preference comes." If the preference is given, this good fellow will be able to hold his job and send his wife and two children home to Scotland, for his children to be educated there. That is one of many instances that could be given. I hope that in view of what I have said the hon. Member for Westhoughton will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. TINKER: We are now on the practical side of the Budget. Yesterday we were discussing the theoretical side of finance. I am bound to confess that I am to-day on more familiar ground than I was yesterday, because I can never understand matters of high finance properly, and I was not much better off after yesterday's Debate. We have had two speeches to-day, one from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Khys Davies), who gave a practical speech from the consumers' point of view, and another from the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), who has given
  250
  an extremely interesting account of the conditions surrounding the growing of tea. I could not follow a remark which he made that the more you put on the natives the more loyal they become. It follows, if that be true, that if we give them the preference they will be disloyal.
  Sir W. SMILES: I was talking about the European planters.
  Mr. TINKER: The same thing would apply to the planters. I cannot follow the point. At present we are consuming Empire tea to the extent of 80 per cent. of our consumption. I understand that this duty will not go to the planters, but will be collected by the State and will go to- the State. The £3,600,000 which is estimated is needed to help the Budget. The preference is designed to get a greater proportion of the Empire-grown tea consumed in this country. I do not see how it will make so many more plantations more prosperous as the hon. and gallant Member suggested, for it is only a question of a greater consumption of Empire tea in this country and consequently more tea grown in Assam. None of this tax will go to the planters, and therefore it becomes a question to us on these benches of direct as against indirect taxation.
  Although many people outside have not understood the Budget in its vast implications, they are certainly alive to the meaning of the tax on tea. When I went home last week I was met by certain housewives who asked me when the duty will be put on, because on Friday they said they had had to pay it on their tea. It must have been Empire tea, because the extra was 1d. on half-a-pound. They wanted to know if this was the kind of National Government that they had supported, and they are now wondering if they voted right in voting for the National Government. The Tea Duty brings home to them what the National Government stands for. No one expected that the first Budget brought in by the National Government would put back what we thought had been removed for ever.
  This tax was taken off by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and it is now put back again by another Tory Chancellor. It brings us up against the question which must dominate the House of Commons at some time or another; that is, the relative position of

  251
  direct and indirect taxation. It is true that the Chancellor is short of money, but he could have turned in another direction to balance his Budget rather than put the burden on the backs of the poor. There is no getting away from the fact that tea is consumed in greater quantities in poor families than in rich families. Therefore, the tax does not hit all equally. That is our point of contention in this Budget. We say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no right to introduce indirect taxation which bears hardly on poor families, and we are moving this Amendment in order to test the House. We want to see whether hon. Members on the other side will follow the lead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they agree that this is the way to balance the Budget, that is, by putting the burden on the backs of the poor, they will support the Chancellor; but, if they agree with us that this tax will hit the poor and that the Budget should be balanced in another way, they will vote for the Amendment. The Division on this point will be a real test of the attitude of the National Government supporters to the needs of the poorer classes in the community.
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure whether the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) was a maiden speech or not, but may I be allowed to say for myself what a great pleasure it was to listen to a speech from one who has such an acute and deep practical knowledge of his subject; and perhaps he might allow me to say one more thing. He spoke of the thrift of the Scottish tea planter abroad, but as I listened to him I thought not only of the virtue of thrift but of that self help which he himself stands for in a quite unusual degree and which must make him a distinguished son of his great progenitor. The point with which I wish to deal was raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) during the latter part of his speech. First he gave us a highly-coloured picture of what the effect of a duty of 2d. would be, and then, laying on the colours in a still more lurid style, said he was certain—or at least it was most probable—that the capitalist would take care to see that the price of Empire-grown tea was raised by the full
  252
  amount of the 4d. duty put upon foreign tea. The seat of the hon. Member is in Lancashire, but I am sure he must have drawn upon an imagination inherited from the gallant little Principality before making that statement.
  What conceivable grounds has he for endeavouring to frighten this House and the country by such a statement? In the first place, it is one of the duties of the Advisory Tariff Committee to point out if duties are being used to increase improperly the price of commodities to the consumer, and the report we have just received from them, whether we criticise it in other respects or not, shows that they are perfectly alive to that duty, at any rate. But even supposing that should not be the case, what ground has he for making that kind of misstatement? In the first place, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn will agree, the number of tea planters is by no means a limited one. The possibility of all the tea planters in India coming together in a cartel to put up the price of tea artificially by another 2d., doing away with all competition among themselves, is, for all practical purposes, inconceivable; and if it were true of India, the hon. Member must recollect that Ceylon is also a great producer of tea, which would make it even more inconceivable.
  I was only aroused to speak by that statement, which was put with such confidence before the House, but I wonder whether the hon. Member has paid any attention to the course of the prices of all the great vegetable products during the past 10 years. The history of that period is littered with unsuccessful attempts to restrict the production of or artificially to raise the prices for cotton, sugar, rubber, wheat and coffee, even when the attempt has been undertaken not by individual producers but by Governments. Up to now all those attempts have met with nothing but the most—I will not call it lamentable—absolute failure in each case. In view of that record, the idea that the Assam and Ceylon tea planters, or the merchants in London, will be able to frustrate the Tariff Advisory Committee by putting up the price by an additional 2d. passes the credulity, I should have thought, of the most credulous elector in this kingdom. It is like one of

  253
  those figments of the fancy with which nurses try to frighten children. If that is the kind of opposition to be advanced against this endeavour to give some help to a body of planters who have tried to uphold the British tradition in our great dependencies, whether in India or Ceylon, during a time of great depression and hardship, I trust it will meet with the ill success which it deserves.
  Mr. PRICE: I feel that the House must consider this problem from another point of view than that of giving preference to India. I was interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), and should have been more interested still if this had been the occasion of a lecture upon tea plantations and the promotion of syndicates and companies; but what we are considering now is the imposition of new taxation, laying duties of 2d. and 4d. per 1b. on tea. This Amendment is a definite protest against the direction which new taxation is taking. Why has this duty been imposed? In dealing with the financial position of the country the Chancellor of the Exchequer definitely stated in his Budget speech that direct taxation had reached its limits, and that other resources would have to be found from which to draw the money with which to carry on the services of the country, but surely we cannot be asked to believe that our finances are so bad that further imposts must be laid on the poorest people in the country in the shape of taxation on food. As the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said, during the election no Member of the Government ever told the electorate that this would be the policy of the National Government; but ever since November they have been introducing Measures which have lowered the purchasing power of the general population. In two or three instances they have imposed new taxes on food, and now they are imposing taxation to the extent of £3,500,000 a year on what is the common drink of the poorest people.
  With us it is not a question of Imperial Preferences. What concerns us is that alongside their action in reducing wages and reducing unemployment pay the Government are now, by this taxation on food and on tea, making a still further attack on the incomes of the poor—of the pen-
  254
  sioners. The poorest widow in the land is called upon to contribute towards this £3,500,000. Hon. Members ought to face the position frankly and honestly, and ask themselves whether there is any need to seek further revenue for the maintenance of the national services by taxing the poorest people in the land. We are not prepared to admit that the time has arrived to stop the imposition of further direct taxation, and, instead, to put all new taxation indirectly on the poorest people. We say that this duty will affect the poorest families in the land to the tune of nearly 1s. a week. The hon. Member who opposed this Amendment admitted that the national consumption of tea in this country is nearly 10 lb. per head per annum.
  He went on to say that this additional duty would not interfere with the general housekeeping expenses, but I suggest seriously that this new imposition will affect the poorest people, and that there was no need to impose taxation on tea. There are plenty of other sources of taxation in this country without going to the poorest in the land. Men who are on transitional payments and receiving, in some cases, less than 10s. a week to maintain a wife and children, will bear some of this additional taxation, and we protest against that strongly, and would emphasise the point that we do not agree that this time has arrived when all further taxation must be applied indirectly. There are plenty of riches in this country to bear all the taxation that is necessary. [An HON. MEMBER: "The co-operative societies!"] The National Government ought to be ashamed of themselves. First they put a tax on our bread, and now they are going to put a duty on tea. If that is all they can do, if that is their only policy, then this Government of national leaders, this pool, as we were told, of the brains and intelligence of the whole universe, ought to get out and let somebody else have a chance.
  Mr. PIKE: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Ehys Davies) in moving this Amendment stated, as an excuse on behalf of his party, "It is the best means we know of opposing the duty on tea." The very best means the Labour party can suggest for opposing a duty on tea is to submit an Amendment to reduce the duty from 4d. to 2d. In all honesty we are entitled to ask why, if this duty is iniquitous, if it is robbing the poorest of the

  255
  poor, the Labour party do not have the courage to go the whole hog and oppose any duty on tea at all?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. PIKE: The Leader of the Opposition and his supporters now cheer the sentiment which I have placed in their hands as propaganda, but why did they not think of it before? It is no good saying they did not, because they did— it is perfectly obvious they did; but they were afraid of the implication that they were also opposed to giving that impetus to colonial trade which will be supplied by the preference of 2d. Hon. Members opposite must go forward honestly as the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) has suggested if they are to carry this call into the depths of the country. It is said that this duty will put on every cup of tea consumed by every poor person a charge which means nothing more nor less than a payment for the cost of the last War, and a payment in preparation for future wars. This is amplified by the suggestion that the policy of the Government in this respect is so to increase indirect taxation in every direction that when the next war arrives the great mass of the public will have been so drained of their resources that their position and power will be reduced to one of complete starvation, and they will then make good fodder for the guns. This was the call during the last War, and it fully complies with what underlies the statements which have been made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton.
  While it might be true that the Government have found it necessary to impose additional indirect taxation, it is palpably true that it has been a painful operation to them to have to apply it. That application has been necessary, not because of their own inefficiency or lack of constructive ideas or of courage in facing the problems of this country, but because of the gross inefficiencies and mismanagement of the Administration that preceded them prior to last autumn. Had we been able to get rid of the Administration of hon. Members opposite a little sooner we should probably have been in the happy position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Con-
  256
  servative Government when he completely abolished the duty on tea. I should imagine that the Government of to-day, together with the majority of hon. Members who support them, are anxiously awaiting the time when the Tea Duty can be abolished entirely.
  It has been suggested that, in the case of the average family of six persons, the net cost of this duty will work out at 35s. per annum. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), who spoke so well and so informatively, pointed out that from every pound of tea it is possible to make 150 cups of tea. I have made a rough calculation, and I find that that means that a pound of tea actually produces 4i gallons of liquid food, or liquid sustenance, and that 35s. per annum roughly would provide each family with 2 lbs. of tea per week, which would mean exactly nine gallons of tea per week per family of six persons, equal to an average consumption per member per day of two pints. If we accept the calculation of the hon. Member for Hemsworth the total consumption would actually be four pints of tea per person per day. No doubt there are persons who drink four pints of tea per day, but I should imagine that the doctor who examined their livers would no doubt say "that the ailment of cirrhosis from which you suffer is due to no other cause than excessive tea drinking." If for the purpose of securing four pints of tea per person per day a person only pays 35s. a year, I think it is an exceedingly cheap form of refreshment to enjoy throughout the year. Taking this estimate, may I point out that hon. Members are considering not only the question of Empire tea but also the question of foreign tea, and if the people only bought Empire tea in preference to foreign tea the advantage would be much greater.
  Personally, I think that this preference to Colonial tea planters will result in a great addition to the present demand not only for tea machinery and for British tools used in the tea trade, but for British labour necessary for all those factors which go to make the tea-growing industry practical and effective. In Sheffield, we look anxiously forward to the development of the tea trade with the Colonies, because we provide a large

  257
  part of the machinery which is necessary for tea industry. We provide that industry with most of the tools which are necessary on the tea plantations, and I assure hon. Members that that demand has been considerably reduced, not only during the past four or five years, but during the past eight or 10 years, and it is only by the restoration of this duty, which will afford better facilities and give a new incentive to our Colonial tea planters, that we are likely to restore that loss of trade. The difference in the cost of tea to the people who make those tools and machinery will be infinitesimal compared with the regularity of wages and employment which the Colonies will be able to give in return for the preference given under the Tea Duty.
  What amazed me more than anything else was the questionable statement made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton that the retailers of this country, in reference to the duty chargeable on their tea of 4d. per lb., will not be content with 4d. He asked the House to imagine a lb. of tea at 2s. 7d., and asked: "Do you think a retailer will make the price 2s. l1d.?" He suggested that the retailer would say that it would be easier to fix the price at 3s. Does the hon. Member for Westhoughton suggest that this duty is placing in the hands of the tea retailers of this country a method by which the public are to be robbed? A statement of that description demands, in justice to the persons concerned, evidence of proof. I sincerely trust that the retailers of tea, whether in half ounces, in quarter lbs., lbs., or 2 lbs. in the Westhoughton Division of Lancashire will take a note of the aspersion which their representative has thrown upon retailers of tea across the Floor of this House. I would like to ask whether the hon. Member for Westhoughton, in making that statement, had in mind the fact that one of the greatest retailers of tea in this country is the co-operative stores? Was the hon. Member speaking from practical knowledge of that great organisation when he made that charge? Would the hon. Member directly throw that slur, or directly throw that same allegation at the co-operative stores in the same way as he throws it at the private traders? If not, why not? I know why not.
  258
  One of the greatest advantages of this duty will come from the fact that there will be a feeling in the country generally that everybody is paying their share of the burdens that are still necessary to carry us through to the avenues of industrial prosperity. It has been a bone of contention that the tea consumer in this country has been long untaxed, and I believe that when he is personally applied to upon this point it will be found that the tea consumer is just as anxious to pay his whack of the national cost of taxation as the beer drinker has been to meet his liability. I think we are justified in saying that this duty is a remedy for the omission of the Tea Duty in past Budgets especially in the three preceding Budgets presented to this House.
  We know that there is a little feeling against us in India and other Colonies, but the development of the tea plantations must considerably enhance and increase facilities for trade, and that will be a great advantage to our Colonies and ourselves. The Indian people are extremely anxious to arrive at as good an understanding with us as they possibly can, and I can think of no better way of accomplishing this than by offering them greater facilities for trading with us, and a preference on Indian tea is a step in the right direction. With regard to what has been said about hon. Members on this side not having had the courage to advance these views on the Tea Duty during the last election, it may be interesting to hon. Members opposite to hear that in the Attercliffe Division, which is a large industrial constituency, I not only openly advocated a tax on tea, but I advocated the complete prohibition of any article coming into this country provided it could be shown that we could produce it ourselves to our own advantage. I have no regret that the Government have taken this step in regard to the Tea Duty, and I do not think that the people of this country will feel that they are in any way being unduly taxed. The Tea Duty is not a tax which differentiates between class and class. So far as I know people are mostly moderate consumers of tea, but, if a person with £ 10,000 a year chooses to consume tea which is retailed at 4s., 3s. or 3s. 6d. per lb., that is his business, and he may get a certain amount of satisfac-

  259
  tion from the fact that he can afford to pay 4s. a 1b. for tea. Nevertheless, the rich man can only drink one cup of tea at once, and consume a certain quantity, and he drinks it in the same quantities as people who can only afford to buy tea at 1s. 7d. or 1s. 9d. per lb. To suggest that this is a class issue is propaganda of the lowest type. It might go down at the street corner, but it will never go down in the House of Commons or throughout the Press of the country. I believe that this is an honest attempt to distribute fairly and equally an indirect form of taxation over the whole community, and I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their Amendment, or, failing that, I hope that the Government will resist it whole-heartedly.
  Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has, I am sure, interested the House. Indeed, he has impressed the House so much that the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who was sitting beside him, has left his place and gone out of the Chamber. The House always enjoys someone who addresses it so vividly as the hon. Member has done, and some of my friends here were saying that they thought they recognised the accent. I am not so sure that the hon. Gentleman has not preached at the street corner in his time.
  Mr. PIKE: I am glad you say you are not sure.
  Mr. LAWSON: From the hon. Gentleman's speech, and from those of others who have spoken against this Amendment, one might gather that, tea being the cheapest and the best drink in the world, those people who drink it ought to feel that they are highly honoured by having to pay another 4d. a pound for their tea. The hon. Member for Attercliffe has made an attack upon the abolition of the Tea Duty some years ago, and I gathered that that was also the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), whose contribution to the Debate was an interesting one, because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) said, he based his case on facts. We are always interested to hear anyone who speaks with intimate knowledge of the realities
  260
  of the situation from his own point of view, but the House will appreciate that there are those of us who speak from just as intimate an acquaintance with realities. Here is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said, in his Budget speech on the 15th April, 1929:
  "There is no other comfort which enters so largely into the budget of the cottage home, or the still humbler budgets of the old, the weak, and the poor… Javanese tea enters to a great extent into the cheapest blends used by the poorest people. To maintain for preferential reasons a tax on this foreign tea would therefore exclude from the benefits of remission the very class for whose sake, most of all, this serious sacrifice of revenue is being made."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April. 1929; cols. 63–4, Vol. 227.]
  That is the whole case against this special tax. It is true that tea is a cheap drink, but the question of its cheapness depends upon the angle from which you look at it. It is not so dear to pay 4d. a pound extra if you are paying for the whole pound, though that is bad enough, but when you live in a home where tea has to be bought in pennyworths, it is a different proposition altogether, and it is not so cheap for people of that description. Therefore, we say that, by this extra duty of 4d. a pound, a penalty is being placed upon the poorest of the poor, and, the poorer they are, the more they have to pay and the more they suffer. It is true that the poorest people drink the most tea. I remember, as one of a very large family, when we had to drink tea to fill up; it was a sort of compensation for something else that we ought to have had.
  Major SALMON: Would the hon. Member kindly say if he bought it in pennyworths, or in half-pounds, or in quarter-pounds?
  Mr. LAWSON: I am not ashamed to say that we generally had to get it in pennyworths, or coppers' worth, and I say that such families suffer most from a tax of this kind. It is all very well to say that this is going to bring work indirectly, because of the preference. The hon. Member for Attercliffe said that he went down to one of the very poorest divisions in this country during the election and suggested and supported a tax on tea.
  Mr. PIKE: I advocated it.
  Mr. LAWSON: I hope that the candidates in Attercliffe will take note of that statement. I would say to the hon. Member, however, that the conditions of the General Election were not conditions in which it was possible to get serious consideration of anything, as Wakefield has recently shown. Indeed, a gentleman on the other side said in the country the other day that in some cases the Government could have put up a sack of potatoes and it would have been accepted as a Member. I understand that the hon. Member for Attercliffe had a minority vote, and I would suggest to him that, if he makes another speech or two of that kind in this House, and if his speeches are reported to the people of Attercliffe, his vote will be such a minority at the next election that he will not be here at all.
  Mr. PIKE: To me all opponents are comrades.
  Mr. LAWSON: That goes to show that the hon. Gentleman has been at the street corner in other interests.
  Mr. PIKE: No.
  Mr. LAWSON: The point has been made by Members on this side that we have to add this tax of 4d. a pound on tea to all the other taxes that have been imposed by the Government, and a1l the other penalties which have been placed upon the people, directly and indirectly, during the last few months. Hon. Members opposite have almost the same kind of cynicism that was exhibited by the statesman who said long ago, "If you tax the people indirectly, you can tax the shirts off their backs without their knowing it." That is true up to a certain point, but, at the rate at which the Government are going, it is clear that they are not even deceiving the people. They are getting ½d. on the loaf, they are getting 4d. a pound on tea, they are getting it on sugar, they are getting it on reduced unemployment benefit, and, with their various tariffs and economies of one kind and another, it is clear that the net result is going to be a real reduction of wages for the great mass of the people. Let us be frank about it. Is not that what hon. Gentlemen opposite stand for? I should like to hear that denied by any Member of the Government. The position of the Government
  262
  opposite has always been the position of the Federation of British Industries— that they dare not reduce wages, but that what they want is a redistribution of the burden of taxation.
  We have been asked why we do not suggest taking the whole 4d. off tea, instead of only 2d., but this is only a sort of second line of defence; hon. Members will get the opportunity of voting for the 4d. as well as the 2d. When we suggested a reduction of 2d., we thought that we might get some reasonable consideration from Members of the House, but, apparently, that will not be given us. The Government are pursuing the known Conservative policy, the policy which was advocated long ago in pamphlets, leaflets and booklets by the industrialists of the country—the policy of reducing wages by increasing taxation. I wonder how much longer the Liberals are going to stand this kind of thing. They do not attend here very much; they seem almost afraid of attending. They are throwing up a sort of smoke-screen about the defence of the nation by the National Government, and behind it they are enabling the Government to get back to a whole system of indirect taxation and tariffs, to a state of society in which the wealthy have their heel more and more upon the necks of the people. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been quite straight and frank about their policy. As I said the other night, there was not the slightest doubt about it at the election. If Lord Snowden had any doubts about it, he was the only person who had. It must have been clear that the Conservatives were going to carry out their policy of laying as large a burden of taxation as they dare upon the great mass of the people, of standing for the rich against the poor, of standing for the employer against the worker. [Interruption.] Yes, that is what I came here to say; that is what I said when I was in the pit.
  Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: May I venture to suggest to the hon. Member that he said at the election all that he is saying now, and that it did not make any difference, for very few of his party came back?
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. LAWSON: Hon. Members have an unfortunate habit of saying and re-saying all that they said at the General Election, but I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that quite a number of

  263
  the things that he said at the last General Election he very likely will not say at the next. We say that this tax on tea is only a piece of the whole policy of the Government, which is to relieve the rich at the expense of the poor, to strengthen the employer at the expense of the worker and to reassert the old balance, to keep the mass of the people in their place so that the country will go on in the good old Conservative way, giving wealth and ease and comfort to a comparatively small number of people while the great mass of the people have to bear the burden of the ills and the troubles of the national life. We are not under any misunderstanding as to what this taxation means. It is part of a whole policy. I repeat that I wonder how much longer the Liberals are going to stand this kind of policy. We will give them a chance to vote against the 2d. and we will also give them a chance to vote against the 4d. We expect hon. Members opposite to pursue this policy. The right hon. Gentleman knows enough about the philosophy of the people to know that, although he may be able to answer across this Box, he cannot answer himself effectively.
  Major SALMON: In listening to the hon. Gentleman, one must be struck by the unreal way in which the Opposition have taken part in this Debate. They start with the premise that the whole of the 4d. is a duty on the tea that is consumed in the country, whereas, as a matter of fact, 80 per cent. of the tea that comes here is only going to be charged 2d.
  Mr. LAWSON: Was the hon. and gallant Gentleman here when it was said that the planters themselves would get at least ¾d. a lb. more?
  Major SALMON: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the way in which tea is dealt with. The price that the producer will get will entirely depend upon the quality of the tea that is sold at auction. To suggest that the public are going to be called upon to pay any largely increased price for tea is, in my view, a mistake. I believe you will find in practice that the price will not alter to any material extent, because they will provide the tea at a price that the public can afford.
  264
  After all, you have to have regard to what the public will pay when you are selling a competitive article, and there is no commodity sold in the country that is more competitive than tea. When it is suggested that huge profits are made on the sale of tea, I ask the leaders of the Opposition to consult their friends, the co-operatives, and get private information, and they will be surprised to find that the profits of tea are very small indeed. When it is suggested that this will cost the working classes such a sum that it will seriously affect their budgets, the hon. Gentleman forgets that, until a few years ago, we had a much higher duty than is now proposed, and I think it was a great mistake that the duty was ever taken off. Tea is being sold wholesale to-day at prices which are not economic to the producer. I have often heard it said by the Opposition that it was essential that commodities should be sold at such a figure that they were at least remunerative to the producer. Did they not set up a Commission to deal with the selling of coal so that they could get a much higher price for it?
  Mr. BATEY: We did not get it.
  Major SALMON: Because you tried to do something that was neither businesslike nor economic. Had you gone the right way about it, you would probably have got it. If you try to amalgamate a number of concerns that do not want to be amalgamated, you are bound to make a failure of it. If hon. Members went into the facts before making these wild statements as to the effect of the duty, they would find that there is no justification for them. As regards the general question of trying to make the rich richer by tariffs, they seem to think they are the only representatives of the people who are really concerned with the welfare of the country. Notwithstanding the fact that they tried to misrepresent what the National Government proposed at the last election, and to mislead the public, the public were not hoodwinked, the proof of which is the smallness of their numbers now. I do not think for a moment that the British public are going to be hoodwinked by the statements that one has listened to to-day. I believe tariffs are the only means of balancing the Budget, and that is a very important thing indeed if we are to restore industry and reduce unemployment. I do not be-

  265
  lieve that a duty on tea or sugar will be to the detriment of the working classes and I do not believe it will have any material effect on their budgets.
  Mr. COCKS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that there are no profits in tea. His speech reminds me very much of similar utterances that we hear from coal owners, that there are no profits in coal. In both cases the Death Duties tell a different tale. After hearing the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, I am more confirmed than ever in my view that the outcome of this is that the poor tea drinker is going to be thrown to the lions. The speaker who preceded him on the other side seemed to have forgotten that we are discussing an Amendment, and an Amendment is not a direct negative. In order to make it an Amendment, we have moved to reduce the tax, but we intend on the main question to vote to abolish the duty, which shows that the hon. Member's point, like his position in this House, is the result of a mistake. The Government, which is represented here by the Financial Secretary, seems to take the greatest pleasure in inflicting upon the poorest of the poor every indignity and every penalty they can possibly conceive. By the cuts in unemployment benefit they are keeping people half starved and by the means test they are robbing them of their self respect, and now, by simultaneously taxing both their beer and their tea, they are depriving them not only of the convivial delights of the hostelry but of the domestic felicities of the fireside. I read a description of tea the other day by a writer of the eighteenth century: He said:
  "Tea, thou soft, thou sober, sage and venerable liquid, thou female tongue-running smile-smoothing, heart-opening, wink-tippling cordial, to whose glorious insipidity I owe the happiest moment of my life."
  And he concluded with the words "let me fall prostrate," which seems to show that tea in those days was a little stronger than it is now. Surely it is beyond argument that this is a tax upon the comfort of the poor. We have the very eloquent words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on the point, so eloquent that they have already been quoted twice by hon. Members in front of me who have robbed me of the pleasure of repeating
  266
  them. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman say it was a relief to the humbler budgets of the old, the weak and the poor, but the present President of the Board of Trade, in a very convincing speech in favour of taking off the duty, said that by taking it off we were:
  "freeing the budget of the poorest classes from a charge which ought to have been abolished years ago."
  We have heard about Java tea. I have here a report issued by the Imperial Economic Committee which shows that Java tea is the cheapest, and is only half the cost of the best Ceylon tea. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said:
  "Javanese tea enters to a great extent into the cheapest blends used by the poorest people."
  In the Budget speech in which he removed the duty the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping waxed quite lyrical. He even burst into poetry. He said there had been a tea duty ever since the days of Queen Elizabeth who, I believe, was the originator of the custom of drinking beer for breakfast. He further said that although this tax had been there since the days of Elizabeth, the reign of George V would witness its total, immediate and, he believed, final abolition. As usual he was mistaken. He did not foresee that there would one day be a National Government which did not include him. He did not think the days would come when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would re-impose the duty with the sneering approval of Lord Snowden, the self-appointed apostle of the free breakfast table.
  Lastly, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the famous lines from the "Rape of the Lock":
  "Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey.
  Dost sometimes counsel take and sometimes tea."
  I suggest that it is time for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government now to take counsel from this side of the House and to leave our tea alone.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The Debate has occasionally touched the immediate tax which is before us, but it has, on the whole, ranged more widely to realms where I do not propose to follow it. We

  267
  have to deal not with the past but with the present, and, in particular, the raising of revenue sufficient to carry on the State for the year. No one has made any suggestion as to how we should deal with the Budget deficiency which would result, if, in fact, we remitted the taxation as suggested in the Amendment. We hope to get from the tax £3,600,000 this year, and £4,100,000 in a full year, and the proposed remission would mean that we should need to find just over £1,000,000 in some other form this year, and £2,000,000 in a full year. The suggestions which were made by the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the duty are not fully borne out in the experience either of the House or of the country. He suggested that the reduction would be as high as 8d. per family per week, and worked out the total cost to the family at something like 35s. a year. As far as our calculations go, they would indicate a cost to a family of four or five people of less than 8s. in the year, or an actual sum of 7s. 4d.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear in mind the point which I tried to make, that the working class are very heavy tea drinkers? I do not think that it is fair to average the cost of the duty over the whole of the families of the country, because he includes the better-to-do families where tea is not used in such great quantities.
  Major ELLIOT: The numbers of the well-to-do families, according to the calculations which I have so often heard the hon. Member make, are so trivial that it would not seriously affect the great number of households in the land which he assures us continually are those of workers who have been reduced to beggary by the successive assaults of successive Governments ever since the days of Queen Elizabeth. The House should remember that the tax has been paid by everyone in the land during the lifetime of the youngest among us, with the exception of the last two or three years. The suggestion that some vast burden is now about to be put upon the shoulders of the working classes could only be agreed to if it were also agreed that some vast burden was lifted from the working classes three years ago when the tax was removed. I failed to see any processions of rejoicing, any flags being
  268
  hoisted, or any grateful deputations from the co-operative societies or workers going to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when the tax was removed. Whether, in fact, it proved a boon to the workers or not is very difficult to say, and to bring forward exaggerated claims as to the injury which it is about to cause to this country weakens instead of strengthens the facts, because it cannot be claimed that a burden of 7s. 4d. in the year on a family of four or five people is a burden which is going to crush down into beggary people who would otherwise be living happy and prosperous lives.
  Mr. McENTEE: It would be doing so to you if you were getting transitional benefit.
  Major ELLIOT: When the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) speaks of transitional benefit, he is in fact speaking of a subject to which he has not applied his mind in connection with this case, because it is a question of needs payments, and if the needs increase it is legitimate for the payments to be increased also.
  Mr. McENTEE: Most of them are almost on a starvation level, and you know it.
  Major ELLI0T: I do not intend to enter upon a controversy with the hon. Member for West Walthamstow across the Floor of the House on this occasion. I am saying, what everybody knows, that to describe a certain reduction in the purchasing power of those to whom the taxation is applied as being the difference between beggary and prosperity is the greatest exaggeration, and is not borne out by anything either in practice or in theory.
  The other argument brought forward by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was that the taxation will not merely be a burden in itself, but the trader will add to the taxation a substantial sum and thereby make a profit upon the tax. I will quote this against him when he moves, as subsequently he will move, a reduction in the Entertainments Duty. Does he really think that the cinemas of the land greeted with joy the imposition of a tax on the ground that they would be able to increase their charges and that

  269
  it would be a source of profit to the cinema industry in the country? Not at all. They complained, and with some justice, that not only were they not able to make a profit but that they were not even able to take the whole of the tax from their patrons. Therefore the tax did not even completely fall upon the patrons of those entertainments, let alone the industry itself making a profit out of the duty which had been levied.
  The quotations as to the incidence of direct and indirect taxation are only brought into relation with this tax by the hon. Gentleman by supposing that all the tariff duties fall directly upon the commodities used by the poorest in the land, and only by the poorest in the land. Surely he will not contend that the duties to which the tariffs extend are levied on substances which are consumed in large quantities by the poor people of the land. Alas, he does not explain the continuous fall in the cost-of-living index which has gone on so that to-day the cost-of-living index is lower than it was when the National Government came in, and far lower than it was when the Labour Government was in office in 1924. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) gave interesting figures of a 29 per cent. fall in commodity prices, of a 11½ per cent. fall in retail prices, and of a 3½ per cent. fall in wages. So far from the contention of hon. and right hon. Members on the other side that there had been a reduction in real wages since 1928 being correct, those figures actually demonstrate a rise of real wages of 8 per cent. I do not wish to push any of those calculations to the extreme, but that it has been the pursuit of the present Government to grind down the poor people and to levy taxation upon them is disproved by the figures themselves. And the cost-of-living index is certainly a figure one can bring up when one is challenged as to the policy of the Government being to levy heavier burdens on the poor people than those from which they had to suffer before.
  The duty is imposed for the purposes of raising revenue. The preference is given for the purpose of encouraging trade with Ceylon and India. Their point of view has been most eloquently expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) in a
  270
  speech to which Members on all sides of the House have paid tribute. It is a point of view which ought seriously to be taken into account by hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House. When the duties were on, we at first obtained 90 per cent. of our tea from Empire sources. When the duties were taken off the percentage fell to 81 from Empire sources. We still derive over three-quarters of our tea consumption from sources within the Empire, and that enables us confidently to anticipate that the rise in the cost of tea will not be more than a 2¼d. rise, and perhaps not even that. If the drop had been allowed to continue so that it had fallen to 50 per cent. drawn from Empire sources, or 40 per cent. or lower, it might easily have been that we should have found ourselves far more at the mercy of producers outside the Empire than we are to-day, and therefore in a much weaker position with regard to our supplies of. tea.
  There are many Amendments which have to be considered which raise many practical points. The amount of duty which is to be charged will, I hope, be determined by the Committee in the Division to which I hope we shall now be able to proceed. But there is the question of the Excise Duty on stocks of tea which are held, and other practical points which the trading community of this country, and particularly the trading communities of the great multiple stores, and the co-operative societies, are most anxious to have elucidated. Therefore, I hope that the House, after the considerable, interesting and informed discussion which has taken place, will now be able to go to a Division and allow us to pass on to the further Amendments.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I did not intend to take part in the Debate until I heard the remarks of the Financial Secretary. It seems to me that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has forgotten, or really does not understand, how the working class live. I have been to Sheffield. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike), and a very good contribution it was, but I do not believe that he really understands the life of the steel and iron workers of this country.
  Mr. PIKE: I live there.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have been there. I want to impress the following position upon the Financial Secretary. I have worked before the furnaces in the iron and steel industry for 20 years. I can remember the time, even when I went to Sheffield, when 20 or 30 years ago there was far more beer drinking than there is to-day. The working classes now drink tea instead of beer. You have to remember that the people working in the heavy industries and in the mines have to get up at five or half-past five o'clock in the morning, and that the first thing to which they look forward is a. cup of tea. The matter does not end there. The wife has to get up at the same time as the miner or the steel worker—I do not know what happens in the cotton industry, but perhaps the position is the same—and the first thing she has to do is to make a fresh pot of tea in order to fill the can of the miner, the tinplater or the steel worker, which he takes with him to work. Tea is the drink he takes with him. The wife then has to make another pot of tea for the children before they go to school. But it does not end there. There may be men living in the same family working on three different shifts. One of them may finish at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. If he likes a glass of ale, he may have one when he gets home to dinner, but the man who has to work from 2 to 10 must have his can of tea to take to the works. The same thing happens on the 10 to 6 shift. There probably is as much spent in tea in a working-class house in the heavy industries as there is spent on bread. There is a tax on bread, and now an extra tax is being imposed on tea. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) has left. He would realise this economic point. You are going to place a tax of £3,000,000 on the tea drinkers of the country. If that £3,000,000 is to be spent on tea in working-class families, it means that they have £3,000,000 less to spend on something else. Therefore, instead of creating more employment we shall create less employment in the industries where that £3,000,000 would have been spent. If we take it that the working-class people are able to afford to pay 2s. a 1b. for tea and the rich classes are able to afford 10s. a lb., it
  272
  means that the working class are going to be taxed 4d. per lb., or 1s. 8d. on 10s. worth of tea, as against 4d. per lb. that the rich will have to pay on their tea at 10s. a lb. I am not making a debating point of it, but I do hope that when the next Amendment is discussed, the Financial Secretary will keep the point in mind.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I would not have intervened but for certain remarks made by the Financial Secretary. He is always a very close debater, but he shows the characteristics of his race in attempting to ride off sometimes on rather shallow arguments. I want to re-enforce the remarks made by my hon. Friend in regard to the Tea Duty. It is not only a question of the miners or of the steel smelters, but of the millions of men engaged in other trades who have to leave their homes early in the morning and who drink tea. Hon. Members will have seen men working on the roads, at their midday meals; in the majority of cases they have a can of tea. That is the usual thing. That has been my observation in the early days in the building trade. The average working-class family consumes more tea pro rata than the people who are better off. That is very natural. I do not blame the other people for drinking less tea. People who drink tea drink it not so much because they like it, but because it is the best that they can get. Moreover, it helps to pay a tax. It is something to be borne by people who are driven to that particular kind of liquid nourishment.
  With regard to the size of the tax, it may not run to 34s. per annum. It may be only, as the right hon. Gentleman said, about 8s. per annum, but it is not merely the fact that it is only 8s. per annum that counts. We have to remember that a tax of this kind is one of a number of small taxes. There is the tax on tea, the tax on cinemas, the tax on tobacco, and the tax on this, that and the other. It is the cumulative effect that counts. One can pile on small taxes, and it is the total sum of the small taxes that become oppressive. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the prices of commodities going down and that, therefore, the tax does not matter. Is not that rather due to the fact that we have not yet reached the bottom of the fall in world prices? If that is true, is it

  273
  not also true that prices would be lower except for the tax? If we have not reached the bottom of the fall in world prices, then the tax retains the price at a higher level than would otherwise be the case. I want hon. Members to remember that point when they talk their Protective stuff and suggest that these things do not matter.
  These taxes are coming on while wages are continually falling. The fall in wages is a terrible tax, and we have not reached the end of that yet. Therefore, we are justified in entering our protest against the imposition of this relatively small tax. I shall vote against the tax with a light heart and with great pleasure, because it is a tax that will be paid in the main by the poorest people. I represent some of the poorest people in the country, who have been hit for a long period, for whom the world looks very black and for whom there seems no prospect in the future, as far as one can see. Therefore, I protest against a tax of this sort. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to protest their love for the workers and to explain to them that this does not matter. I am reminded of what Disraeli said. He knew the Tory party. He was linked up with the Tory party because there was no other party that could give him a career. He knew the Tory party and he called them an organised hypocrisy. If the Tory party represent to the working people that this tax means nothing and that it will have little or no effect in their lives, they are still what Disraeli called them, an organised hypocrisy of the very worst kind.
  Mr. McENTEE: I felt impelled to make an interjection during the speech of the Financial Secretary because I knew from personal experience what a tax of this sort imposes on a poor family. I was somewhat horrified by the light spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman approached what he called a tax of practically no importance to a working class family. He used averages which he must know were not accurate, and from those figures he made a statement that the tax only represents 7s. 4d. per annum on an average family. Even 7s. 4d. on an average family is not small when it is taken in conjunction with other similar amounts, other small taxes that have been imposed by this Government on the
  274
  average family. They mean in the aggregate a sum that makes their lives almost unbearable. The frame of mind and the outlook of hon. and right hon. Members opposite suggest that they have no conception of the conditions under which many thousands of very poor people are living to-day.
  I was interested in some of the statements made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike). He used the extraordinary argument that poor people will have a feeling of joy that they are being permitted to contribute their share towards the necessities of the nation. He must have been saying that with his tongue in his cheek. He told us that in his Division machinery is being exported to the Colonies, and that as a consequence of the imposition of this tax the people who are manufacturing that machinery will export more machinery to the Colonies than they have done hitherto. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad of that "Hear, hear!" Presumably it is the policy of the hon. Members who said "Hear, hear," and of the hon. Member for Attercliffe that if an industry is so inefficient that it is not capable of holding its own in the manufacture of this class of machinery, in competition with other nations, the only way by which that manufacture can be put on a sound financial basis is to put a tax on tea, because machinery is used in connection with the tea industry. Inefficiency is bolstered up in this case, as in the case of the farmers when we were discussing the duty on wheat. The hon. Member for Attercliffe said that he stated in his Division that he would support a duty on tea, and that he advocated the prohibition of the importation of everything that we can make within the Empire. By and by we shall get into a state when the Attercliffe Division will refuse to allow anything to go into that Division from outside. The argument is really too absurd for serious consideration. We are to bolster up Sheffield's inefficient manufactures by putting a tax on people all over the country, a tax which lies very heavy and heaviest on the very poorest.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) said that tea is being produced uneconomically. That may be so, but there are large tea selling organisations in this country which for a

  275
  great number of years have regularly shown a dividend of 40 per cent., and the hon. and gallant Member is perhaps better acquainted with that dividend than any other hon. Member in the House. If he desires a reason why growers of tea have to produce tea uneconomically, he may find the reason there, rather than suggest that the uneconomic condition of the growers of tea should be made economic by the imposition of an extra tax on the people. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury attempted to draw an analogy between the Cinema Tax and the duty on tea, and ridiculed the argument that people would have to pay more than the extra 4d. or 2d. He knows very little about it. If he will go down to any poor street and watch the people from their homes every morning in the week, he will find that they go into the little general shop at the corner and buy half an ounce of tea, and pay for it, and if he makes any calculation he will find that by the end of the year they will have paid far more than an extra 7s. 4d. In fact, that amount will not cover a month, let alone a year. The tax is undoubtedly passed on to the consumer.
  He instanced the Cinema Tax and said that it was not passed on. I suggest that there is no analogy between the Cinema Tax and this Tea Duty. You cannot divide up the Entertainments Tax in the same way that you can divide up and add to a tax on tea. And may I remind him that there are scores and hundreds of cinemas which have been forced out of business altogether by the imposition of the tax, and the hon. and gallant Member must be aware of the representations being made by the cinema industry to the Government to get the tax taken off because it is interfering with the industry? Then, again, the Financial Secretary said that the cost of
  living is going down. That may be true. It has gone down to a slight extent, but he knows that the spending power of the workers has gone down considerably. The average worker of this country is worse off now than he was when the National Government came into office. There have been reductions in his wages and in the social benefits he receives; and, coupled with an increase in various taxes, direct and indirect, he is now infinitely worse off than he was a short time ago. Let me put it into rhyme:
  " A little bit off tea,
  A little bit off bread,
  A slice off the dole and wages,
  and you'll very soon be dead."
  That is the only outlook for the poor hard-working manual worker in this country to-day. I protest strongly against the statement of the Financial Secretary. It shows that he knows very little about the conditions under which poor people are living. I can take him to scores of little streets where it is impossible to spread out the duty over the small quantities that are being bought, and if he does not know these things, it is our duty to tell him, and to make it perfectly clear to the people of this country that the Government have on this occasion, as on many previous occasions, used their power, not for doing the things which they said they were going to do, but for the purpose of transferring taxation from the people who are best able to bear it to those who are least able to bear it. That has always been the Tory policy. It is their policy to-day, and Liberal Members in this House have allowed themselves to be dragged into it, apparently forgetting their old war cry of previous elections of a free breakfast table.
  Question put, "That the word 'four-pence' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 343; Noes, 49.

  Division No. 153.]

  AYES.

  [625 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bracken, Brendan

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. H.)

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon, Cralgie M.

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

  Albery, Irving James

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

  Blindell, James

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Borodale, Viscount

  Brown,Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

  Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Buchan, John

  Apsley, Lord

  Boulton, W. W.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Burghley, Lord

  Atkinson, Cyril

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Caine, G. R. Hall-

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Hales, Harold K.

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

  Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

  Moss. Captain H. J.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Carver, Major William H.

  Hammersley, Samuel S.

  Munro, Patrick

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

  Castle Stewart, Earl

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Harbord, Arthur

  Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)

  Hartland, George A.

  Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (petersf'td)

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Birm., W)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Nunn, William

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Christle, James Archibald

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hopkinson, Austin

  Pearson, William G.

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Hornby, Frank

  Peat, Charles U.

  Colville, John

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Penny, Sir George

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Petherick, M.

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Cooke, Douglas

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Pickering, Ernest H.

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Hume, Sir Georgo Hopwood

  Potter, John

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Hutchison W. D. (Essex, Romford)

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

  Ramsden, E.

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Rankin, Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Kerr, Hamilton, W.

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Donner, P. W.

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Drewe, Cedric

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

  Remer, John R.

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Knight, Holford

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

  Robinson, John Roland

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Leckle, J. A.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge);

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

  Levy, Thomas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaidy)

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Little Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Erskine-Bolst, Capt. c. C(Blackpool)

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Salt, Edward W.

  Falle Sir Bertram G.

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Fermoy, Lord

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Mabane, William

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

  Scone, Lord

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Gibson, Charles Granville

  McLean, Major Alan

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

  Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Somerset, Thomas

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Maitland, Adam

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Soper, Richard

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Millar, Sir James Duncan

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Guest, Capt Rt. Hon. F. E.

  Milne, Charles

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Stevenson, James

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Stones, James

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Storey, Samuel

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Womersley, Walter James

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Templeton, William P.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Wragg, Herbert

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

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Weymouth, viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Thompson, Luke

  White, Henry Graham

  Mr. Shakespeare and Major George

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Davies.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Maxton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)

  Owen, Major Goronwy

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Price, Gabriel

  Buchanan, George

  Hirst, George Henry

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cape, Thomas

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Janner, Barnett

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Daggar, George

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

  Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lawson, John James

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lunn, William

  Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Groves.

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Mr. McENTEE: I beg to move, in line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
  "In the operation of this paragraph any stocks of tea held in a branch establishment for sale by retail shall be deemed to be in the possession of the manager of such branch establishment."
  This Amendment should commend itself to the Financial Secretary and to the whole House. I do not believe it was ever intended that the Tea Duty should operate in the way that the wording of the Resolution leads one to believe it would operate. In any town or village there may be, say, a small shop and a branch establishment of a multiple store or co-operative society in the same street. The small shop might hold a stock of tea up to 1,000 pounds in weight and not be called upon to pay any duty, whereas the multiple store branch or co-operative society branch holding a stock of perhaps only 50 or 60 pounds of tea would be called upon to pay Tea Duty on the lot. The purpose of the Amendment is to allow the branch establishment of any of the large stores, co-operative or otherwise, to rank in the same way as the small shop of the private owner in relation to the operation of this Tea Duty. Take the Home and Colonial Stores as
  280
  an example. That company has a great number of shops all over the country, but as things are they would be unable in those shops to have freedom from duty for the same quantity of tea, that is up to 1,000 pounds, as the small shopowner would have.
  It would be infinitely fairer and more reasonable if each branch of a larger establishment ranked in the same way as the shop of an individual owner, that is for each branch to have the same right as any ordinary shopkeeper to hold a stock not exceeding 1,000 pounds of tea free of duty. I do not know how many shops the Home and Colonial Stores have, but possibly they have well over a thousand. If these branches have only ½ lb. or 1 lb. of tea in each branch shop, that tea would be subject to duty, whereas another shop in the same street, owned by an individual owner, could have up to 1,000 pounds of tea entirely free of duty. That would lead to an extraordinary position so far as the purchasers of tea are concerned. One has to assume that the stores and shopkeepers generally will pass on this duty to the consumer. Even if they do not pass it on to a greater extent than the

  281
  4d. or the 2d., as the case may be, one can imagine the existence of a Home and Colonial Store with a small grocer's shop next door, and in such a case the small grocer would be able to sell his tea at the present price because no duty has been charged on it, whereas the Home and Colonial Store branch, or any similar branch of a larger establishment, would be compelled to put 2d. or 4d. on to the prices of tea. There would thus be exactly similar tea sold at entirely different prices at two shops in the same street or town.
  Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. PIKE: I hope that the Government will reject the Amendment. At the back of it I see an intention to protect the stores, and especially one great industrial distributive concern—it is productive at the same time—the co-operative societies' stores. If the Amendment were accepted it would mean that if, by a far-seeing policy and the forestalling of the Budget, co-operative stores had increased their stocks of tea abnormally during the past three or four weeks, each branch of every society could hold a large stock of tea free of duty, or the stocks of the society could be distributed equally among the branches, and these stocks, so distributed, would escape duty. As a consequence, instead of the co-operative stores paying on the stocks of tea which they had on hand, the moment this duty was declared operative, they would, by this distribution, avoid the tax completely, with disastrous loss to the revenue and damage to the principle attached to the duty.
  I urge the House not to be led away by the arguments of the Mover of the Amendment. I agree that the same thing would apply to the case of the Home and Colonial Stores. I do not suggest that the Home and Colonial Stores are blind to the possibilities of avoiding payment of taxation, even in a matter of this description, although I would not allege against them that they would try to do so. Nevertheless I recognise that their eyes are open to the possibilities. The eyes even of hon. Members are open to the possibilities of the legal avoidance of taxation wherever possible. So are mine. I admit that, frankly. None of us are perfect angels in this world. We
  282
  are all looking for anomalies to make use of them if we can possibly find them to the advantage of ourselves or the disadvantage of somebody else. This is an attempt, in my opinion, to destroy the power of the Government to tax stocks of tea which I know, personally, have recently been accruing for the purpose of overcoming the immediate difficulties of this tax, and I ask the House to reject it.
  Mr. DENMAN: I have a somewhat open mind on this Amendment. It raises a point on which I hope the Financial Secretary will give us more information. Apparently the tax is to depend upon the precise situation of the tea, upon where the tea happens to be on 20th April 1932. We are told in the Resolution that if it is in the possession of any person who holds more than 1,000 lbs. thereof it shall be taxed. That will obviously give rise to some injustice if the person in whose possession it happens to be has already contracted to sell it to somebody else. Take the case of a merchant who has the tea in his warehouse but has contracted to sell it to consumers, distributors, or anybody else. Under the Resolution as it stands he will have to pay tax on that tea, and will not be able to pass it on to the consumer or other purchaser, because he has contracted to sell it at a particular price. I hope that in the Finance Bill there will be a Clause making it plain that purchasers, under contracts entered into prior to 20th April, shall be deemed to be the owners or possessors of the tea. The purchaser in such a case is clearly the person who ought to pay the duty, but there is nothing in the Resolution to make that clear, and I am sure it is not the intention of the Financial Secretary to put the burden on the wrong shoulders.
  Major ELLIOT: I admit that at first sight the Amendment appears reasonable and the hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee) in his persuasive speech, did his utmost to recommend it by saying that its reasonableness was so apparent that we should yield to it at once. He will realise that when a duty is put on in circumstances like these, there are large stocks in the country of the dutiable article, and if these large stocks are not to escape, some Excise Duty of some kind must be levied upon

  283
  them. That was the case when the Petrol Duty was imposed. If the revenue is not to lose £1,700,000— for it is reckoned that there are six months' supplies in the country—some Excise Duty must be levied in this case. I think he would agree that that is just; we have agreed, therefore, that if a tax is to be imposed, an Excise Duty ought to be levied upon large stocks in the country.
  The question then arises, ought it to be on all stocks. The administrative difficulties of tracking down small stocks would be very great. It would create a great sense of intrusion, and of prying by Government agents, if they were to go into all the small shops to try to detect whether shops were or were not carrying stocks of tea, because stocks of tea are carried not merely by grocers, but by shops, such as confectioners and others. Therefore it is reasonable that there should be a limit of exemption, and that also was carried out in practice when the Petrol Duty was imposed. Stocks above a certain level were taxed and stocks below that level were not taxed. That was not done from any sense of abstract justice, but because the administrative task of investigating these small stocks would be so great as seriously to hold up and delay the administration and collection of the duty. An arbitrary limit therefore must be fixed, and the arbitrary limit in this case is 1,000 lbs. As the level at which the limit is to be fixed is the subject matter of a subsequent Amendment, I need not discuss it now.
  The only question which remains between us is: Is this exemption to be granted to the person in whose physical possession the stocks are, or should it be allocated among all the branch establishments of multiple stores, or shops of whatever kind, which are handling the dutiable commodity? I think it will be seen that the considerations which we had to take into account regarding the investigation of the stocks of small shops, do not apply to the case of the multiple shops. It is easy to find the amount of the dutiable article held by the multiple shops, and, therefore, from the administrative point of view that difficulty does not arise in their case. The final question is: Is it unjust or inequitable. On
  284
  that, I admit, there is a stronger case. If, however, the hon. Member will consider, he will see that it is precisely the small grocery and small confectionery shops which have the greatest difficulties under modern conditions. The small scale of their purchasing operations affects them and puts them at a disadvantage which we all recognise as against the large multiple establishments. The large multiple establishment commands resources of cash and skill which the small man does not.
  Finally, the large multiple establishments are, relatively speaking, as prosperous as any undertakings in Great Britain to-day. They are vigorously conducted, ably managed, and make good use of their great resources in passing on to the consumer the very considerable advantage which they derive from that skill. I think, therefore, that the point as to whether we ought or ought not to exempt stores in possession of multiple shops is one on which we ought to decide against them, and I shall ask the House to decide against the Amendment accordingly. There is one further point which was raised by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) as to the duty being passed on in cases where contracts had been made. The Finance Act of 1901 provides that when a price has been fixed in a contract by a seller and a duty has been imposed, subsequent to the contract, the duty may be added to the contract price. I think that covers the hon. Member's point.
  Mr. DENMAN: I think it does, but it is well to be quite clear about this matter. Where a merchant has in his warehouse a considerable store he will be liable to the duty, but if he has contracted before the 20th April to sell at a given price, he may have made that contract with a person who is quite a small consumer, and who would at no time have anything like 1,000 lbs. in his possession. In those circumstances will the small consumer pay 2d. a lb. because the merchant happens to have had more than 1,000 lbs.? If the contract had been with a retail shop which had not had 1,000 lbs. in stock, then the consumer would escape. I am not sure what the intention of the Financial Secretary is in regard to such a case but it ought to be made clear.
  Major ELLIOT: I think that further point turns on the question of possession, and obviously a man may possess a thing which is stored in the premises of another. If it is in his possession, then he possesses either more or less than 1,000 lbs. of tea. If the shopkeeper possesses less than 1,000 lbs. of tea, whether that tea is in his own cellar or warehouse, or in the cellar or warehouse of someone else, it seems to me that that tea would belong to the shopkeeper, and so he would be exempt from the tax. Of course, I am not giving a final ruling on that point just now. We have not yet come to the Clauses of the Finance Bill but it seems to me that this point all turns on the question of possession, and that if you possess a stock of less than 1,000 lbs. you are exempt and if you possess a stock of more than 1,000 you are charged. The actual allocation of the tea does not enter immediately into that question.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: On the question of possession, I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is right in what he has said, but I think it comes under the word "ownership" and not the word "possession." The expression used is "ownership or possession." Possession would be the physical possession of the stocks but ownership might be the ownership of stocks in another place.
  Major ELLIOT: I think the words "ownership or possession" cover the point fully. If it is a person's property, if it is a case of having utere, abutere et fruendi the right of the use and the abuse and the enjoyment of the stocks, if they inhere in a particular individual, then that particular individual would be the one to know where the stock was, and how much he had.
  Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider this question rather from the point of view of the capital fund from which these purchases have been made, or the authority which has been responsible for the purchase, initially, on behalf of a group of branch businesses?
  7.0 p.m.
  Major ELLIOT: I would like to see that question in the OFFICIAL REPORT before giving an answer to it. An opportunity will arise before the discussion of these matters when the Bill, of which these
  286
  Resolutions are only the foundation, is drafted, and its Clauses come to be examined in detail. I have indicated the intention of the Government and, as far as I can, the policy which they will ask the House to adopt with regard to this particular Amendment.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made it clear that his reasons for applying this tax are not reasons of equity in tax administration, but that this is taxing particular firms because it is possible for the tax administrators to have access to their books and to their stocks more readily than to those of any other section of shopkeepers and traders in the country. We hold that this is an iniquitous method of applying a tax. The tax is not a fair tax, and the Government themselves recognise that they are not applying it fairly. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is obvious that they are taxing multiple shops and co-operative stores because it is easy to trace the large stocks they hold and because, in his own words, it is difficult for the Treasury to trace down the stocks held by individual shops and traders. It is because of that difficulty that the Government propose to give a bonus of the amount of the tax to these firms. I am right in calling them firms, even though they are only one-man shops, because they have been recognised as firms by the law of this country under an Act passed during the War and another passed since the War. By this policy the Government are giving these firms a bonus, although the multiple shop next door may be paying the tax. That shop may be a Lyons' shop selling tea in packets by weight, or it may be one of those co-operative stores, against which the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) pursues such a bitter vendetta, or it may be the Home and Colonial Stores. Just because it is one shop owned by one individual or one firm, a rebate of tax is given on 1,000 lbs. of tea, whereas the multiple firms with 1,000 lbs. of tea spread over 500 shops or a thousand shops are taxed on every pound. This is bringing taxation to an absurdity.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about £1,000,000 being involved on over six months' stocks, but those stocks are not held in the distributive stores or in the multiple shops. The great bulk are held

  287
  in the central stores. These multiple shops and co-operative stores do not each hold six months' stock of tea. If they did, the dry tea would not be very suitable for use in any home at' the end of six months and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to protest against tea, which had been in the shop for six months, being served to him. The six months' stocks are in the hands of the importers in this country in Mincing Lane, and are in bond. It may be true that there is six months' supply of tea in the country, but it is not in the distributive shops. We are, therefore, making a perfectly fair proposal in this Amendment, which in no way discriminates against any class of shopkeepers. We are asking for the same treatment
  for the individual trader, for the multiple shop, and for the co-operative stores. As long as the co-operative stores are engaged in legitimate business, they are entitled to all the rebates given by the law. The hon. Member for Attercliffe and his friends may look upon them as something which ought to be prohibited but, as long as they are permitted by the laws of the land, they are entitled to every rebate under this particular tax, and to every right given to every legitimate trader. The hon. Member may inveigh against them, but the insistence of his criticism is a justification of their conduct.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 315.

  Division No. 154.]

  AYES.

  [7.10 p.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Maxton, James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Buchanan, George

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cape, Thomas

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Wellhead, Richard C.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hirst, George Henry

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Daggar, George

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

  Lawson, John James

  Edwards, Charles

  Logan, David Gilbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lunn, William

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Price.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Burghley, Lord

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

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Albery, Irving James

  Caine, G. R. Hall-

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Deepencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

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

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Dickie, John P.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Donner, P. W.

  Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Castle Stewart, Earl

  Drewe, Cedric

  Apsley, Lord

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Christie, James Archibald

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Blindell, James

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Elmley, Viscount

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Colville, John

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Cooke, Douglas

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

  Bracken, Brendan

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fermoy, Lord

  Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Buchan, John

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Gibson, Charles Granville

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Goff, Sir Park

  McLean, Major Alan

  Salt, Edward W.

  Goldle, Noel B.

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradetton)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Maitland, Adam

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Scone, Lord

  Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

  Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Millar, Sir James Duncan

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Milne, Charles

  Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

  Hales, Harold K.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Harbord, Arthur

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Somerset, Thomas

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Hartland, George A.

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Soper, Richard

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Munro, Patrick

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Stevenson, James

  Hopkinson, Austin

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Stones, James

  Hornby, Frank

  Nunn, William

  Storey, Samuel

  Horobin, Ian M.

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Ormiston, Thomas

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Hunter, Or. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Pearson, William G.

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Peat, Charles U.

  Templeton, William P.

  Hurst. Sir Gerald B.

  Penny, Sir George

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

  Petherick, M.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

  Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

  Thompson, Luke

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Potter, John

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Train, John

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Wallace, John (Duntermilne)

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Ramsdan, E.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  Leckle, J. A.

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Lennox-Boyd. A. T.

  Remer, John R.

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Levy, Thomas

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Robinson, John Roland

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wragg, Herbert

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Mr. Womersley and Commander

  Southby.

  Mr. G. HALL: I beg to move, m line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
  " In the operation of this paragraph where any person holds more than one thousand pounds of such tea duty shall not be payable in respect of the first one thousand pounds."
  I trust that I shall be able to persuade the right hon. and gallant Gentleman
  290
  that this Amendment is as reasonable as it looks on the Paper. I quite understand the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax the stocks of tea at present in the country, for if there was one part of his Budget which was anticipated, it was this tax upon tea. The hint that he gave when the 10 per cent.

  291
  import duties were introduced was, I think, caught by the tea dealers in the country, with the result, as he said when introducing his Budget, that there are something like six months' stocks of tea at present in the country. I quite understand how desirous he is to bring these stocks into his financial net and to make them revenue-producing, but I am not dealing with the general principle. We understand that the Chancellor is of the opinion that 1,000 lbs. of tea is a reasonable stock for retailers to hold and that any stock which is in excess of the 1,000 lbs. is to be revenue-bearing—not only that which is in addition to the 1,000 lbs., but the tax is to be paid from the first pound. That in itself, we think, is an anomaly, for we find that we have a large number of small retailers who have stocks amounting to 1,000 lbs. There must be hundreds of small retailers in towns where they own just two or three shops. They may have, say, 400 lbs. of tea in stock in, say, three shops, which would give them a total stock of 1,200 lbs., and that must mean that they will pay the tax from the first pound, whereas if the stock which they held was 999 lbs., that amount of tea would be exempt.
  We therefore ask the Government to exempt the first 1,000 lbs. of tea, and unless that is done it will place a number of these small traders at a disadvantage. Mr. Jones, who may own a shop in the next street, may have 1,010 lbs. of tea in stock, and he will have to pay tax on the whole 1,010 lbs. Mr. Thomas, in another street, may have 999 lbs. of tea in stock, and he will not have to pay a single penny of revenue on the 999 lbs. We think that the request which we make, that the first 1,000 lbs. of tea shall be exempt, is reasonable; and it will not lose the Treasury very much revenue. We quite see the point which the Financial Secretary has made, that where you have a large number of multiple shops, or where you have, as he said, co-operative stores with centres, it is impossible to do what was asked in the last Amendment, but we think that this Amendment is reasonable.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I have had a number of letters from my constituents
  292
  on the point raised by this Amendment, and while I quite realise that in the present state of the finances of the country the Government must have revenue, I think they ought to obtain that revenue as fairly as possible. As has been pointed out by the Mover of the Amendment, it does not seem strictly fair that a man who has 1,001 lbs. of tea should have to pay the duty on 1,001 lbs., whereas a man who has 1,000 lbs. of tea should have to pay no duty at all. The Amendment provides that there should be no duty payable by any man who has only 1,000 lbs. of tea, and that is quite fair, but I can readily understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can say that under his calculations he cannot afford this loss of revenue. I, therefore, suggest to the Financial Secretary that, in order to make this tax fair, even if he cannot afford to give 1,000 lbs. free, he should have some lesser amount, say, 500 lbs. or 600 lbs. of tea, free of tax in all cases, and that anything above that should start immediately paying on each pound. I think the discrepancy of one shopkeeper having to pay a duty of 2d. or 4d. per lb. on 1,001 lbs. of tea, when his trade rival may possibly have 999 lbs. of tea and will not have to pay a penny on it, is an injustice, and I would ask whether some modification in the form of this rebate cannot be made, so as to make it fairer as between shopkeeper and shopkeeper.
  Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I am very reluctant to intervene, but I have received so many letters from my constituents in connection with this Amendment that I feel compelled to support it. It must be clear to the House that where there are two shops together, and one has a stock, let us say, of 900 lbs. of tea, that amount is free of duty, but there may be a shop next door which happens to have 1,010 lbs. weight of tea, on which duty would have to be paid, not on the 10 lbs. of tea only, but on the whole 1,010 lbs. I really would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to see whether he cannot meet us in this matter, because I feel that it is one which affects Members in all parts of the House, and, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend opposite, if the loss to the Exchequer by accepting the

  293
  Amendment would be too great, could he not reduce the amount of tea allowed free to, say, 500 lbs.?
  Mr. CAPE: I want to support the Amendment, and I do so the more readily because in every quarter of the House there is a desire that the Government should accept it. Whether we are in favour of the tax or against it, it seems to me that there should be a sense of fairness to everybody concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may want revenue, I quite understand, and I realise that we have to strain to the last ounce to get the revenue with which to carry on the country, but I feel sure that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could see his way to accept the Amendment, it would give fair play to everybody now in the tea trade in this country. The small man is as much entitled to fair play as is the big man.
  7.30 p.m.
  Major ELLIOT: The suggestion which has been put forward from all parts of the House appears, on the face of it, to be reasonable, but I would ask the House to consider that always in the marginal case there is a point at one side of the line which is caught, and a point at the other side which escapes; there will always be a marginal case in which hardship occurs. Hon. Members opposite have had some particular experience of that in the case of old age pensions or of benefits of one kind or another, where a person who has entered insurance at a certain date receives benefit and a person who has not is denied it. With the best will in the world, such cases of anomaly will arise as between one side or the other of a fixed line. In the present case, fortunately, the sums involved are not very serious. The duty which is levied on existing stocks is not 4d., but 2d., and the amount of duty involved in the individual case for 1,000 pounds of tea is not more than £8 6s. 8d. That is the only sum which is at stake in this matter.
  It is suggested that the firm with two or three shops should be considered as a hard case, as against another firm with only one shop, the firm with two or three shops having 1,001 pounds and the firm with only one shop having 999 pounds,
  294
  thereby escaping the tax altogether. If one makes exceptions, one has to take into account the effect of this upon the administration of the tax, and again I confine myself purely to the question of administration. The difficulty in which we are placed in this House is that we are always asking for fewer and fewer civil servants and for greater duties to be undertaken by them. To determine the stocks in small shops would undoubtedly take more staff than the proposals of the Government. The exemption of the first 1,000 pounds would mean that the tax could be levied on one pound of tea, and we should no doubt be met with condemnation from all parts of the House for sending an inspector to weigh up the tea and, finding 1,001 pounds, demanding a tax of 2d. for the odd pound.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: What is the difference? If he finds 999 pounds, he gets nothing and walks away again.
  Major ELLIOT: But if he finds 2 lbs. more, he is rewarded for his visit. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is unfair!"] Unfairness is a term that one must consider in a relative sense. We are dealing with problems of taxation. No doubt to go into a man's house and take away his money is regarded in all cases as unfair, and he suffers from a sense of grievance, but I am dealing with a practical point. The sum demanded by the Government is the relatively unsubstantial sum of £8 6s. 8d., which is not a crippling burden to the shopkeeper, though no doubt it is a burden that he would rather be without. It does, however, mean that £8 6s. 8d. is charged, whereas, under the Amendment, only 2d. could be charged. The House can see the difficulty in which the Revenue will be thrown by the collection of these trivial sums of revenue up and down the country. We must draw a line, and draw it not merely with consideration for abstract justice, but with consideration for the problems of administration. That is, I am afraid, the answer which I have to give to hon. Members in all parts of the House who have most persuasively advanced this contention. I have to have regard not merely for the traders of the country, but for the tasks which the administration is being asked to perform, and, balancing the one against the other, I have

  295
  reluctantly to come down on the side of the present proposal.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: If we offer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a way out of his difficulties, he will, I am sure, after his sympathetic speech, be glad to seize it. I quite appreciate his difficulty, which is that if he sends down an inspector who finds 1,001 lbs. of tea, the first 1,000 will be exempt and there will be only 2d. duty to collect. In order to get over that difficulty, let me suggest that he makes a regulation by which the first 750 lbs. are not chargeable, so that if the inspector finds 1,001 lbs. of tea, he will charge on 251 lbs. He will therefore get something over £2 for his visit, and that will surely be well worth while. It will go a long way to alleviate what will be a great injustice if the Government's proposal be carried. The 1,000 lbs. limit is a purely arbitrary limit which nobody could have anticipated in any circumstances. It is not even a multiple of cwts., which is the unit in which tea is always sold. Therefore a man who has nine cwts. will be just over the limit, and he will have to pay tax on the whole amount. His next door neighbour, however, who by the purest chance has 8½ cwts. left over when the axe falls, will not pay anything at all. What will be the result in the competitive trade. One of these traders will have to sell his tea without adding anything to the price because his next-door neighbour, not having had to pay the tax, is doing the same. The result is that a charge of £8 6s. 8d. will be put on the small trader, and he will have to carry it out of his own pocket.
  I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not think that that is fair. If it had been possible for anybody to anticipate or to suspect this method of dealing with tea, it might have been said that people should not have had as much as 1,000 lbs. in their possession, but no such argument can be raised in this case. If the only difficulty is that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to have to charge on one pound of tea in the case of the possession of 1,001 lbs., he can get out of it by leaving the limit of 1,000 lbs. and saying that the first 750 or 800 lbs. shall not be charged in any event. He will then get left with a reasonable amount to be charged and
  296
  everybody, including the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, will be satisfied. It will not increase the cost of the administration and will create no difficulties, but will go a long way to alleviate the real hardship, not only as between people who have got two or three shops and those who have one shop, but between two individual traders in the same street, one of whom by the purest coincidence has more than 1,000 lbs. of tea, and the other less than 1,000 lbs. Unless we can have some undertaking from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider this again, we shall be forced to go into the Division Lobby for the Amendment.
  Mr. TINKER: The Financial Secretary did not seem too happy in explaining the case against the Amendment. Hitherto he has been quite confident in what he has said, but on this Amendment I felt that he was not satisfied in his own mind with the explanation which he gave. When this matter was brought to my notice last week I refused to believe it, and said that the House of Commons could never agree to the position in which a man who had over 1,000 lbs. of tea would have to pay on the whole, while a man with less than 1,000 would get off altogether. I agree that there has to be a line of demarcation, but I never understood that in a case like this there should be a penalty for the man who was just over the line. To fix a limit in this way creates an untenable position, and there is not a Member who could get up on a platform and defend it. Many times I have been able to state a case on the platform where I could see the point of view of the other side, but in this matter I could not.
  Sir JOHN HASLAM: May I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to agree to this Amendment? I am surprised that he said we must not draw the line in regard to justice. I am sorry to hear that in this House, because if anybody ought to be just in their dealings as between trader and trader, it is the House of Commons. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there must be a standard somewhere. There is a standard in Income Tax, and the man who is liable pays only on the amount above the standard. What

  297
  would be thought if the working man with an income of £250, who had an exemption on the first £160, were called upon to pay on the whole of the £250? It is most illogical, and I cannot understand the action of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Last night my wife had the privilege of being in the Gallery, and at the close of the Debate commented very favourably on the speeches' of the Financial Secretary. She is not in the House to-night, and for the reputation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman I am glad she is not. As one who knows something about the tea trade and has been all his life in it, I
  appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to do justice as between various sections of the tea traders. The trade has collected millions of pounds for the Exchequer in the past, and it will go out to them as a fair and equitable action if the Financial Secretary will concede this very reasonable demand. As a loyal supporter of the Government, I appeal to him to grant this concession.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 278.

  Division No. 155.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Grenfell, David Roes (Glamorgan)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Maxton, James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Owen, Major Goronwy

  Brown, C. w. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Buchanan, George

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Cape, Thomas

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Hirst, George Henry

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Daggar, George

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

  Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lawson, John James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Price

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Elmley, Viscount

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

  Christle, James Archibald

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Collox, Major William Philip

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

  Colville, John

  Fermoy, Lord

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cook, Thomas A..

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Cooke, Douglas

  Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

  Courthops, Colonel Sir George L.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Gibson, Charles Granville

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Blinded, James

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Glossop, C. W. H

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Borodale, Viscount

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Bossom, A. C.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Dickie, John P.

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Donner, P. W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Drewe, Cedric

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Hales, Harold K.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Burghley, Lord

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Harbord, Arthur

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Hart land, George A.

  Calne, G. R. Hall-

  Dunglass, Lord

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

  Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-ln-F.)

  Hopkinson, Austin

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  MOSS, Captain H. J.

  Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)

  Hornby, Frank

  Munro, Patrick

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

  Somerset, Thomas

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Soper, Richard

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Nunn, William

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Ormiston, Thomas

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

  Jennings, Roland

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Pearson, William G.

  Stevenson, James

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Peat, Charles U.

  Storey, Samuel

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Petherick, M.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Potter, John

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Templeton, William P.

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Thompson, Luke

  Leckie, J. A.

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Ramsden, E.

  Todd, A- L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  Levy, Thomas

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Train, John

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Remer, John R.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Robinson, John Roland

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  McLean, Major Alan

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Windsor-CIive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Saimon, Major Isidore

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Salt, Edward W.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Maitland, Adam

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Scone, Lord

  Wragg, Herbert

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Mr. Womersley and Major George

  Milne, Charles

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Davies.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. ATTLEE: We have had a considerable discussion on the various Amendments dealing with the Tea Duty, but I wish to say a few words in order to indicate the attitude of hon. Members on this side of the House who object to the Tea Duty altogether. It is very difficult to-day to discuss these various food duties, because we have not a well-thought-out and balanced scheme of taxation, though almost everything that comes on to our breakfast table, our tea table, or our dinner table is now taxed under one enactment or another. Bread comes under the quota scheme, meat comes in in another way, and tea and sugar come
  300
  in here. I think the design of the Government is to try to hide the cumulative effect of all these taxes on the cost of living. Some extraordinary fallacies have been put forward during this discussion on the Tea Duty, a good many of them by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He talked of the advantage that would accrue to Britishers in India engaged in tea planting, and said that was a point of view that we must consider very carefully. That is the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. What he is doing, in effect, is to take a number of pence out of the pockets of poor people in this country and give them to a certain number of tea planters in India and Ceylon, who may or may not be well off. The right hon. Gentleman's view is that

  301
  they are the people to be considered—not the people from whom he filches the money, but the people on whom he bestows it.
  Considered in relation to the tea planters in India, this duty is, I think, put forward on very peculiar grounds. It is put forward as a means of helping an industry of very great importance which has been passing through very hard times. I am well aware that they have had their difficulties in Assam. I know something of the conditions out there, and it may be a sound proposition to help them, but I cannot see why that assistance should be given at the cost of the poorest of the people here. Further, it is not altogether a question of the Assam tea planters, because we have been assured that we shall get some of this money back in the Income Tax which will be paid by tea companies in this country. The Assam tea planters are the employéd of capitalist interests in this country. Even there the Case was over-stated, because I think something like 50 per cent. of the companies engaged in tea plantations in India are on a rupee basis, and only so far as there are companies over here shall we get Income Tax.
  8.0 p.m.
  It is a thoroughly unsound proposition to load this tax on to the cost of living in this country as a subvention to another part of the Empire. This is a very curious way of binding up the Empire. In order to grant this benefit to our overseas Dominions and to the tea planters, the workers are asked to pay more for their tea. They are going to be asked to pay more for their sugar, and in the end I feel sure the workers will be convinced that for the great advantage of having an Empire they have to pay all the time. We know that the Government intend to send representatives to the Ottawa Conference in order to see if arrangements for reciprocity can be made with the Colonies. We understand that India will be represented at that Conference as an independent unit and that a tariff policy will be considered.
  We find that a tax is to be placed on tea and a preference is to be given to India, but there has been no suggestion of reciprocity. I would like to know if this duty is to be the subject of a bargain at Ottawa. I would also
  302
  like to ask: If it is found that India is not willing to give us certain advantages in return for this preference on tea, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be ready to come back to this House and propose the abolition of the preference which he is now giving? This is a very curious way of dealing with this matter. We always have to pay before any question of reciprocity has been arranged. I do not think much of the argument that we shall get a great advantage by sending more machinery and so forth to the Colonies, because I believe that will be a small thing. Some hon. Members have suggested that as a result of this policy there will be a large capital expenditure upon machinery and tools and that a great deal of that work will be done in this country. I think those who have put forward that argument have tried to prove too much, for they said that the Trade was so bad that even this Preference would only just make it pay.
  The Financial Secretary tried to prove a great deal too much when he said that the people of this country could easily afford to pay more for their tea because the cost of living had not risen. We have had it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkrook (Mr. Amery) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Billhead (Sir R. Home) that the great aim of taxation is to raise the price level all over the world, and that view has been acquiesced in by the Government. Therefore, it is agreed that the object of the series of tariffs which have been put forward is to raise price levels, and they are bound to have the effect of raising prices. It has been argued that these tariffs are comparatively small matters, but I would like to point out that a series of comparatively small indirect taxes have gradually been piled up. We have been told that the working-classes have been asked to pay only 8s. per year more for their tea. They will have to pay so many shillings more for their sugar, and they will probably have to pay 15s. or 20s. a year more for bread. When all these small amounts which the working-classes will have to pay are reckoned up, they come to a considerable sum.
  I do not know what is the view of the Financial Secretary about the proportion of direct and indirect taxation. On this

  303
  side of the House we have always stood for taxing people, not according to what they buy or use, but according to their income and means. I should like to comment here on the total absence from this Debate of the great historic party which used to talk big about the importance of the free breakfast table, but I presume that they are staying away because they are so shy. Why do they not come forward in these Debates in defence of their principles? There are a number of Liberals who are entirely National and wish to keep their places in the National Cabinet, and they have been entirely absent. I suppose the answer will be given by the Financial Secretary telling us that the great need of the present day is to balance the Budget. I agree that it is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to balance the Budget, but that is no excuse for bringing forward unsound propositions. The business of the Financial Secretary is to justify this particular means of raising revenue as compared with other means. I think it is very unfortunate that the Ministers of the National Government, in the actual working out of these duties, have made some appalling blunders in their arrangements. There has been some trouble already at the docks over the method of imposition of the duties. The Financial Secretary said that he had to see to it that the whole value of the tax from a revenue point of duty was not done away with by the large stocks existing in this country.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer could have dealt with this matter much better by merely putting an Excise duty on the removals of tea from bond, and he could have accomplished this by accepting either or both of the Amendments which were moved from this side of the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake and his idea, is to stick to it, but the result has been a great injustice to that section of the people who deal in tea. I do not know whether the intention of the right hon. Gentleman is to support the small grocer, but, if so, I imagine that he is trying to compound for greater sins because the whole policy of the Government up to now has been to approve the formation of trusts and combines all over the country,
  304
  and now the right hon. Gentleman is trying to give a special advantage to the small grocer or the general shop as a set off to what has been done for the large combines.
  The Financial Secretary knows perfectly well that the proposals for the taxation of co-operative societies are entirely inequitable and unreasonable, and at the suggestion of the Prime Minister this question has been sent to a Royal Commission for investigation. We think that the reimposition of the Tea Duty is a dangerous step, because it means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has resolved to become even more reactionary than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). My view is that when the Tea Duty was taken off by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping it was not because the Government thought it was a hardship on the working classes, but because the right hon. Gentleman knew that there was going to be a General Election in two or three months time, and he did not expect to be at the Exchequer again. Consequently, they thought it would be a nice gesture to the workers to advocate a free breakfast table. That gesture did not come off, but the Government waited until they had a National majority, and now they are restoring the Tea Duty, because they think that there will not be another election for some time to come.
  Major ELLIOT: If the Opposition desire it I shall be happy to reply to the Debate upon this Motion. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has again stated the general considerations in his own mind and in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite for voting against this duty. The duty is one of the oldest in the history of our fiscal system; it goes back over hundreds of years. It has been imposed by the most pure Free Traders and Chancellors of the Exchequer, and it was a duty which was maintained by Mr. Gladstone. The hon. Member has been twitting the National Liberal Members for not opposing the duty, but I would like to remind the Opposition that this is a duty which had the sanction of Mr. Gladstone, and therefore it is not one of which any Liberal need reasonably feel ashamed. It is true that the last Labour Government were somewhat cramped, but it is the fact that, during

  305
  the previous Administration, in 1924, who inherited enormous sums from their predecessors, and transmitted considerable sums to their successors, the duty was 4d. per lb. That was a higher level than is now proposed for 80 per cent. of our supplies of tea, a proportion which may be expected to rise to something like 90 per cent. in a short time. The Tea Duty is justified by history and has been adopted by Chancellors of the Exchequer, not only when the country is suffering from financial stringency, but even when it has been enjoying abundant revenues. I think those facts may be set against the accusation, that the Tea Duty is an unfair and unjust burden to lay upon the shoulders of the poorest of the poor. The other and novel feature of this duty is that a considerable preference is given, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be under some misapprehension on the question of preference. He talked as if a preference were an increased burden on the consumer in this country, but, on the contrary, it is a diminution of the duty. This duty is not fixed at 4d. a pound rising to 6d. for Empire tea; it is fixed at 4d. falling to 2d. for Empire tea, so that the tea user in this country gets a remission of half the tax—
  Mr. ATTLEE: One of the contentions put forward in favour of this tax is that, if you have not the tax, you cannot have the preference.
  Major ELLIOT: That is one of the advantages, but the advantage which appeals to us at the Exchequer, and which has appealed to every Chancellor of the Exchequer, including Viscount Snowden, is the revenue to be derived from the duty. Viscount Snowden was never specially enthusiastic for the principle of Empire preference. The duty is 4d. with a remission to 2d., and that is a very great advantage to the consumer in this country. When we come to deal with sugar, the hon. Gentleman will find that the concession which is being given to Empire sugar is again not an increase of duty, but a diminution of duty, and, therefore, the suggestion that "The Empire will cost you more" is not a reasonable one. The hon. Gentleman made the point that the administrative difficulties were great, and that serious blunders had been made. It is true that the argument was brought forward, not from one side only, but from all quarters
  306
  of the House, and particularly by the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam), who has considerable knowledge of these matters, that, whenever a novel introduction is made, anomalies are created. It is the business of the administration to examine those anomalies and see whether they can be altered, but I should be deceiving the House if I suggested that by any rearrangement of these duties it would be possible to avoid anomalies when they were introduced. That, however, should not deter us from making changes.
  The suggestion that a blunder of great magnitude has been committed here because a tax of £8 6s. 8d. is levied upon a multiple store or shop which otherwise would not be levied upon it, is overstraining the effects of the remission. It cannot be suggested that the Home and Colonial Stores or the Co-operative Societies would suffer a very serious alteration in their revenues if they had 1,000 pounds of tea left free this year which otherwise would have to pay duty. [Interruption.] The Amendment as to branch establishments has been dealt with, I think to the satisfaction of the House. I agree that this Amendment concerning the exemption of 1,000 pounds has raised criticisms which went much further, and which made, as I admitted, a considerable appeal in argument. I examined the matter from every point of view, and was unable to see how I could make the concession asked for, and I do not wish to hold out false hopes to hon. Members that I shall be able to make the concession which they desire. The duty as a whole will bring in £3,600,000 this year, and £4,100,000 in a full year. Its average level is lower than the Tea Duty has ever been in this country, and it is sanctioned by the tradition of a long line of Chancellors of the Exchequer, many of whom had the utmost sympathy with the poorest classes in the community. As a revenue duty it has been used and administered in the past, and has been found to be fairly reasonable to all classes of the community. I confidently commend the Resolution to the House, and hope that they will allow us to have it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I only rise because of the historical references which the right hon. Gentleman made. It may well be that the Tea Duty has been imposed for all these years—for centuries, I am

  307
  told; but it is also true that rates were levied for centuries on agricultural land and buildings and so on; and the same Chancellor of the Exchequer who got rid of the Tea Duty wiped the last remnant of rates off the farmers of this country. The mere fact that a thing is hoary-headed does not necessarily justify it. [Interruptions.] The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if this agitation against the Tea Duty had been brought into being all of a sudden, but, being hoary-headed myself, I am old enough to have sat at the feet of Mr. Gladstone when he was in his prime. He put before the nation the proposal of a free breakfast table. He was against all taxation on the people's food, and especially on sugar and tea; and for years I was "led up the garden" by Members of the Liberal party who waved that sort of slogan in front of us. I thought the right hon. Gentleman knew that, and I think he must have had his tongue in his cheek when he was defending the Liberal party just now. I think he will find that Lord Snowden, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, had to apologise to his own followers again and again because he was not carrying out the policy of his party.
  He may have had good reasons, or bad ones, for not doing so; we will leave that to the judgment of those who are capable of judging; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Tory Government before this Tory Government— the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—did wipe this tax out, and made just the same kind of statement in favour of wiping it out that I have no doubt he would make, if called upon to do so, in favour of wiping it in. We are entitled in this House, however, to take speeches at their face value, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, speaking at that Box, declared that this remission was long overdue—as, of course, it was if the duty had been imposed for a century or two. He declared that it was a reform which would comfort the aged and bring solace to the widow, and I think the orphan came in also. He painted one of those word pictures of his, and it appealed to me, because I am a great tea drinker. When I go home at night, I do not sit in the corner and sup a little whisky, but I drink a little tea, and there are scores of people
  308
  around me who drink tea, and to whom this tax will mean a great deal. In this House we are accustomed to talk about the poor and their money as if we could really experience their conditions, but, honestly, we cannot. These pennies and half-pennies in the districts that many of us represent make a great deal of difference. If I could view this in the light-hearted manner in which I have been talking about Mr. Gladstone, or the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about the Liberal party, or if I could feel that you were not really imposing an additional burden, I should not trouble to go into the Lobby against it.
  I have been rebuked on several occasions by Ministers and others. I have said, "This is only a very small thing, a piece of expenditure." They have said, "Yes, but what the right hon. Gentleman forgets is that he gets one little thing here and another there, and it all piles up in the end and makes a big sum." It is no use denying that a very considerable amount is going to be taken from somewhere by new duties imposed on all sorts of articles, foodstuffs and other things necessary for the life of the people, and all these together must put a new burden on the poorest of the poor. No one says the foreigner will pay this Tea Duty, or a Sugar Duty which is capable of being passed on.
  Mr. HOWARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already some of the large multiple stores are announcing that they are not going to increase the price by 2d. a pound?
  Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member may know all about the multiple stores, but in my district they are charging more, and I am prepared to stand by that. [Interruption.] I am not talking about the co-operatives. Do not get the cooperative complex. Even if it is true that the tariffs are not increasing prices at the moment because of the tremendous fall, if it were not for them everything would be cheaper. We need not indulge in prophecy. We will say to you what a great Liberal once said from that Box: "Wait and see." We are content that that shall be the determining factor. The only thing I am certain about is that the people in Bow and Bromley and Poplar are being obliged to pay more for

  309
  tea than they otherwise would do. They are extremely poor people and pennies and twopences are very valuable to them and the country is rich enough to do without them.

  Division No. 156.]

  AYES.

  [8.29 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Evans, Capt Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Albery, Irving James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maitland, Adam

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Gibson, Charles Granville

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

  Gilmour, U.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir

  John Morgan, Robert H.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Goff. Sir Park

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Goldle, Noel B.

  Munro, Patrick

  Bateman, A. L.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Nall, Sir Joseph

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks, Skipton)

  Greene, William P. C.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Blindell, James

  Grimston, R. V.

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Borodale, Viscount

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

  Nunn, William

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Pearson, William G.

  Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

  Hales, Harold K.

  Peat, Charles U.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Harbord, Arthur

  Petherick, M.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hartland, George A.

  Peto Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Burghley, Lord

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Potter, John

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

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

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Chaimers, John Rutherford

  Hopkinson, Austin

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hornby, Frank

  Ramsden, E.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Rankin, Robert

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Colville, John

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Hunt, Sir Gerald B.

  Remer, John R.

  Cooke, Douglas

  James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Coopor, A. Duff

  Jamleson, Douglas

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Jennings, Roland

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Robinson, John Roland

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kerr. Hamilton W.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Crossley. A. C.

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

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

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Salt, Edward W.

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Levy, Thomas

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Dickie, John P.

  Liddall. Walter S.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Dixey, Arthur C. N.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Donner, P. W.

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Phllip Cunliffe-

  Scone, Lord

  Drewe, Cedric

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Loder, Captain J. do Vere

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Mabane, William

  Somerset, Thomas

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Soper, Richard

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Elmley, Viscount

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  McLean, Major Alan

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayee, 256; Noes, 43.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Thornton, sir Frederick Charles

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Stevenson, James

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Stones, James

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Storey, Samuel

  Train, John

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Templeton, William P.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Womersley and Lord Erskine.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Maxton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Owen, Major Goronwy

  Batey, Joseph

  Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Price, Gabriel

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Buchanan, George

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cape, Thomas

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hirst, George Henry

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Daggar, George

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —

  Edwards, Charles

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Graham

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in line 3, after the word "a," to insert the words "Dominion or."
  The Resolution provides, among other things, for a reduced Customs' Duty on sugar from the Colonies—except Southern Rhodesia—and the mandated territories, but it does not apply to the Dominions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman why it has been found possible to give preferential treatment to the Colonies as against the Dominions. We have in our Dominions a considerable production of sugar and export of sugar, and we are now giving a preference which was not extended in the last Amendment which was before the House. No distinction has been made between the Dominions and the Colonies in that connection. We have heard a good deal during the last two or three years, particularly from hon. Members who sit on the opposite side of the House, about questions of Empire Free Trade and of bringing the Empire together and making a united and happy family, but this kind of preference is not likely to accomplish that object. We have Dominions producing and exporting a fair amount of sugar, and they ought to be taken into consideration in regard to the question which is now before the House. The whole of our foreign imports amount to over 7,250,000 cwts., of a total value of £2,500,000. The Union of South Africa is producing sugar and
  312
  in 1930 exported nearly £1,500,000 worth. She exported nearly 220,000 cwts. in the first three months of 1932. From Australia we have received nearly 2,250,000 cwts. in the same period. The sugar from these two sources for the period of three months amounted in value to something like £1,130,000.
  In view of the fact that we are to have a Conference at Ottawa, where we expect to make arrangements for the whole of our Dominions and Colonies and to establish reciprocity, or some kind of working arrangement between the Mother Country and the Dominions, it seems to me that we are going the wrong way about it in regard to the question of sugar. We have an opportunity of putting the Colonies and the Dominions on one status, but we are refusing to do it, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why we are creating this difference. I do not think that it is in the interests of the Mother Country or of the Dominions or the Colonies to separate them any more than they are separated. In view of the fact that there is this production of sugar, which is being exported in large amounts, the Dominions ought not to be singled out and to be left in a worse condition than the Colonies and mandated territories. In view of the Ottawa Conference I would appeal to the Minister to take this question into consideration.
  This is an Amendment about which much might be said. We are going to

  313
  the Ottawa Conference with one hand tied behind us when we are debating questions relating to the Dominions and the Colonies if we do not treat them on an equal footing with regard to this question of sugar. It is better that the Minister should accord equal treatment to the Dominions and Colonies rather than create a difference when the Conference takes place. By accepting my Amendment we shall be putting the Dominions on the same footing as the Colonies, and that would help in the work which lies before the Government at the Ottawa Conference.
  Mr. MABANE: There is a simple explanation why the Dominions should not be included in this preference. It has been said that sugar is imported from the Union of South Africa and Australia. The category in the first instance is the Union of South Africa and South-West Africa, and the sugar comes principally in that category from South-West Africa. For the rest of the sugar from the Dominions it comes almost entirely from Australia. The reason why Australia should not be given a preference is that for many years past the Australian Government has given to the sugar producers in Queensland a very considerable subsidy on their sugar production. That sugar is produced actually at a cost double, or even more than double, the world price. A somewhat similar situation has arisen between New Zealand and Canada. A trade treaty was concluded between New Zealand and Canada, whereby Canada gave a preference on New Zealand butter. It was then discovered that New Zealand was subsidising that butter production, and the sole effect of the preference was to allow New Zealand to diminish the subsidy given. If we were to give a preference to Australia on sugar, which is really the only sugar in question, all that we should be doing would be to allow the Australian Government to reduce the subsidy to the Italian sugar producers of Northern Queensland. For that reason the Amendment ought to be resisted.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am a little surprised at the innocence of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. This is not the first time that the question of sugar duties has been Debated between those who state the special case
  314
  for the Colonial sugar producers, and the Labour party, who for years past have consistently declined to face up to the very special situation that exists in the sugar-producing Colonies and Dependencies. The position, owing to the steady and continuous fall in the world prices of sugar, in the British non-self-governing dependencies, which have practically no home market for their sugar and are entirely dependent upon sugar exports, has been pressed by us for years, so much so that the late Labour Government appointed two special Commissions, one to visit the West Indian sugar-producing Colonies, under their erstwhile Socialist supporter, Lord Olivier, and another under the famous sugar technologist, Sir Francis Watts, to the sugar-producing dependencies. The Commissions were invited to make recommendations and they did so, practically of an identical character. We remember the long correspondence in the newspapers and the Debates that took place in another place between Lord Olivier and Lord Passfield when the Labour Government treated Lord Olivier and his report as though they had never sent out the Commission. They ignored it completely. Their record in this matter is one of continuously letting down the native producer and the native dependencies, for whose welfare we in this House are responsible.
  In moving the Amendment the hon. Member utterly failed to recognise the very special case that the non-self-governing Dependencies can bring forward. He asks why we differentiate between the Dominions and the non-self-governing Dependencies. The reply is that the Dominions producer will continue to get the substantial preference of £3 15s. as against the foreign producer, but he will not get the additional preference which we propose to give to the Colonies because we in this House are directly responsible for the welfare of the peasantry and workers in Trinidad, British Guiana, the Leeward Islands, Mauritius and a few other small islands. They are our wards in this matter. The Australian and the South African producer has a large protected home market, and in the case of Australia a subsidised export. Therefore, it is obvious that our first duty is to consider our wards, who

  315
  are not in a position, as is Australia and South Africa, to look after their own peoples. Very wisely the Government have, deliberately and of set purpose, made this preference, as was recommended by Lord Olivier and the Commission sent out by the late Labour Government.
  The Amendment would mean a loss this year to our revenue of about £500,000, and possibly more, because one of the effects of the Amendment would be to divert the export of South African Dominion-grown sugar, which at present goes to Canada, to this country, as it would increase the preference given by us to South Africa over the preference given by Canada. The proposals of the Government are designed to assist the non-self-governing Dependencies in tropical lands which grow sugar and the mainland colony of British Guiana, and it is the minimum amount of assistance which it is absolutely necessary to give to maintain the industry in these Colonies. The ruin of the industry in these Colonies would not only involve the planters but the workers, and particularly the negro workers, in complete destitution, and, further, it would involve, as it has already by the failure of the Labour Government to implement the recommendations of Lord Olivier's Commission, a failure to give grants-in-aid to keep a decent standard going in these Dependencies.
  It is a far better policy to enable these Colonies, in what we hope is a period of temporary depression, to maintain the industry, and therefore some employment, and some local Colonial revenue, rather than merely to carry on by doles paid by the British taxpayer. Consequently, this special further assistance for these stricken Colonies, in the Way of a further £1 per ton preference in the first instance and in regard to particular quantities of sugar a still further preference of £l per ton over and above the preference which we give to the Dominions, is amply made out on the grounds of humanity and Imperial duty. Our Imperial responsibilities for these islands are special and great, and as the Dominions are already receiving a substantial preference and are in a position to protect their own industry, we are wise to limit this further assistance to those Colonies for whose
  316
  welfare and government this House is directly responsible.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had anything to do with the subject we are discussing it would have been very interesting. We are not suggesting taking away the benefit from the Colonies, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would consider that, if this preference was extended to the Dominions as well, it would take away their market for colonial sugar. Both markets will be under the theory which is behind this Resolution, operating at the expense of the foreign sugar which is coming into this country. At the present time foreign sugar is something like seven-tenths or six-tenths of the total; Dominion sugar is about two-and-a-half-tenths and Colonial sugar about one-and-a-half-tenths. We are quite willing to do what is stated as regards the Colonies. There is no question of taking away any preference from them, and I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that this is anything but a small palliative for the Colonial sugar provision. He does not imagine that this extra preference of £l per ton over foreign sugar or Dominion sugar is going to solve the difficulties of the Colonies. It is a little assistance for them.
  9.0 p.m.
  What the right hon. Gentleman has completely forgotten is that we are approaching the Ottawa Conference. We are as anxious as anybody that this Conference should be successful. We do not agree with the tariff policy of the Government, but, as tariffs have been imposed, we hope they will be used to the best purpose at Ottawa to get the best possible results for the Dominions and this country. It has been stated over and over again by the Government that it is most undesirable, in view of Ottawa, to put any taxes upon the Dominions except where it is absolutely necessary, and the whole principle of the Import Duties Act is to exclude them entirely until Ottawa so that the whole field may be free for discussion at the Imperial Conference. Here you have a complete reversal of that policy. Here you have a differentiation between the Colonies and the Dominions which does not appear in any other tariff proposals introduced by

  317
  the present Government. Their policy has always been to treat the Dominions and the Colonies alike, to leave them both free until the whole matter can be discussed at Ottawa. In the circumstances it is a wise policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) took the same point in the Budget Debate. It is idle for the First Commissioner of Works to speak as if it were a permanent policy designed to give a permanent cure to the Colonial sugar difficulty. It is a temporary expedient, and as such it is much wiser to leave the matter open for full discussion and arrangement at Ottawa, just as other duties have been left open, rather than, as in this case, to make a differentiation between the Dominions and the Colonies which may lead to friction and trouble at Ottawa. The amount which might be lost to the revenue, about £500,000, is so small a matter—
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Oh!
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Compared with the risk of having no results at all from the Ottawa Conference that I suggest, in view of the possibility of this risk, that it would be far wiser to adopt in this case the attitude that has been adopted in other cases until the Ottawa Conference. I do not know whether the £500,000 is the calculation for the whole year—
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: For the year.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: In that case, as we are only proposing to wait until the Ottawa Conference, it would be about £250,000, and it would be far wiser to risk the loss of that small sum of money than risk any difficulties arising in this matter at Ottawa, and to show what is called the generous hand to the Dominions. We shall certainly press for the insertion of this preference for the Dominions as well as for the Colonies as it is in the best interests of the Empire as a whole.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform us exactly what will be the price per ton of sugar after this preference has been given to Mauritius or any other colony? I ask for that information so that we may be able to see how far the Government have gone towards carrying out the recom-
  318
  mendation of the two Committees to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The right hon. Gentleman is very ingenious, is almost an expert in indicating the weaknesses of the last Socialist Government. When short of an argument he readily descends to attacking the Socialist Government, and not infrequently he rises to such giddy heights that he almost makes us believe his arguments are sound. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that the recommendation of the Indian Commission was that £12 per ton be paid for sugar and he proceeded to say that the present price was round about £8 2s. 6d. a ton. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the price will be as received by the growers in Mauritius or other colonies after the preference has been conceded to them?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): That subject might more properly be dealt with in another part of the Debate. The question ought to have been addressed to me. I can only say that no one on God's earth can answer. I do not think there is anyone who would venture to express a firm opinion as to what the world price of sugar will be over the next year. We saw a scheme introduced which was supposed to stabilise the price of sugar. Had that scheme done what was expected sugar to-day would probably be 7s. 6d. It is 4s. 9d. No one can say what the movements in price are going to be. All we know is that the price at present is unremunerative even to the most efficient producer in the West Indies or Mauritius. What is certain is that on all sugar coming from the Colonies there will be an advantage of a shilling, and sugar which carries the certificate will enjoy a further advantage of 1s. That is all that one can say. Anyone would be very foolish who attempted to prophesy what prices will be.
  If prices remain at their deadly depressing level of to-day, some material advantage at any rate is given. If by some Providential decree prices should rise, then the advantage will be greater. But—it is perhaps a forlorn hope—if they rise to the heights envisaged in the later stages of this Resolution, when without this preference sugar-growing would be

  319
  remunerative to these Colonies, then the extra preference really is equivalent to a grant in aid. What you are really giving here is a Grant-in-Aid. This is quite frankly in order to put those Colonies for which we are particularly responsible in a better position to pay their way. If prices were to rise to unexpected heights and this preference were no longer necessary to enable the Colonies to pay their way, it will be seen from the later stages of the Resolution that the extra preference will gradually diminish
  with each rise of 6d. above the figures which are set out. So that if we arrive at a situation in which sugar-growing paid its way, both the Domnions and the Colonies would stand on exactly the same footing, and would both enjoy the major preference which would give them a perpetual turn of the market against the foreign producer.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 254.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Potter, John

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Levy, Thomas

  Pybus, Percy John

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Stevenson, James

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Stones, James

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Storey, Samuel

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Ramsden, E.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Rankin, Robert

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Mabane, William

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Templeton, William P.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Remer, John R.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  McLean, Major Alan

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Robinson, John Roland

  Train, John

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Maitland, Adam

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Millar, Sir James Duncan

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Milne, Charles

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Salt, Edward W.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Munro, Patrick

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Nail, Sir Joseph

  Scone, Lord

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Nunn, William

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

  Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Pearson, William G.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Somerset, Thomas

  Petherick, M.

  Somervllle, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

  Soper, Richard

  Captain Austin Hudson and Sir

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Murdoch McKenzie Wood.

  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in line 36, at the end, to insert the words:
  "This paragraph shall not apply to sugar manufactured from home-grown beet unless the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that the grower of such beet has been paid a price representing a rate not less than thirty-eight shillings per ton, calculated in accordance with rules to be made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."
  The object of the Amendment is plain. When, last year, the reduction of the subsidy took place, the then Minister of Agriculture discovered that unless some assistance were given to the growers of sugar beet there was a likelihood of a tremendous contraction of the beet-producing area. Therefore, after long and almost painful discussions with the factory owners, an agreement was reached with 12 out of the 18 factories that a certain guaranteed price should be given to the producers of beet. The Anglo-Dutch group, however, felt disposed to remain outside the arrangement. As a result of the agreement reached with the 12 factories, 1s. 3d. a cwt. extra, over and above the amount arranged for under
  322
  the Act of 1925, was guaranteed to the factory owners who, as a result of the conditions laid down, were unable to take one penny piece of the sums provided by the Exchequer.
  That arrangement may or may not have been justified on the basis of the facts of the situation but for the moment that point is not in question. The point in question at the moment is: are we to grant a further concession of £200,000 to £260,000 to the owners of the factories without demanding in return that these factory owners shall provide some guarantee to the State that they will give every grower of sugar beet the benefit of this subsidy? We think that the present Government, having taken off the means test provided for last year, have committed a blunder and we fail to see why this sum should have been granted without some guarantee of the kind I have mentioned. May I recall the statement made by Dr. Addison when he provided for a similar financial arrangement during 1931? He said:
  "The whole of the extra amount provided by Parliament must be passed on to the

  323
  growers, and cannot be kept by the factories. It is entirely different from the original method of this subsidy scheme. I need not trouble the House with all the details of the scheme, but it is thoroughly sound and we can administer it with certainty. It provides that, up to 7s. 9d., the whole of the additional amount shall be passed on to the growers, and in that way the factories were able to pay 38s. a ton for sugar beet of 15½ per cent. sugar content, rising half-a-crown for each 1 per cent., which is the usual increase. In that way we are able to secure for the grower of sugar beet with 17½ per cent. content that 43s. a ton will be paid."
  Later on the right hon. Gentleman said that this extra expenditure would go directly into the pockets of the growers, and he continued:
  "We have stopped up the leakages or possible leakage very effectively by our arrangements."—[OFEICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1931; cols. 405-6, Vol. 255.]
  We are not at the momen debating the wisdom or otherwise of an increase in the subsidy. We are merely debating the question as to whether or not the taxpayer should be called upon to make this financial provision without some guarantee being provided for the growers of beet. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have said time and time again that agriculture required assistance. Surely it is the producer of the sugar beet who should be assisted, and not so much the owner of the factory? Almost every hon. Member of this House has been inundated by literature during the past three or four months. We have been informed that the factory owners were able in seven short years to distribut dividends of an amount equivalent to the total capital involved, and in that period they have set aside for reserves a sum in excess of the total estimated value of their factories. Therefore, in seven years the factory owners have received almost twice the original capital invested in those factories, and also a subsidy provided by the State. It seems to me that before any more money is provided, we should be satisfied that the farmer is going to be the recipient and not the owner of the factory.
  9.30 p.m.
  The right hon. Gentleman may remind me that last year only 12 of the 20 factory owners entered into this agreement. The other eight factory owners, including the Anglo-Dutch group, re-
  324
  mained outside, and still they made some arrangement with the growers of beet and were able to carry on very nicely without entering into the arrangement made by the Minister of Agriculture. If that was the case, and eight out of 20 factories can manage without the extra subsidy provided 12 months ago, the remaining 12 can manage very nicely without it. I am not, however, pressing that point at the moment. The point I am pressing is that if the Government, and through them the taxpayer, is called upon to make this provision of £225,000, it ought only to be done if we are satisfied beyond any doubt that the factory owners will deal fairly and squarely with the farmers who are producing the sugar beet. There is a second question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I remember on 14th July last year the then Minister of Agriculture brought forward for Second Reading a Bill to extend the period for the payment of this extra 1s. 3d. per cwt. The present Home Secretary was the chief opponent of the Measure and before the Minister of Agriculture had an opportunity of moving the Second Reading, the present Home Secretary, who was then sitting below the Gangway rose to a point of Order, which was:
  "Would it be in order to point out the somewhat lavish expenditure that has taken place under this subsidy as indicating that this further payment may not be necessary?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1931; col. 404, Vol. 255.]
  The right hon. Gentleman made many other statements in the course of the Debate. He went on to prove that for every man employed for one day, in subsidy alone the taxpayer would have to pay ƒ1. He argued that it was the biggest ramp this country had ever known. That may or may not be the case, but at all events it calls for the very careful attention of hon. Members before we accede to the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hand over a further sum without any such guarantee. I remember some of the statements made by an ex-Financial Secretary who frequently sat below the Gangway not very far from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He described this sugar subsidy as the biggest ramp this country had ever witnessed. However, I do not

  325
  want to deal with the past; it is the present that really matters. I should like the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, to tell the House exactly what the changed circumstances are that brought about the withdrawal of the conditions imposed on the factory owner last year. If the financial position is the same to-day as in July last year, the conditions ought to remain the same also and all possible leakages should be stopped, so that this sum of money should go to the farmer who produces the sugar beet. For that reason, I am moving my Amendment, and I am hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman has reconsidered the whole position and will now be willing to apply this means test to the factory owners, instead of leaving them to receive the money without any guarantee that either the farmers or the agricultural workers will benefit at all as the result of the, subsidy.
  Mr. LAWSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised this point again, because, as he said, there is a difference in practice between the Anglo-Dutch group of factories and the other factories, and the point really arises out of that difference of practice. I presume this Amendment is meant to be drafted with words inserted after the words "thirty-eight shillings per ton" to describe the percentage sugar content, because it is a variable scale.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Not less than 38s.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The whole question has been argued on the basis of 38s. per ton for beets of a content not less than 15½ per cent. Assuming that is the intention of the Amendment, 13 out of the 17 factories which are to operate this year would not be affected by the Amendment, because they have already entered into contracts for a flat rate of payment of 40s. There remain the four factories in the Anglo-Dutch group. Last year there were five factories of that group operating, but one, Kelham, made a loss and is not going to operate again, and we are left with the four remaining Anglo-Dutch factories. They have offered a rate of 35s. a ton, plus four-fifths of the profits of the manufacture.
  I am not and the Government are not going to lay down or say which is the
  326
  best form of contract from the farmer's point of view. I understand that when the accounts are finally made up on the basis of last year, when all the profits in the Anglo-Dutch group went to the farmer, the farmers dealing with the four successful Anglo-Dutch factories—Cantley, Ipswich, Ely and Lynn—will by the end of the year get actually a higher price than that provided for by the minimum flat rate contract that was inserted in the Act of last year. Of course, there is the element of gambling. If it is a very bad year, then they only get the 35s. in those four, and the other people will get the 40s. On the other hand, if the year is successful, they will probably get, dealing with the Anglo-Dutch factories, a bigger net profit at the end of it all than the people dealing with the 13 flat-rate factories. That is the position, and the Government do not wish to prejudge that situation.
  I understand that a very large number of the growers who deal with the Anglo-Dutch group are satisfied with the offer that has been made this year. That is the full ex-planation why we think it is undesirable to accept the Amendment and force a flat rate of 38s. on all factories, but let me make it quite clear that the bulk of the factories have already entered into a flat-rate contract of 40s., and the Anglo-Dutch group into a co-operative contract on the basis of a minimum 35s., plus four-fifths of the profits, and in. view of that arrangement it is considered undesirable for Parliament to attempt to interfere. Accordingly, I ask the House to agree with the Committee and reject this Amendment.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman says it is undesirable to interfere, though he appreciates that we are interfering to the extent of giving 1s. 3d. a cwt. I gather that he does not think that that is undesirable interference, but that it becomes such the moment this House puts any condition on the grant of 1s. 3d. a cwt. A sum of 1s. 3d. a cwt. must be given, apparently, without any conditions, without any control, and without seeing that it goes to the right people. What the right hon. Gentleman has told us does not in the least affect the question of principle which is involved, and that

  327
  question of principle is whether this House, in making a grant to the sugar factories, is going to take the trouble to see that that money goes to the benefit of the farmer, or whether it is going to leave it for settlement between the farmer and the sugar factory as to who gets it.
  If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the farmers who deal with the Anglo-Dutch group are going to get more than 38s., then the Anglo-Dutch group will not be in the least affected by the Amendment being inserted, because what the Amendment says is that the Customs and Excise must be satisfied that the grower of the beet has been paid a price representing a rate of not less than 38s. a ton. If the Anglo-Dutch group gives 35s. first and a portion of the profits afterwards, so long as it comes to that amount per ton, it does not matter. They will be covered just as any other contract will be covered, but the only case that will not be covered will be such a case as the factory at Kelham, which has gone out of production this year, where apparently last year the farmers did not get 38s. a ton, and where, if the money had been paid to Kelham, it would have gone directly to the losses of the factory under the existing scheme, and the farmers would definitely have been that much worse off. What is there to guarantee that during the coming year some other of the four factories will not find themselves in the same position; and, if they are, this money which the House is providing will go to a cause which the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit is the wrong one, because he does not wish it to be used for paying for the losses of inefficient factories, and, if he admits that, it seems to me that he admits the whole case.
  We are not particular about the words of the Amendment, though they are the words that were in the Act of Parliament. If he desires some other words, we should be only too pleased that they should be inserted. He admits the principle that it is right that the House should see that this money goes to the farmers, and he admits that in the existing circumstances it may be that the money will not go to the farmer owing to the form of contract which certain
  328
  factories have entered into. Having admitted that, he then refuses to make any provision whatsoever to see that the proper desire of this House is carried out, and it seems to me that that is allowing the idea of non-interference, which consists of only providing money and never providing control, to run itself to death. We shall certainly do our best to see that this House puts proper provisions in the Financial Resolution to see that its admitted objects are to be attained, and not leave it to the mere whim of the Anglo-Dutch or any other factories to treat the farmer as they like when the House intends that the money should go to the farmer.
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I should like to correct one misconception in the minds of both the speakers on the Front Opposition Bench, as to what constitutes or causes a loss, and has caused a loss in the case of the Kelham factory in the last year. It is the failure to receive sufficient raw material to run the factory. That will not apply to the four remaining factories of the Anglo-Dutch group which propose to operate in the next season, because they have all four got what, in the opinion of their directors, is an adequate supply contracted for. There may be a total failure of crop, and that might bring loss to any factory.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Was not the position the same with Kelham last year? The directors thought that they had enough to run the factory, and they found that they had not.
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: No, not at all. The directors of the Anglo-Dutch group had four factories under their control and one under a lease. They were unable, owing to the conditions under which they had issued capital to the public, to enter into the arrangements with the Minister of Agriculture and the Treasury which were entered into by the factories of the other groups. Consequently, they offered to operate their five factories for the farmers, reserving nothing for dividends, reserves, depreciation, directors' fees or increases of salary. They operated the five factories, and the farmers took all the excess of receipts over expenditure. They grew so small a quantity of beet for one factory that the amount to be distributed

  329
  was very small, and came out at less than 38s. a ton, but, having once entered into that arrangement with the farmers, it was not open to the directors to refuse to operate the factory. This year contracts were offered on the co-operative basis and the power was reserved in the hands of the boards, if an adequate acreage was not contracted for up to a certain date, to return the acreage offered to the factory which was short and not to run it. That has happened in regard to the leased factory. The four factories in the group have got an adequate supply, and they will operate on the cooperative basis, which we believe is infinitely better for the general interest of agriculture and farmers than a flat rate. If, as we hope, there is some world recovery in the price of sugar, under our co-operative contract the farmers will have four-fifths of such advantage. We think that it is better that they should have a direct interest in the market fluctuations of sugar than that they should be tied down to a flat rate fixed at a time when the world price of sugar is extremely low.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Was not the failure to obtain the requisite quantity to maintain continuous work at Kelham due to the hesitancy on the part of the factory owners to enter into suitable arrangements from the farmer's point of view? Was it not the case that the farmers, not having a guarantee of an adequate price, refrained from growing and that consequently Kelham was unable to carry on? Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the farmer will always put his back into his work if he has a guaranteed price and if the gambling element is eliminated?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: I do not think that the first point really arises. The failure last year on the part of the farmers to grow may have been because the contracts were very late, but it was not due to any hesitancy on the part of the factory owners. Up to a very late date none of the factories had seen their way to offer contracts at all. The Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Addison, intervened and made an offer to the factories in the Anglo-Dutch group. They were debarred from accepting that offer by the conditions under which they had issued their capital to the public. The difficulty arose in this way, that an obligation was undertaken
  330
  by the factories which had accepted that offer of 1s. 3d. to repay that sum in future years in certain circumstances, such as a rise in the world price of sugar in the next few years. The capital in question had been offered to the public by the Anglo-Dutch group and had been taken up by the public in London on conditions which debarred the directors from undertaking any obligations for future years beyond the year under consideration. We were not able to accept the possibility of being called upon to pay in one year in respect of a change of conditions in another year, and consequently incur an unforeseeable loss. Consequently, all that the Anglo-Dutch group were able to do was to offer to operate their factories simply for the benefit of the farmer. That was done, and it was up to the farmers to grow sufficient beet to make the transaction a success if they wished. They did that in the case of four factories, but failed in the case of the fifth. Farmers are perfectly satisfied to enter into co-operative contracts with a minimum of 35s. because two of the factories, at all events, have been almost overwhelmed by the amount of acreage which has been thrust upon them. We have had to stop taking contracts long before the flow of contracts would have stopped of itself.
  Mr. ATTLEE: It is difficult to find out what is the collective mind of the Government, if they have one. I do not know how far the Home Secretary is concerned in this matter, for he is not here and is not quacking on this subject to-night. Taking those who are present and their past record, I cannot make out what the Government's ideas are. We have had a great discussion this Session about the need for giving a guaranteed price to the farmers for their wheat. When we come to the question of sugar, we are told that it is most desirable that the farmers should depend on world prices going up and down and making profits or losses accordingly. That was the burden of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eye (Sir G. Courthope) has told the House. He wants a cooperative principle, and he wants the farmers to have an interest in the market. They have got to gamble. The First Commissioner of Works used a fallacious argument when he suggested that because certain arrangements had

  331
  been come to between the farmers and the sugar factories, this House should abdicate its responsibility in the matter altogether. In industry the men have an arrangement for a minimum wage and there is nothing to prevent an employer giving more. The important thing is to have a guaranteed wage. In this case we want a guaranteed minimum price to the growers. The point is that we do not get it, and that the House of Commons is putting up money to be gambled over.
  We consider the money was put forward as a definite subsidy, not to the sugar factory, but to the grower of beet, and these things ought not to depend on some vague contracts. The contracts of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us were extraordinary, and the constitution of those sugar factories seems to be extraordinary. I am not fully acquainted with the articles of association of the company referred to, but they certainly seem to have tied themselves up into a pretty fair knot. As far as I could gather, when an offer was made to them last year they could not accept it because they had tied themselves up in some mysterious way to their shareholders. The result was that

  Division No. 158.]

  AYES.

  [9.58 p.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Grenfell, David Bees (Glamorgan)

  Maxton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Owen, Major Goronwy

  Batey, Joseph

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Price, Gabriel

  Buchanan, George

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Cape, Thomas

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hirst, George Henry

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Daggar, George

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lunn, William

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.

  Groves.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Borodale, Viscount

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Albery, Irving James

  Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Colman, N. C. D.

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

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Colville, John

  Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Apsley, Lord

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Cooke, Douglas

  Atkinson, Cyril

  Burghley, Lord

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Crooks, J. Smedley

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

  Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Cassels, James Dale

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)

  Castle Stewart, Earl

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

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

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  they went ahead without a subsidy, they could not pay the farmers the price, and they made a loss. That is all very unsatisfactory, and I think the sooner the company gets its articles overhauled the better. Meanwhile, we here take responsibility as a House of Commons for these subsidies. We live in days of crisis and emergency, and we have another emergency now. The point is that whenever there is an emergency the Government proceed to shell out money all round absolutely unconditionally. That is the "rake's progress" upon which they have embarked—nothing but handing out money to various sections of their supporters, without any guarantee of efficiency, without any test as to whether they ought to receive it, and without the slightest attempt to see that it gets into the right hands. [Interruption.] Of course, there is no needs test, that is only for the working class. We shall certainly press this Amendment, because of the thoroughly vicious principle of handing out subsidies absolutely unconditionally.
  Question put, "That those words be these inserted in the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 263.

  Dickie, John P.

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Robinson, John Roland

  Donner, P. W.

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Drewe, Cedric

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Levy, Thomas

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Salt, Edward W.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Scone, Lord

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Mabane, William

  Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Somerset, Thomas

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Soper, Richard

  Gibson, Charles Granville

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

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

  McLean, Major Alan

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Maitland, Adam

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Margesson, Capt, Henry David R.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Stevenson, James

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Stones, James

  Greene, William P. C.

  Milne, Charles

  Storey, Samuel

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Munro, Patrick

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Hales, Harold K.

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Templeton, William P.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

  Nunn, William

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Harbord, Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hartland, George A.

  Pearson, William G.

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Peat, Charles U.

  Train, John

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Headlam, Lieut. Col. Cuthbert M.

  Petherick, M.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Potter, John

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Hepworth, Joseph

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Hills, Major Ht. Hon. John Waller

  Pybus, Percy John

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Hornby, Frank

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Horobin, Ian M.

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Watt, Captain George Steven H.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Ramsden, E.

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

  Rankin, Robert

  Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

  Jennings, Roland

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Womersley, Walter James

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Remer, John R.

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Captain Austin Hudson and Sir

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Murdoch McKenzie Wood.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Before the Resolution is finally passed, there are one or two questions which I wish to ask, and which I hope the Financial Secretary will be good enough to explain to the House. First of all, I am a little puzzled why the duty on saccharin manufactured in the
  334
  Colonies is different from the excise duty upon saccharin manufactured in this country. There are a number of figures dealing with molasses, glucose and saccharin, each of them relating to manufactures in the Colonies or other countries. I notice that the total imported during the first three months of this year is nil and in 1930 it was only one ounce. If these figures are compared

  335
  with the excise duty they are the same in every case with a penny or a halfpenny more. On molasses which amounts to 70 per cent. the duty is 3s. excise duty and for amounts up to 70 per cent. it is 2s. 11d. Where the molasses exceed 50 per cent. but do not amount to 70 per cent. the amount is 2s. 1½d.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why there is a penny difference in the over 70 per cent. standard of molasses and the same excise and import duty when it does not exceed that standard? Is there something in the Colonial manufacture which leads to that differentiation in the case of molasses? There is a difference of one halfpenny and one penny in regard to glucose. In paragraph (e) of the Resolution it states that the Resolution applies to all the Colonies except Southern Rhodesia. Why is Southern Rhodesia not included as a colony? I presume there is some special status in the case of Southern Rhodesia which for the purpose of sugar means that it should not be dealt with as a colony. If the Financial Secretary will explain these matters, I shall be much indebted to him.
  Mr. AMERY: I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in the somewhat detailed and ingenious questions which he has put, but I should like to make one or two general observations upon the proposals which the Government have introduced in connection with sugar. It is a pity that the Government, in extending the sugar preference, should not have extended it to the Dominions. I know that this question has been discussed earlier this evening, and I do not propose to embark upon any long argument now. I will only say that if I had been in my place when this question was discussed I should have supported hon. Members opposite in asking for that extension. After all, in connection with every other duty which has been imposed in the course of this Parliament the full preference has been given to the Dominions. I think in these matters we ought to give every preference we can, and here an exception seems to have been made to the general policy which we have so far pursued.
  Probably the reason which will be given for this policy is that this preference would have involved a further loss of
  336
  revenue, but that is the result of dealing with the whole sugar problem in the wrong way, namely, by a remission of the Empire duty instead of an increase in the foreign duty. I think the same reason has been responsible for the very curious, elaborate and cumbrous way of dealing with Colonial preference. Apparently, the second shilling of additional preference is to be given only for a certain quota. That quota is fixed at 275,000 tons, and that amount is about half of the total export production of the Colonies. In adjudicating it, the Government are at once driven to regulations which are bound to work unfairly, or, at any rate, rather curiously.
  I observe that one Colony which is to receive a substantial quota of 40,000 tons of sugar is Fiji. Fiji normally sends all her export sugar to Canada or New Zealand, and very little Fiji sugar comes to this country. Nevertheless, Fiji is to receive a preference in this country on sugar which she does not send here, in the shape of a quota which she is free to sell to other Colonies. There may be something to be said from the point of view of giving a bonus or dole to the sugar interests in the different Colonies, but, from the point of view of preference, it surely would have been better to have given a frank preference to all Colonial sugar coming into this market. The figures on which preference has been given seem to me to be lamentably inadequate. When Lord Olivier reported, not so long ago, he urged that the sugar crop of the Colonies should be bought by this country at £15 a ton, and certainly his report made it clear that sugar could not be grown profitably at a figure very much lower than that. Since then, sugar has fallen to £9, £8, £6, and now to something over £4 a ton, and a preference even of 2s. is really inadequate to give the Colonies a fair chance. But at any rate, in their difficulties, it would have been the generous and broad thing to have given the 2s. preference. Instead of that, they get 1s., and then 1s. on half their crop conditionally on the price being below £8, and, if the price rises above £8, that is taken away.
  The whole thing seems to me to be inadequate to the magnitude of the problems with which we are dealing. They are handled in what I might call a niggling, Treasury fashion, instead of

  337
  being dealt with broadly as a great question of Empire development. Surely it would have been infinitely better to have put an additional ¼d., or, better still, ½d. on foreign sugar, and to have given both the Dominions and the Colonies adequate preference. It would have given them a chance of carrying on their industry, would have paved the way for Ottawa, and would have created a favourable sentiment throughout the Empire towards the negotiations at Ottawa. This particular way of dealing with the matter, weighing out preferences by pennyweights, and making quite sure that not an ounce of sugar should be diverted from Canada to this country, is unworthy of the greatness of the issues with which we are dealing, and I am afraid it is only a reflection of the rather niggling character of the whole way in which the financial problem has been approached in this Budget. I think it would have been far better if the Budget had reflected more adequately the greatness of the issues with which we are dealing, and had approached them, with an eye to Ottawa, in a more generous spirit. I regret that I should have to make these critical observations, but I feel that this issue of sugar is somewhat typical of the attitude in which a number of our problems have been approached recently and I felt that I could not let this Resolution pass without, at any rate on my own behalf, making this protest.
  Major ELLIOT: We have, on this Resolution, two sets of questions and criticisms—those of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), which are of a narrow and, indeed, viva voce character, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), which have a wider range. The points which have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook were dealt with fairly fully during the discussion on the Amendments, and, therefore, I think it is undesirable to go into them again at length, save to say that we do, of course, appreciate the criticisms which he has made, and I am afraid we must stand confessed as dealing with these matters in a niggling and, indeed, a Treasury spirit. But what else would one expect from the Treasury representatives than that they should deal with these matters in a Treasury spirit, and that it should always appear to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen
  338
  who have seen the vision, as my right hon. Friend said, of a glowing mass of enthusiasm, that any consideration of pounds, shillings and pence is, indeed, niggling. Unfortunately, however, we have to approach these matters with the recognition that we are very cramped for room in these lean years, and that a sacrifice of revenue on the one hand, or an increase in the duties which might lead to an increased cost of living on the other hand, has to be approached by us in the most gingerly fashion at the present time.
  Nothing would do more harm to this great experiment that we are now embarking upon than to associate it in the mind of the ordinary people of the country, and still more the ordinary shopping housewives of the country, with a sudden rise in the price of articles in common use, which they would attribute to the new policy into which we desire to sail with a favourable wind. We are also, in connection with the Dominions, emboldened to approach it cautiously. The duties that we propose with regard to sugar are as nothing compared with those that they impose. In Australia the duty amounts practically to an embargo. There is, in fact, a licence for the importation of quantities of sugar, tout that is never used, and the producers in 1927 got up to as much as £20 a ton and no importation as against our suggestion for £4 8s., £3 8s. and £2 8s. for certificated Colonial sugar and £8 3s. per ton for foreign sugar. Compare that with £20 a ton which Australia grants to her tome producers. In such circumstances it is not unreasonable that we should say it is a matter for discussion, as they are enjoying such exceptional advantages in their home markets as against the sugar producing islands, which have no such home advantages. In South Africa there is an import duty of £16 a ton, which practically excludes anything in the nature of the importation of foreign sugar. My right hon. Friend will, therefore, excuse us if, on this occasion at any rate, we have approached the matter cautiously, because we have great responsibilities, more particularly, first of all, to the home producer and the home user of sugar and, secondly, to the Colonial producer who, if he cannot look to us here, can look nowhere for a market; and after that to the Dominion pro-

  339
  ducer to whom we ought to give all possible advantages, but who can reasonably afford to wait a little while because he is not subject to all the adverse factors to which the Colonial producer is subjected.
  That brings me to the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who asked why a certain advantage appears to be given in the excise duty to the home producer as compared with the Colonial producer. The axiom on which we work is that the home producer is entitled to the first turn at the market. The Dominions and Colonies understand perfectly well that the borne producer is entitled to a turn of the scale in his favour even as against Colonial and Dominion producers. That is the reason why he finds a penny difference in some of the scales. We rounded it off to the nearest halfpenny and that is why in the case of molasses of 50 per cent. and under he finds 1s. 0½d. in both cases. In this case it meant a levelling of the duty so that neither the home producer nor the Colonial producer enjoyed any advantage one over the other. That I think deals with the specific questions asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman except the interesting point as to why Southern Rhodesia was not considered to be a Colony. Southern Rhodesia is not considered to be a Colony because in fact it is not a Colony.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: It says all the Colonies except Southern Rhodesia, which implies that it is a Colony but it is excepted.
  Major ELLIOT: I was about to descant upon the peculiar constitutional position of Southern Rhodesia. I should be out of order in going into it at length, but it is a Colony which is in process of evolution towards a Dominion and it has already reached a certain stage in that evolution. It is neither wholly the one thing, nor yet wholly the other. It is in process of transition, and we have to allow for these things, in the British Empire. It is in a somewhat similar position to that of Iraq, which is in process of moving from a mandated territory into something very like a State, but that transition may run for a period of years. The particular thing to be observed in Southern. Rhodesia, in the Colony, or the
  340
  Dominion of Southern Rhodesia, or the self-governing area of Southern Rhodesia, is that while it has a great deal of autonomy in its own private affairs, certain very important things are reserved for this country. Therefore, it is an excepted Colony, and that is about as near a definition of the State as I can give at the present time.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Why should it have a preference?
  Major ELLIOT: Because it is not in fact a colony, and nothing would annoy the State of Southern Rhodesia more than to be lumped in as a colony.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: It is called a colony.
  10.30 p.m.
  Major ELLIOT: No, it is called an excepted colony. It has the constitutional privileges and rights of areas which are excepted colonies. The area of Southern Rhodesia enjoys its own rights and privileges, and has not the privileges either of a colony or of a Dominion, and on that constitutional position it is necessary for us to stand. I am afraid that I can go no further than that. I think I have dealt with the specific questions asked by the hon.. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and I hope that he will now enable us to have the Resolution.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Third Resolution agreed to.
  Fourth Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. LEVY: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in, at last, beginning to remove one of the anomalies that are so prevalent throughout the whole of the silk industry. It was a question that. I put down which drew attention to this particular anomaly, whereby a trader was charged a specific duty while private individuals could bring over whatever quantity of silk goods they desired. Provided they stated that it was for their own use, they were only charged on the silk content basis, with the result that fraud was rife, and the Silk Duties ceased to draw that revenue that they

  341
  were entitled to draw. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that, even at this late hour, he is beginning to deal with the silk industry, and this is one of the first anomalies to be dealt with.
  Captain WATERHOUSE: Will the Minister tell us exactly what this Resolution is designed to do? My recollection is that about £55,000 was involved one way or the other, but I am not quite clear whether, on balance, it will be for the benefit of the importers or for the benefit of the manufacturers in this country. I very much hope that it is for the benefit of the manufacturers, because the House will realise that during the past week-end the manufacturers in the silk and artificial silk industry received a staggering and, as they bettered, an unmerited and unexpected blow. This Resolution may or may not be designed to help them, but we have not heard any declaration from the Government. If it is not so designed I lope that on the next Resolution we may see an Amendment on the Order Paper removing them from the very invidious position in which they find themselves under a certain section of an earlier Resolution. The point I want the Financial Secretary to answer is whether this is going, to be any benefit at all to the manufacturers, and, if not, will he bear it in mind before the Budget Resolutions leave this House and see that they get redress.
  Mr. REMER: On this Resolution I know that we cannot discuss the silk industry as a whole, but, nevertheless, it is of considerable value inasmuch as it removes an injustice. There are many other injustices from which the silk industry suffers, but I should not be in order in referring to them. All I want to do is to ask the Financial Secretary to bear in mind that this is a matter of considerable moment to the silk industry as a whole and that in succeeding Resolutions I hope that he will do real justice to the industry which has suffered so much in the past.
  Major ELLIOT: It will be agreed that the Resolution is an advantage to manufacturers and to the industry as a whole, inasmuch as it removes an anomaly from which the industry has suffered in the past. The concession which was originally made purely for the personal
  342
  convenience of travellers has led to a considerable amount of fraud and, indeed, was giving foreign manufacturers and importers an undue advantage over manufacturers and legitimate traders in this country. For instance, under the Acts as they previously stood a foreign dressmaker might bring over a consignment of gowns, pay an ad valorem duty, exhibit them in this country, take orders, and then re-export the gowns, getting a drawback. He could then post the consignments to the individual purchasers in this country, who could very properly declare that the articles were imported for their own use. In that case they would pay duty on the weight, and not on the ad valorem basis. Obviously, that is an abuse which it is desirable to check; and this Resolution checks it. That is all that it is necessary to say on the Resolution. As to the wider question, the position of the silk trade as a whole, obviously it would be out of order for me to go into that matter on this very narrow Resolution. These wider questions will come up for Debate at full length at an early date when the Order is brought before the House for confirmation, and it will then be possible for hon. Members who desire to discuss these matters to go into them frilly. On this Resolution I am glad to have had the approval of hon. Members who have technical experience in this industry, and I hope the House will accept the Resolution.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Consideration of the remaining Resolutions be now adjourned. —[Captain Margesson.]
  Remaining Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.

  FINANCE (COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES FOR COLLECTORS OF TAXES).
  Resolution reported,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session, relating to Finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred on account of annual allowances by way of compensation granted to collectors of taxes (including collectors, of land tax) in England and Northern Ireland in cases where—

  343

  (a) the collector's appointment as such is determined after the commencement of the said Act; and

  (b) the collector held his appointment as such on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, and has continued to hold the appointment up to the commencement of the said Act."

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I had put on the Paper an Amendment which I do not now wish to move, because I have an assurance that the power to pay lump sums as well as annual payments is contained in certain Acts now on the Statute Book, and that that will apply to these provisions when they are put into the form of a Statute.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  FINANCE [FOUR PER CENT. CONSOLIDATED LOAN (SINKING FUND)].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any moneys required for the purpose of any undertaking contained in any prospectus to purchase and cancel four per cent. Consolidated Loan."
  Resolution agreed to.

  HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EMERGENCY CUSTOMS DUTIES) ACT, 1931.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sip John Gilmour): I beg to move,
  "That the Order, dated 23rd March, 1932 made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 6th day of April, 1932, be approved."
  This is the first of two Resolutions and perhaps I should say a few words on each of them. This Resolution is a variation of a previous Order dealing with green peas. In the first Order a duty of 40s. per cwt. was imposed from 5th January to 31st March, and a duty of 9s. 4d. from 1st April to 30th June. When that duty was imposed it dealt mainly with peas in shells. It has now been discovered that peas shelled are coming in, and they obviously evade the duty. There is another
  344
  reason for the variation of the Order, and it is one which will commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. There are numbers of women employed in shelling peas in Covent Garden market. It is not right that they should be deprived of that income, and that is one of the reasons for the modification of the Order. The second Order deals with the importation of rose trees. In the first place there was a duty of 30s. per 100 imposed from 5th January to 30th April. I told the House at the time that this would be dealt with subsequently. I now have dealt with it, and the duty, calculated upon the average price of last year, is now 20s. instead of 30s.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We are not desirous of occupying much time over a matter of a penny per pound on imported peas. We deplore the fact that it should appear that this great nation and this formidable Empire are dependent upon a duty of a penny a pound on imported peas, and we also lament the fact that the right hon. Gentleman should have seen fit to throw out of work so many young ladies who have been engaged shelling peas and who, it would seem, have lost their occupation as a result of this duty. At the same time we congratulate him upon his persistence in continuing his duties and his impositions, but we do not see any real need for opposing this Order.
  Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I am very much astonished at the change which the right hon. Gentleman proposes in the duty upon rose trees, particularly as he asked the growers in this country to undertake to produce rose trees in sufficient quantities to meet the demand which would ari if a duty of 30s. was placed upon that. The 30s. is exactly the wholesale price charged by the foreigner on foreign rose trees and on the assurance of that duty the rose tree growers of England engaged a large number of extra men and opened extra nurseries and undertook to plant and did plant 50 per cent. more rose trees. They now find the whole thing dashed to the ground by this change from 30s. to 20s., a duty which will enable the foreigner to send his trees here in competition with ours and is perfectly useless to the trade. I wish to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the largest firm in England dealing in foreign rose trees, and sells them to

  345
  the public here, had in consequence of this duty placed an order with the English growers for the whole of their trees for this year. That order will never be placed again, and British growers will never again trust in this House. It is an absolute scandal that rose growers should have been encouraged to engage several thousands of extra hands, to open fresh ground and to grow these trees, and then to find that the 30s. has been turned into 20s., that their labour has been wasted, and that their money is gone, to say nothing of the unemployment which will be caused. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter again.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: The hon. and gallant Member is giving us a lesson in Protection in practice. I have always argued that while there may be a great deal to be said for putting a tariff on against a particular article, as soon as the Government, in the light of experience, attempt to lower that duty, immediately they find hon. Members, naturally and properly, working up a case to show that this or that interest will suffer as the result of the change in the duty. They will be told, as we have been told this evening, that people have been induced by the promise of this House and of the Government, to invest money and that the consequence of any change will be to ruin them. That is the inevitable result of the tariff in practice. You are not able to take off the duty or even to vary it or alter it without protests of that character. I do not blame the hon. and gallant Member but I would point out to him that this is the result of tariffs. Perhaps he is going to learn the lesson; perhaps his speech is an example of conversion to my point of view, because I have always pointed out the danger of duties of this kind and the danger of dependence upon Governments for the prosperity of particular industries.
  We have now an interesting experience of Protection in practice. The Minister of Agriculture is lowering the tariff more quickly than I thought he would. He found that as a result of putting on a duty, a great number of people were being thrown out of work. As I understand it, the peas used to be shelled in England by British labour, but now they
  346
  are shelled abroad. It was the custom before the tariff was introduced for the peas to come from abroad by rail and be shelled here, but then came the duty, and it did not pay to bring these goods over shelled because of the duty, and a great number of people were thrown out of work and Frenchwomen were employed instead of English. This has been the result of starting these experiments, and they are going to be multiplied a hundredfold in the next few months. You will have to keep on altering your duties in order to prevent people being thrown out of work. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has learned his lesson so quickly, and has had the sense to come down to the House and admit his mistake. We shall have hundreds of examples of that kind in the next few months, and various Ministers will have to come here and say they have learned their lesson and that the duties must be altered because people are being thrown out of work. It will not always be so easy to make the change as in this case, and in consequence some people will be ruined. This is the little lesson we have learned in the first few weeks as to how Protection works.
  Mr. HOWARD: I am very glad to hear the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) say we shall have hundreds of alterations in our tariff in the next few months. That is the whole idea of a scientific tariff—to change it to meet altering circumstances for the benefit of our people. The whole idea of modern business is to adapt your methods to changed circumstances, and the only way in which you can make progress is to get rid of the fossilisation which characterised this country for 80 years under Free Trade. The Horticultural Act has already proved a Godsend to working men all over the country. I have here yesterday's "Daily Herald," which, I understand, it is not in order for me to read, but which contains a large picture of Covent Garden Market. At the top of the picture it says "Britain's Growing Flower Industry." Underneath we are told that at Covent Garden Market people are now working at top speed to cope with the 25 special trains which arrive each day in London from Southern and Eastern counties laden with daffodils, tulips and other Spring flowers.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This particular Order only deals with peas.
  Mr. HOWARD: I appreciate that we are dealing only with peas, but I understand that rose trees also are being debated. This picture tells us that tariffs have reduced supplies from the Continent, and consequently the market is now getting a greater quantity of British flowers than ever before.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Can the hon. Member tell us what paper that is in?
  Mr. HOWARD: I am only too pleased to inform the hon. Member that this is yesterday's "Daily Herald," and this picture, which lauds the great advance in British flowers, was published yesterday, when we had a brilliant display of British flowers by hon. Members opposite. I might mention that had this picture, instead of appearing yesterday, after the return of the new Member to the benches opposite, appeared in this paper two days earlier, it is probable that that new Member would not have been here at all.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That the Order, dated 23rd March, 1932, made by the Minister of Agriculture and
  348
  Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 6th day of April, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Order, dated 20th April, 1932, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 22nd day of April, 1932, be approved."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

  ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1930.
  Resolved,
  "That the Chatham and District Traction Act, 1929, Modification Order, 1932, which was presented on the 21st March, 1932, be approved."—[Mr. Pybus.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

MERCANTILE MARINE.
  VESSELS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).
  VESSELS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).
  ASSISTANCE.
  ASSISTANCE.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GAS INDUSTRY.
  GAS INDUSTRY.
  TRADE RETURNS (CLASSIFICATION).
  TRADE RETURNS (CLASSIFICATION).
  FACTORIES (FOREIGN FIRMS).
  FACTORIES (FOREIGN FIRMS).
  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACTS.
  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACTS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  COUNTY DURHAM.
  COUNTY DURHAM.
  ARDWICK.
  ARDWICK.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
POST OFFICE.
  FOREIGN MACHINES.
  FOREIGN MACHINES.
  TELEPHONE CALLS, SOUTH AFRICA.
  TELEPHONE CALLS, SOUTH AFRICA.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  MENTAL HOSPITALS AND POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS, LANCASHIRE.
  MENTAL HOSPITALS AND POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS, LANCASHIRE.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS' ESTATES, COUNTY DURHAM.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS' ESTATES, COUNTY DURHAM.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act. Its object is to entitle persons injured on the road by a motor vehicle—other than motorists themselves—to recover compensation where they have not themselves caused the accident, without proof of negligence or misconduct on the part of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle. I move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to confirm two Provisional Orders made by the Secretary of State. In both cases the Order deals with marriages solemnized in a building which, in fact, was not at the time licensed for the performance of marriages. When the matter was brought to the attention of the Secretary of State by the Registrar-General and after consultation with the ecclesiastical authorities, he made two draft Provisional Orders which were advertised in the usual way by being attached to the prin-

145
cipal door of the churches concerned for one month. I do not think there is any further explanation I need give your Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER:My Lords, the privilege of introducing legislation into your Lordships' House is one that ought not to be lightly exercised. I have availed myself of this opportunity more often than most of your Lordships, but, I would like to say that I have sought on every occasion to guide my actions by considering two things: first, that the matter was one of wide general importance; and, secondly, that there was good reason to hope that it might ultimately find its place upon the Statute Book. Nor have I been wholly disappointed. I think that every one of the many measures to which at one time or another I have asked your Lordships to agree have ultimately found their way safely to port in another place, with the one great exception of the Divorce Bill which, I grieve to say, seems stuck permanently upon the mud banks where it will remain until it can be lifted into deep water by the rising tide of popular opinion.
I have attempted to obey those principles in introducing this Bill, and I hope that in nothing I shall say I shall be thought to be taking a reactionary or a bitter view of either motor vehicles or the people who drive them. Indeed, the invention of the internal combustion engine is one of the greatest of the triumphs that have signalised man's victory over material things. To take a series of pieces of assorted metal and so to arrange them that by the addition of mineral oil and an electric spark you can drive the accumulated mass through the air, under or over the water, or along the roads, is an achievement of which I think we may all well be proud; and when we see the amazing and exquisite delicacy with which these machines are constructed, how they will respond to the
146
faintest touch, to even the feeblest hand, how their pace can be regulated so that at one time they may be out-distanced by a snail and at another they may out-soar an eagle, I think many will feel, as I do, that in looking at these instruments you can believe that the vision of the old Hebrew prophet has been realised, and that the spirit of the living Creator is within the wheels.
But none the less, no one can doubt that this invention has within it possibilities of greater evil and unhappiness for the human race than any invention that has ever been discovered. For 900 years the unbroken bulwarks of this country have been the sea. The last War showed that our ramparts had been breached, and for the first time in our history missiles were rained down upon and struck the heart of London. Nothing will stand between this unhappy world and the liberation of all the forces of hell during the next war except the heroic efforts of men like our noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood, whom I have pleasure in seeing here this afternoon. And remember that if that once takes place wars will no longer be fought between armed men upon the battle field, but against perfectly defenceless, perfectly offenceless people who are living in peace in their homes. And when you turn from the international view of this invention to the private use of it at home I think it is impossible to overlook all the mischief that it has caused. I realise to the full the great advantages. I see what enormous gains there have been in enabling people in country villages to have cheap and swift access to neighbouring towns, and everyone can see the obvious convenience that it affords; but when you come to look at the other side of the picture I think it is grave indeed.
No one will deny for a moment, in the first place, that wherever it has gone, it has completely destroyed all the beauty and the peace of life. I know I shall be told that beauty and peace are immaterial things, that you must not weigh them in the balance and try to test them in the scales against material gain. That may be right, but I have a strong feeling that the time will come when all the things which to-day we regard as non-utilitarian will be found to be the real things of life, and that the other things which seem so much a matter of sub-

147
stance will be found to be nothing but a show. It is not merely the beauty and peace of life that these instruments have destroyed. When we look at what has happened along our country roads, I cannot help thinking that there is a record disclosed of which we have every reason to be ashamed. I know one road—it is a most beautiful country road—which lies between two towns, and the other day I was walking along that road for a few moments, perhaps three minutes. No fewer than three cars passed me with their wheels almost touching the off fringe of the grass, one after the other, and within a hundred yards there was a village school. Your Lordships will not be surprised, though I trust you will be pained, to hear that when I mentioned this I was told: "Oh, yes, only two days ago a boy of nine years when crossing the road was killed by one of these cars."
Killed by one of these cars! No mention was made of it and nothing resulted. I will point out in a moment that nothing ever does result. The only thing that has happened has been something that has happened in the privacy of that child's home into the intimacies of which I will not venture to penetrate. I know that it can easily be said that children are careless creatures, and, not that they must expect to be run over but at any rate that they are a great nuisance to motorists. Well, yes; but are these machines going to kill all the gaiety of a child? Are children in future to creep as unwillingly out of school as they have for centuries crept unwillingly into it, and if so, for what reason? For this reason, and for this reason alone, that the people who drive these motor cars decline to pass those schools at a pace that would have been considered furious driving in the days of the horse. If they were only under regulation there would be no need whatever for these horrible things, and yet to-day I am quite satisfied, that we offer up year by year to the Moloch of speed more children than were ever sacrificed to the Moloch of fire in the days of Carthage.
Did your Lordships happen to see the other day—I am sure you could not have read it without emotion—a case of a woman who picked up a soiled and bleeding bundle in the road, and took it to
148
the hospital only to find when all the stains of filth were moved away, that she was carrying the broken body of her own dead child of six? Nobody punished; certainly not. No steps taken—why should they be? The child may have been guilty of negligence. If anybody is guilty of negligence of course he must sacrifice his life, but you must not expect motor cars to drive at a speed of less than 20 or 30 miles an hour down the road whether the children are there or whether they are not. What is the result? The result is to be found in a series of figures that are, I think, of amazing eloquence. During the last three years, and the last three years alone, there have been 20,691 people killed on our roads and more than half a million injured. And I want your Lordships to understand that at the present moment the classification of these incidents is no longer what it was as between accidents and non-accidents. It is between fatal and non-fatal injuries. These represent the injuries that have taken place during that period of time.
I never refer to figures without a feeling of my utter inadequacy to make them live. When once an incident of life has got reduced to a statistic it has lost its vitality and if once it gets into a Blue-book it is immured for ever in a sarcophagus. I wonder if any one of your Lordships has ever had the misfortune to see a man struck down and lying covered with dirt and blood in the road. If you have you have seen something you would gladly forget and the memory of which will haunt you and make you unhappy for some time. If it were only realised that these people who are killed and maimed have relations and friends it would be realised that for every one of these incidents in that list to which I have referred there are some four or five people who have been made profoundly wretched by the consequences of that occurrence. Half a million people injured! If you take only four times that number of people concerned it means that two million people have been hurt in three years. For what? For nothing that I can see. And if you take the other figure of 20,000 people killed and multiply that by four, you have 80,000 people in three years made desolate by death.

149
If this were something that we could not help, if this were the price we had to pay for our advance in mechanical knowledge, be it so. This country is always prepared to make sacrifices for something that is worth doing. But is this worth doing? What is it? It is simply to enable our roads to be turned into racing tracks and to prevent people who ought to know better from checking their speed. My Lords, for twenty years I had a motor car and it went everywhere—many times backwards and forwards to Scotland, over the countryside and everywhere—and never once did it touch or put in hazard a single living thing, neither man, nor beast, nor bird. I have asked many of my friends of their experiences, and they have all told me the same thing, with only one exception, and that was a man who said he had driven 50,000 miles and on one occasion he had injured a duck, but that was all. These things are not necessary. Do they happen to you? You know they do not. The reason why they are necessary is that, according to my statement to your Lordships, the law has been rendered impotent and contemptible to deal with the offences.
Let me deal now with some of the cases. The other day a man was driving a sports car. Now a sports car is a car that is designed for no purpose excepting pace. If I say that in my humble judgment they ought never to be driven anywhere except on the race track, that is merely an expression of my opinion. It is pace, and pace alone, for which these cars are designed. In addition, they have an arrangement by which the driver can cut off the silencer which prevents some of the worst features of noise in connection with a car. When that is done the thing bellows like a bull in pain. One of these cars, driven with the silencer cut out, comes round a corner in the suburb of a town. That is an indisputable fact. The man driving it knows so little where he has got to that he thinks he has struck the kerb when really he has run over and killed a policeman standing in the middle of the road. The man drives on. He says he did not know he had struck a policeman. Be it so. He is told at once. He drives on and says he then did not know where he was driving—which must have been comforting to people in the road.
150
Ultimately he is brought to trial. The facts are all explained, and then what does the Judge say? The Judge says: "You must not convict this man. Do you think he was negligent? That is not enough. You must find he was guilty of a grave crime against the State." That suggests of course, to anyone's mind, high treason, the Rye House conspiracy, or the Gunpowder Plot. It suggests nothing whatever in relation to running over and killing a policeman standing doing his duty. The necessary result is that the jury instantly acquits the accused, without leaving the box. Then we come to the final act of this elaborate trial. The Judge says to the man: "I advise you, as an older man than yourself, in your own interests not to drive the car again." Why? He had done nothing wrong. Why should he not drive the car again? Killing a man did not matter. Why should he be advised not to drive the car again? Was there ever a case which realised with greater dramatic force the truth that you should not first clench your fist and then wag your forefinger? That showed that if by your negligent act you do not commit a grave crime against the State, but kill a man on duty and then drive on, you need not trouble. You incur no greater penalty than that of a paternal admonition from the Bench.
That is by no means the worst example of this class of case. Let us just look for a moment at one or two quite recent reports, reports of things that have happened within the last few weeks. There is one that can be told in these words. A woman was knocked down and killed by a motor car just by Park Lane, by a car that was said to be going at from 45 to 50 miles an hour in a crowded London street. The jury said that the woman lost her life through being knocked down by a car driven negligently at an excessive speed. That is why she died. But they added that the negligence was not of a gross and criminal nature. That is exactly what all these juries are doing to-day, and I am not surprised. It is no reflection on them. Remember that if you say to a jury, "This man is charged with negligence, but there are degrees of negligence, negligence in the sense of a crime against the State and negligence not of that description," then you must affect the minds of the jury and they will not return a conviction. No Judge has ever yet been able to define what is

151
criminal negligence. In consequence juries do what they have always done, and what I hope juries always will do, when a man is brought to trial. If they know the thing is neutral and they are given no direct guidance they will acquit, and so they do. It is true that by negligence this woman lost her life. It is true that no man ought ever to dream of driving at 50 miles an hour down Park Lane, but the negligence was not gross, and so there is nothing more whatever to be done.
Let me refer to one or two other cases. Here is a case where a man killed three people. The first person who saw the occurrence was a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy. I do not suppose he would be too squeamish-minded on the matter of speed. He estimated the speed at 55 or 60 miles an hour. A chauffeur, who also could not be called a prejudiced witness, said the car approached at a terrific speed. Another person, who was a motor engineer, said the car was travelling at 50 miles an hour. In that car there was the man who was driving, and in the front seat there was another man and seated on his knee by the wheel was a woman who was the owner of the car. The car skidded, ran on the pavement, and killed a man and his two children. What is the result? The result is that it was a very naughty thing to do, but it was not a criminal act at all; it was merely accidental. Accidental! —although the man was in fact fined £15 for going at a reckless speed. You may go at a reckless speed, kill three people at £5 a piece, and there is nothing more to be done to you!
My Lords, you can multiply these cases. They go on and on and on in just the same way, and they all illustrate what I am saying—that a man may by his negligent act kill or maim upon the King's highway and be absolutely free of any liability for his act, either civil or criminal. He is not liable civilly because he is compulsorily insured and he is not liable criminally because you have to show that the negligence is of a class which has never been subject to definition. The consequence is that a man may go on doing it and these figures are the result. If you could have certain punishment for this—I do not say it should be necessarily severe, but it should be certain—there would be an end of this and we should not have this
152
shameful record of deaths on the highway. It may be said: "Oh, but manslaughter is a terrible crime." Yes, but the penalty is extremely elastic and it may vary from one day to any length of time the Judge thinks proper. The Judge can adjust the punishment to the degree of negligence and I say without hesitation, you may safely trust the administration of such a law to the Judges the quality of whom, I am glad to think on seeing two recent appointments, has not been affected by the most unjust and unwise attack made upon them by the Government.
So much for the clause which provides that if a man negligently kills another he shall be guilty of manslaughter. The next is that if he negligently maims he shall be guilty of unlawful wounding, and in both cases he shall be brought within the purview of the Criminal Law, which he is not now. The next provision is one which it appears to me must have been overlooked when the last Motor Act was passed. It is to provide that if a man knocks down and kills or injures another and drives on that shall be a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine. I wonder is it possible to conceive a meaner, more cruel, more cowardly action than that of knowingly injuring a fellow-creature and leaving him to die, and driving on as fast as you can? You will ask what is the present position. If you look through the Act of Parliament you will find that if a man does this he is guilty of an offence. All through Acts of Parliament you find you may be guilty of offences—guilty if you cross the Menai bridge—and you hunt to find out what will happen when you have committed the offence. I have run it down here. The first time you knock down and kill a man, even by negligence, and drive on you are liable to a fine of £20 at the maximum and nothing more, and with luck you might get off with £5. That is the view our Legislature takes of this offence.
I hesitate to use words that may seem too strong, but I say that is a disgrace. If there is one thing this country prides itself on it is on the readiness of every one to risk life and limb to help others and this positively puts a premium on the man who has knocked down and injured another and drives on in the hope

153
that he will not be found out. What happened the other day? A man did such a thing, knocked down another, left him lying in the road, and drove on. The creature he had injured was left there only to be put out of suffering by another car that drove over him. I do not know the details relating to the second car, but if you cannot be expected to see a policeman standing at his duty in the road you can hardly be expected to see a bundle lying in the mud. It may be that the driver of the second car could not see, but the man who was responsible ought to have had something in the nature of years of imprisonment.
I cannot conceive anything so utterly un-English as this knocking a man over and driving on. Supposing you take it from the area and region of motor cars. Let me put what I believe to be exactly similar illustrations. Let me assume that a man either negligently or by accident set fire to a house and then ran away for the people inside to burn. What would you say? Supposing a man is rowing and tumbles one of his passengers into the water and rows on, what would happen? There would be mutterings of "murder!" and I should be surprised if that man did not take his stand on a criminal charge. To leave a man negligently on the road after knocking him down is the same thing as negligently to set fire to a house and leave the person inside to burn, only that it is done with a different instrument.
I hope I have not made the profound mistake of misunderstanding the feeling of your Lordships' House, but I cannot help believing that you must feel as I do and will be as anxious as I am to redeem our law from something which is to my mind a reproach, a disgrace, and a very terrible thing when contemplated in contrast with the deeds of a man who will go down a mine, a fireman who will scale ladders, and a man who will face storms at sea to save others. Do your Lordships know how many men were convicted of this offence last year? The number was 590, and when you know how wide are the meshes of the law in its dealing with motor offences you can understand how many more offences there must have been. I hope your Lordships will agree with me in saying that it is time this thing stopped and that
154
there ought to be a punishment which is punishment without the option of a fine. To many on the road a fine is nothing at all. It may be to some, but to many it is not; but imprisonment, I hope, is. I have done my very best to be as temperate as I could in framing the punishment under this clause. I have tried to look at it in every light and I admit that the only light in which I can see it is red, but I have made this sentence as mild as it can be. I have only provided that the man shall have some sentence of imprisonment and that it shall not exceed six months. I have not even added hard labour. I hope your Lordships will approve of my temperance in that respect.
Now I come to the last part of the Bill. The last part of the Bill deals with a totally different matter, and yet a very grave one. I have no interest in railway companies. Like everybody else who knows nothing whatever about the working of somebody else's business, I very often think they might do their work much better than they do, and I admit that I do not find their long list of directors imposing in the best sense of the word; but none the less these people have established one of the greatest industries in the kingdom. Not only that, they conduct it with greater skill and greater care than any railways, I believe, in any part of the world. The condition of their lines, their care of their passengers, and the courtesy of their officials, in my opinion exceed anything that I have ever met anywhere else.
Remember this. These railway companies have not only had to pay the market price of every inch of ground on which they lay their rails, but they have had to pay what a benevolent jury thinks is the market price plus 10 per cent. for having had it compulsorily acquired. In those circumstances they construct their rails, build their stations, and run their cars, and now suddenly they are faced with a competition which I think is on the whole the most unjust and most unwise I have ever known. I ask your Lordships to remember this. These heavy vans and motor lorries have turned the roads into railways. You cannot deny that. Only the other day I saw a terrific thing approaching smoking down the road. It was nothing but a liberated railway train, with two enormous trucks

155
behind it, and the smoke blinded everybody. Nobody could see where he was going, and the noise was such as would have been condemned on an ordinary railway. These things going along the road are subject to none of the restrictions to which railway companies are subjected. Railway companies have to fence their lines. If they left them unfenced and an accident happened they would be liable. If there is a level crossing they have to build a bridge over it and to put up gates, and yet I say without hesitation that I would rather cross the level crossings which I know blindfolded, than walk with my eyes open across some of the roads as I know them in the country.
This traffic has got on to the road and it seems to be increasing in volume and certainly in weight. The result is something which is extremely unpleasant to contemplate. In the first place the noise absolutely destroys all chance of peace for anybody who lives by the road along which it goes. Day and night the thing is incessantly going by, and the regulations which have been made are perfectly useless to check it. In the next place it does this. It shakes the foundations of the houses and destroys their stability, and I would ask your Lordships to think what that means. In every case where a tenant is under a repairing lease that tenant is bound to repair the damage done by these things out in the road, which have made his life a burden to him. Where the tenant is not under a repairing lease the landlord has to do the repairs himself. I want to know why property is to be destroyed in this manner, with practically no check upon it at all.
There is another thing which has happened. If all these heavy lorries were owned by one person they could be stopped at the instance of any person on the side of the road, on the ground that the thing was a nuisance. The law is quite capable of protecting rights when infringed by individuals. That I do not doubt. But the reason why you cannot stop these lorries now is that there is a conglomeration of them, and you cannot say that any one person has caused the nuisance, any more than the unhappy camel can say which part of the load it was that broke his back. This is a nuisance of which the law has cognisance but for which there is no remedy,
156
because you cannot concentrate it in one hand.
Here again I have attempted to be as moderate as I can. The main Act provides by Schedule that what are called locomotives and motor tractors shall not go at more than three miles an hour within any city, town or village, and five miles elsewhere. Nevertheless, in spite of these regulations I can get out for any five-mile walk and give you enough summonses to occupy the magistrates for a week. The regulations are not only not obeyed, but the disobedience is frequently advertised, in order that you may see what a wonderful car it is. Goods vehicles are not so restricted. Locomotives and motor tractors are different things, but a vehicle carrying heavy goods may be just as big a nuisance, and may do all the things these heavy locomotives do, and I only ask that in the city, town or village they may be restricted to a speed of five miles an hour. Who is hurt by such a provision as that? Five miles an hour is a very comfortable pace, and cities, town and villages are not spread all over the land. There is plenty of room in which these vehicles can exercise themselves outside of the cities, towns, and villages. It is in part these heavy cars that are responsible for many of the accidents, because the heavier a car the more difficult it is to check, and if within the city, town and village you check these cars, and enforce the law and make it to be respected, and not a laughing stock, then I think we shall have done a great deal to reduce this toll to which I have referred.
I have no wish to go on complaining of these things that have happened, and that may be part of the necessary and inevitable result of progressive civilisation. I dislike the attitude of always denying that things that are are good, and always saying that things that were were better, and yet one cannot wholly avoid the feeling, for it is one of the inescapable penalties of advancing years. But to one thing I have never shut my eyes. I have never thought that the chariot of progress was a triumphal car that scattered blessings all along its track. I have always known that it was a juggernaut, grinding men and nations alike beneath its wheels, and of the truth of that the whole world is to-day my witness. Notwithstanding that, there is something grown up in the last few years which to my mind out-

157
weighs a thousandfold every material advantage that we gain. It is that increasing regard for the comfort and happiness of other people. It is that feeling which prevents any man from being completely happy if he contemplates the undeserved unhappiness of other people. It is, to use a word which has been stained and soiled by over-use, the spirit of humanity; and it is because I feel that by certain people, who drive these cars that spirit has been mocked, derided, and set at nought that I ask your Lordships to strengthen the hands of the law against them and give a Second Reading to this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I have neither the eloquence nor the command of rhetoric of the noble and learned Lord to state as fully as I should like my reasons for opposing this Bill. From what the noble and learned Lord says you would suppose that you had on the one hand the motorist and on the other hand the pedestrian and that it is a sort of warfare and battlefield of the roads between them. But really this Bill is altogether too drastic. The laws are already perfectly adequate to deal with these things. The noble and learned Lord desires by Clause 1 to enact that any driver of a motor vehicle who kills a man owing to negligence shall be held to be guilty of manslaughter. Surely it has struck the noble and learned Lord that there is such a thing as contributory negligence. It has happened before now that a motorist has been driving at a speed which he should not have been on a wet road and therefore has been guilty of negligence; but if a pedestrian has stepped out in front of him, and he has put on the brakes and skidded, it is equally the pedestrian's fault. Has it occurred to the noble and learned Lord that the pedestrian should also be had up for causing grievous bodily harm to the motorist?
Clause 2 deals with a matter which, it seems to me, is already sufficiently covered by the law as it stands. No ordinary driver would dream of going on if he had knocked down or hurt anybody, and this can only apply in the case of thieves or people who are under the influence of drink, in which case the law is already adequate to deal with the
158
offence. In Clause 3 the noble and learned Lord would appear to me to want to go back to the days when one hired a man with a red flag to walk in front of the car to warn people that it was coming. I notice that the noble and learned Lord at the end of his remarks said that heavy vehicles could not possibly stop, that the heavier the vehicle the more difficult it was to pull up. I can personally assure the noble and learned Lord that that is not so, and that in many cases, especially of the larger type of motor coach, the brakes, which are of the hydraulic pattern, are very considerably better than the brakes on most private motor cars. Further, in the case of motor coaches plying for public hire, they are inspected every now and again by the police. The noble and learned Lord also referred to steam engines. If he brought in a Bill dealing only with steam engines on the road I might conceivably support him, because I suffer very much from the smoke and steam that these engines give out, but I do not suppose that that is a matter of such general interest as the rest of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord stated all sorts of hard cases which, the way he put them, almost make one weep. I really think his point of view is a little ridiculous. The law is perfectly adequate to deal with these things, and I hope that your Lordships will not give the Bill a Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, let me say at once that I sympathise very heartily indeed with many of the observations of my noble and learned friend, although, if he will permit me to say so, some of them were a little wide of the mark. For example, I entirely share his views of the terrible possibilities of future aeroplane war; I entirely share his views with regard to the heroism of miners; and I entirely share his views with regard to the repairing leases of those people who live on public highways. Perhaps I am even more unbiased than the noble and learned Lord himself, and for these reasons. He has told you that he once had a motor car. I have never been the owner of a motor car, and I never intend to be. For sixty-four and a-half years I have been a pedestrian, and a pedestrian I propose to remain, if I am

159
allowed to by the motoring community. In all these matters we must have some proportion, and while I sympathise with the object of the noble and learned Lord, I am not quite so sure whether one can go as far as he does, for one is rather of the opinion that the difficulty here is not with the law, but with the proper enforcement of the law.
Would you permit me to do a thing which I seldom do in this House, and that is to relate to you my experience, which is not perhaps useless in this matter, for I was for nearly fifteen years a Judge of the King's Bench Division before I came here, and I have tried hundreds of these cases, both civil and criminal? I do not like to use words of rhetoric, and I do not like to apply the word "appalling," but I quite admit that there is an appalling number of accidents—not only accidents to life, but people are maimed and incapacitated. In addition to that, the Law Courts are choked with cases of this character. Therefore one is rather tempted, when one sees the number of accidents, and sees the number of cases in the Courts, to lose one's sense of proportion.
I am afraid, too, that the terrors of the law do not act as a deterrent to the reckless motorist. Let me tell you why. It is extremely difficult at Assizes to get a conviction against a motorist and the reason is this. The jury at once say: "Oh well, this man never meant to kill a man." Of course that is absurd, because, if he meant to kill him, he would have been guilty of murder. Then they add: "And the widow is sure to be compensated. Do not let us put on the man the stigma of sending him to prison." Therefore they refuse to convict; and I am sorry to say, too, that that spirit has got into the Civil Courts. Inasmuch as a man was liable, as the result of an accident to pay £750 out of his own pocket, he thought twice before he was a reckless driver, but now it is a temptation to many people to say: "Well, even though there is an accident, it is covered by insurance"; and therefore both in the Criminal Courts and the Civil Courts there is a tendency for motorists not to pay the just penalties laid down.
Dealing now with another part of the Bill: no doubt the competition with railways has induced heavy motor traffic to
160
proceed along the roads at a very high rate of speed—in my opinion, far too high a speed, but unlike the noble and learned Lord who said he was not biased, there I am afraid I am biased because I am a railway shareholder. I am sorry to say that my interest is rapidly diminishing, but at the same time I have some small interest left in the ordinary shares of English railways. Now I think we must be careful in endeavouring to escape from one evil not to fall into another, and I am afraid that if your Lordships do give a Second Reading to this Bill you may be altering what has been the English law with regard to manslaughter for centuries, and rather by a side wind.
Let me give your Lordships an example. There has always been in our law a distinction between civil negligence which exposes a person to damages in a Law Court and criminal negligence which exposes him to conviction and, possibly, fine and imprisonment. In a civil action a plaintiff may urge many different sorts of negligence. He may say that the defendant did not sound his horn. He may say that the defendant was on the wrong side. He may say that the defendant was driving too fast. He may say that the defendant did not keep a proper look-out. Supposing a jury were to find that it was perfectly true that a defendant did not sound his horn and, therefore, was liable civilly in damages, the effect of this Bill, if passed, would be to make that man criminally responsible and to make him liable to a term of imprisonment, as my noble and learned friend said up to the term of his natural life though that would not happen. Are you prepared, therefore, to approximate the liability in criminal cases to the liability in civil cases and to make a motorist, who is guilty, perhaps, of some quite minor act of negligence, liable to a long term of imprisonment?
Let me give you another example. Supposing a man motoring along a high road takes his eye off the position in front of him for one moment, the jury may at once say in that case that he was negligent and ought to pay damages. But if this Bill passes, not only would he be civilly liable for taking his eye for one moment off the position in front of him, but he might be criminally liable and be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment.

161
In summing up a criminal case on a charge of manslaughter there is all the difference in the world between what you tell the jury as to civil liability and what you say in regard to criminal liability. I perfectly agree with my noble and learned friend that there has been no exact definition. Learned Judges—I have the cases here, but I will not trouble your Lordships with them—have endeavoured to distinguish between civil negligence and criminal negligence by using all sorts of adjectives. They have used the words "wicked," "reckless," "criminal" and so on about the latter. There has been that distinction in the English law for generation after generation. Let us see what the effect of the passing of this Bill is likely to be. Supposing a widow brings an action in the Civil Courts for the death of her husband and the allegation that she makes is that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant in not sounding his horn. I can imagine what counsel who appear for the defendant will say. They will at once say: "Members of the jury, are you going to find my client negligent for not sounding his horn? You know what the consequences are. He may be prosecuted and sent to prison. As a matter of fact this particular offence was a very venial one and will be amply compensated for by damages in a civil case." It is not necessary to amend the law, but one thing is necessary. It is necessary to enforce it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am going, if I may, to tell your Lordships what the experience of the Home Office is upon the matter, and may I say that it is my own experience as a Judge of Assize for many years. As the law stands it is the common experience, for example, that a coroner's jury, while not exonerating a driver from blame, will find that his negligence was not of so culpable a nature as to constitute manslaughter. The effect of such a finding by a coroner's jury in practice is that it is much easier for the widow of the deceased man, if he leaves a widow, to recover under Lord Campbell's Act. There is, however, a real danger, which is spoken of by people who have had experience in trying these cases, that if a jury were faced with the alternative of finding a driver guilty of
162
manslaughter or of exonerating him altogether, they would in many cases adopt the latter course even though the law were altered as provided in the clause. Unfortunately—I say it with a full appreciation of what I am saying—experience has shown that magistrates, as a rule, are inclined to the same point of view as juries and even in cases where a serious degree of negligence is shown they are reluctant to commit on a charge of manslaughter. I would also ask your Lordships to pause before you say that that particular clause should go forward for Second Reading. It would defeat its object. Offences in this country will not be checked by enacting severity of punishment. They will be checked by a rigid administration of the law. The law is perfectly adequate at present and need not be amended.
Coming now to Clause 2, again I entirely agree with ray noble and learned friend when he says that there should be a penalty for failure to stop after knowingly causing damage or injury. Such a penalty is already in force under the Road Act although this section certainly adds to it "to render aid," which I can hardly think makes any difference. But I may point out to my noble and learned friend—possibly it has escaped his attention—that under Section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, the Court may always impose a fine instead of imprisonment if they "think that the justice of the case would thereby be better met."
Turning to Clause 3, that clause proposes that no goods vehicles exceeding in total weight five tons shall exceed the speed of five miles per hour in any city, town or village. Enforce that in London and it means that the traffic in the Strand will be reduced to five miles per hour. If you have two or three motors or motor lorries which are not entitled to go at a speed of more than five miles an hour, it stands to reason that in a congested place every lorry, every omnibus, every taxi cab, and every motor car, will be reduced to the same speed. I cannot think that your Lordships wish that. May I suggest this to my noble and learned friend. Sympathising, as we do, with his object, sympathising as we do with the passionate appeal he made to us, this is not quite the remedy to put an end to the

163
evil which, undoubtedly, exists and to which we all desire to put an end. The matter, I think, ought to be more carefully thought out. I rather hope, therefore, that my noble and learned friend will see his way to withdraw the Bill. He has raised the point and has drawn public attention to it. I am exceedingly glad that he has done so. Public attention wanted drawing to it. I hope, whatever the result of this Bill, that magistrates and other authorities will see that the law in future is properly enforced.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the Lord Chancellor has said. Although I am aware of the appalling accidents which have been so adequately stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, I think with the Lord Chancellor that it would be wrong in a Bill of this kind to change the whole law as regards manslaughter—a very important province of our law—in this particular case. As the proposal stands it means that, however slight the negligence might be, even of a merely formal character, if a person was killed a charge of manslaughter would be substantiated under Clause 1. The punishment, of course, is in the hands of the learned Judge. I do not quite agree, I think, with either of the former speakers that it is right to give a learned Judge, if you can avoid it, too large a discretion as regards the length of punishment in a matter of this kind.
I think the noble and learned Lord who moved this Bill did not sufficiently acknowledge the difference between a civil and a criminal liability, and I also agree with what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor said, that if you exaggerate into a new crime a death which happens from some minor form of negligence which at present would not constitute the crime of manslaughter at all, the result may not be favourable to the enforcement of law (in regard to which I also entirely agree with what the Lord Chancellor has said) but would tend, on the other hand, both in magistrates and juries, to exonerate the motorist altogether when under the civil law he ought certainly to incur a larger liability. I do not want at the present time to say too much of civil liability, because I think far more stringent regulations should be observed and made obligatory than are now in operation.
164
In fact, I would go to the length of saying that whether there be negligence or not there are cases in which undoubtedly the pedestrian ought to be more carefully safeguarded than he is at present. But that is not the question now. The question is, are we going to increase our Criminal Law by introducing for the first time under the category of manslaughter mere negligence, however trivial, however small it may be, however far from criminal intent may be the mind of the person convicted?
So far as Clause 2 is concerned I also agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said in derogation of the propriety of a person running over anyone on the road and then leaving the victim to die. I will not attempt to harass your Lordships again by adding to the appalling incidents that he gave, but is it right that under those circumstances you should apply criminal procedure of this kind? I think in many cases six months is perhaps far too lenient a sentence. I thought it would have been so regarded on the opinion expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, but it is a very wide extension of our Common Law and of our Criminal Law to introduce this penal and criminal procedure where it is not applicable at the present time.
As regards the last matter, I am bound to admit that I regret not the question of pace—I do not think that is the real difficulty—I regret that these heavy vehicles exceeding, in total weight five tons have been allowed upon the roads at all. Immense expense has been incurred so that this class of traffic can be dealt with by the railway companies. I do not want to say any special word in commendation of railways, but enormous expenditure has been incurred. The railways have ample equipment and ample premises, and I have often thought that it would be the greatest improvement of all if these heavy vehicles, which in fact are nothing less than large trains themselves, were not allowed upon our roads at all. Why should they be? Why should a road be provided for them at the public expense? At the present time, under statutory provision, this traffic is entitled to be carried by our existing railway companies. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is going to press the Second Reading after what the

165
LORD Chancellor has said. If he does, although I disagree with the Bill as it stands, I shall not vote against him, because I think it is a matter that does deserve and does require further elucidation and discussion than it has had up to the present time.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I agree very heartily with the last sentence which fell from the noble Lord who has just sat down to the effect that this is a matter which requires all the elucidation and all the remedy that we can possibly bring to it, because the evil is unquestionably a very serious one. I will not attempt to follow my noble friend Lord Buckmaster in the very eloquent but, I think, very accurate account of the evil that exists. The figures are appalling, and I really stand amazed at the comparatively little interest that is taken in these terrific figures. If any such figures of fatalities occurred in any industrial employment, if you could quote them as a result of some branch of manufacturing, why the whole country would be in a blaze. But because these figures affect passengers on the roads who have not willingly undertaken the risk but are forced to undertake it in the discharge of their ordinary vocations of life, apparently there is comparatively little interest taken in the matter.
I think your Lordships would be well advised to have that in view, and at any rate to give this Bill a Second Reading, so that the matter can be more thoroughly and fully probed. If there are provisions in it which ought to be modified they should be modified; but at any rate something might be done to meet this case, and, most of all, to let it go out to the country and to magistrates and administrators of the law that your Lordships take a very serious view of this matter, and that you do feel this is a very grave evil and ought to be stopped in some way. With all respect to my noble friend the Lord Chancellor, may I say that his appeal at the end of his observations to my noble friend Lord Buckmaster left me a little cold? I had heard it so often before—Do not proceed now; you have raised the question; the matter will be taken into consideration by those who have to administer the law, and no doubt they will take a different view. That was the burden of all our dis-
166
cussions on this subject over and over again last year and the year before, and in point of fact there is no improvement, no serious improvement at all, as I think the figures show. I doubt whether there is any improvement whatever, taking all things into consideration, in spite of the legislation that has been passed, and in spite of the perpetual assurances that motorists would behave better than they have behaved in the past.
As to this particular Bill, there are two parts of it, the criminal part and the civil part. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with any observations about the civil part. The proposal to limit to five miles an hour lorries over five tons in weight is a provision which. I admit, is pretty drastic when you consider what its effect might be on some of the traffic in the big towns, and I think probably in Committee it might be necessary to modify it in some way. I think we are all agreed, the Lord Chancellor as much as anybody, that this a great evil also, that the existence of these enormous trains on the public roads is a great evil and very hard on a number of people besides the people who were enumerated by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster. Something also ought to be done there, and surely the proper principle for your Lordships to act upon is that if a case is shown that there is an evil and that it ought to be met, that is a case for the Second Reading. If the particular provisions proposed are not the best provisions, that is a case for amendment in Committee. Therefore I should have thought, even on the civil side, the case for passing the Second Reading was a very strong one.
As to the criminal side, if I followed any noble friend the Lord Chancellor rightly, he admitted in substance the whole of Lord Buckmaster's case. He said that he thought the evil was great. He said that undoubtedly there were crimes, or actions which ought to be treated as crimes, constantly committed, and, so far as I could make out, he went as far in every respect as the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, but his two answers to him were these. His first answer was that juries will not convict, and that is the real trouble. I should have thought that that was Lord Buckmaster's case. He says that in the present condition of the law, when you have to

167
establish to the satisfaction of the jury a criminal negligence—that is to say, something only just short of an intentional crime, a reckless and wicked proceeding—it is very difficult to produce evidence which would justify a jury in convicting in such a case. That is the whole case which my noble and learned friend puts forward and it seems to me, with all respect to the Lord Chancellor, that it is really admitted by him. The other great argument he used—and this was a point shared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor—was that it was a dreadful thing to alter the law of manslaughter, that from time immemorial manslaughter had involved proof of criminal negligence and that here you have a proposal that in a particular class of case it should not involve the necessity of proving criminal negligence but only the necessity of proving ordinary negligence. I have a limited sympathy with that kind of traditional view, which I know is very common in my old profession, but if that is so may not a compromise be arrived at by calling it something else?
The point is that there are 20,000 people in three years killed on the roads, killed on the roads undoubtedly in a large number of cases by the negligence of the drivers of the vehicles that killed them, and we do not in fact see that diminishing. I will give figures in a moment. Surely that is a case for strengthening the law. The Lord Chancellor says that you cannot get a jury to convict. That is the point. You cannot, as the law is now. That is the reason why a change should be made so that it should be more easy to obtain convictions in these cases. That is the whole case, and if there is difficulty about calling it manslaughter—I do not know whether my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster attaches importance to it—certainly I should not object to calling it something else. I do think it ought to be in some way or another criminal. It really is an outrage and a scandal that these unhappy creatures, children very often and old people, are slaughtered literally in thousands every year and nobody is sent to prison in consequence. That is utterly repellent to my sense of justice. My noble friend asked: "How far are you going? Suppose the negligence was only just a failure to sound a horn?" If failure to sound a horn produces the death of a fellow creature some punishment
168
ought to be inflicted on the person who is responsible. I do not say that in such a case there should be very severe punishment—it might be met by two or three days imprisonment for aught I know—but some punishment ought to be imposed.
I have said that the position is not getting better. I know it is not very agreeable to listen to figures, but I should like to give a few figures as to the increase of danger at any rate for pedestrians. In the Metropolitan area alone I find that in 1931 there were 905 pedestrians killed as against 885 in the previous year. It is true that the total number of deaths caused by accidents to vehicles has diminished, but the number of pedestrians killed has increased. Let me take the figures in another way. I find that in 1921 there were thirty-five accidents per 1,000 drivers licensed. In 1930 there were forty-three accidents per 1,000 drivers licensed, and probably the figure was higher in 1931 but it has not yet been published. The increase in the general number of accidents, as my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster said, is very considerable. It has gone up to between 30,000 and 40,000. Therefore the evil is not only great but it is increasing, and it has not been diminished by the Road Traffic Act. Those are the actual facts and they seem to me to constitute a case for doing something further to protect the subjects of His Majesty on the highways.
One of the reasons why I support this Bill is to make the law more severe. My noble and learned friend gave some instances. I could give many other instances that have been supplied to me of cases where apparent negligence was treated very lightly by the magistrates. That means no doubt, as the Lord Chancellor says, that the law is not properly enforced. Be it so. What we have to do is to give some indication as one of the branches of the Legislature that we are not satisfied with the way the law is enforced, and the best way to do that is at any rate to give a Second Reading to this Bill so that it can be properly discussed in Committee. Here is one figure which I would like to give to your Lordships. In 1930 there were 19,694 persons convicted of dangerous driving but only eight were punished otherwise than by being fined. That shows the kind of way in which these offences are regarded at

169
present by the Courts. I think it is a very serious matter indeed. I have many more figures but I will not trouble your Lordships with them.
Before I sit down I want to call the attention of your Lordships to one other great evil in this matter, an evil which really does require very careful attention by the Government and by the Legislature. It is quite evident that there are a very large number of people in this country who do not regard it as any part of their business to conform to the law with regard to driving on the highway—a very large number indeed, reckoned, I have not the, slightest doubt, not by thousands but by millions. We were told that by the changes we made in the Road Traffic Act that would be corrected. I do not think it has been corrected. I doubt very much if it has even been improved. There are still millions of people disregarding the law. That is a serious evil. It is one of those evils which if unchecked will grow and spread through the whole body politic. I do not want to suggest that we are in imminent danger of seeing London in the same condition as Chicago, but it must be remembered that it was the consequence of having a law which was not enforced that has produced the great outbreaks of crime in Chicago and other American cities which are really a scandal to the civilised world. It is a matter which really wants consideration. For all these reasons I earnestly hope that, whatever may be done in Committee, whatever changes it may be thought right to make in this Bill in Committee, at any rate your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, like many members of your Lordships' House, I have been deeply impressed by the powerful and impressive speech of Lord Buckmaster. He brought before the attention of your Lordships a state of things which it is not too much to say is a disgrace to our civilisation, by which, as he well said, the spirit of humanity is to-day being outraged. If that be so—and I think the facts are undoubted—surely it is the business of this House, now that your Lordships have this opportunity, to find some remedy for that state of things. May I therefore make a most earnest appeal to His Majesty's Government to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading? If they think any of
170
the provisions of the Bill go too far then the Bill can be altered in Committee, but I venture to say that it would be a lamentable thing, when facts of this sort are brought before your Lordships' House and a remedy is proposed, if it were to go out to the world that your Lordships are too indifferent even to give a Second Reading to a Bill which aims at remedying some of these manifest evils.
There is only one other aspect of the question to which I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships. That is the question of compensation in civil cases for deaths or accidents which occur owing to the motor car. I should like to tell your Lordships that this afternoon I got a First Reading of a Bill to amend the law as to compensation in such cases. It would be out of order to refer to the Bill in any detail, but I may mention that the object of the Bill is to entitle persons injured on the road by a motor car, other than motorists themselves—my noble friend Lord Banbury, to whom I bow as a profound authority on all matters of order, has in effect called me to order. I used to bow to his decision in the House of Commons and I do so to-day. I will not, therefore, refer to the provisions of the Bill any further than to say that it makes a proposal which has been accepted by almost every Continental country. To-day we are dealing with the criminal aspect. I did not catch any words that fell from the Lord Chancellor objecting to Clause 2, which deals with the case of a man who in cowardly and scandalous manner injures some one on the road and then runs away. I do not think the Lord Chancellor objected to the clause and if it was for that clause alone I would ask your Lordships to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a discussion of this nature, but I am grateful for an opportunity of saying one or two words. First, I am certain that nobody could have listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, without being profoundly impressed by the depth of sincerity which lay behind every word he said. I have the greatest possible sympathy with him in respect of the figures which he quoted and I do not

171
think the language he used about the offence of knocking a man down and going away afterwards, and that sort of thing, was in any way too strong. There is just one thing which I think might be considered both in regard to Clause 1 and Clause 2. The Lord Chancellor has explained to the House the difficulties connected with the Criminal Law. That is a matter I know nothing about, but abroad if a motor vehicle knocks over anybody or injures him—in certain countries at any rate; I know it is true in France, and I believe it is true in Italy—an act of arrestment is placed on the vehicle which prevents it being moved. If there are difficulties in connection with manslaughter under Clause 1 and also in connection with the penalties provided under Clause 2 it may be worth while considering whether it would not be a very good thing, if it could be incorporated in the law, to give power to a magistrate to order an act of arrestment on the car and to confirm it for a suitable period where negligence was proved. I believe that provision, by itself, would do a great deal to bring some people to their senses.
With regard to Clause 3 I was sorry that the noble Lord referred to the difficulties as between the railways and the roads. I cannot help thinking that other speakers have been entirely right when they pointed to the fact that if you impose a five-mile limit on heavy goods vehicles you would bring the traffic of great cities like London almost to a standstill. I think it is proved how difficult it is to enforce a law regarding speed. I believe it is almost impossible. Another point to be considered is that if you make it more difficult for heavy goods vehicles you might run into the danger of adding to the cost of transport and thereby of commodities in the country. We should be careful before placing undue restrictions on heavy traffic. I have every sympathy with the objects of the Bill, and particularly its first two clauses, and I hope the suggestion I have made may receive consideration.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, in a few remarks may I say what a pleasure it has been to the friends of my noble and learned friend (Lord Buckmaster) to see him in his place after his accident and to find that he has lost none of his vigour
172
and powers of expression? In reference to this particular Bill I should like to add a word or two to what has been said by the Lord Chancellor as to the existing law, because I am bound to say that I view with considerable apprehension the notion that the law of manslaughter and the law as to unlawful wounding should be altered by special exceptions introduced merely in respect of persons who drive motor cars. It is the fact that for hundreds of years there has been a law relating to the driving of vehicles on the highway. That law was enforced long before motor cars came into existence and the same law has been enforced ever since they did come into existence, and the law has always drawn a distinction between the simple negligence that gives rise to civil action and the culpable negligence that gives rise to a charge of manslaughter.
As far as I know there has been no difficulty in explaining to a jury what the distinction is. The real difficulty in these cases is that juries decline unfortunately in many cases to find a verdict which imposes on a person guilty of negligence in driving a car the heavy penalties of manslaughter which, as you have been reminded, amount to anything up to penal servitude for life. If that is the difficulty now I venture to submit that the difficulty will be still greater if juries are told that a simple act of negligence—a man driving at ten miles an hour who has made a wrong steering action or driven over the centre of the road or taken a corner too much on one side and has caused injury or even death—exposes a man to the penalties of manslaughter. So far from attaining his purpose I think the noble Lord would weaken the case for enforcing the rule of ordinary care.
As to the second part of his first clause, which introduces a completely new crime, at present unlawful wounding is confined to cases, first of all where there is a case of wounding, and secondly where a person has wounded by some deliberate act. There never has been a case yet of unlawful wounding or, what I think my learned friend must really mean, doing grievous bodily harm, where there has not been an intent of that kind. I venture to think it would introduce a very serious anomaly into the administration of the law if a special exception were

173
made in this class of case. It would expose the law to contempt, for it appears to me to be ridiculous. A motor car drives across a level crossing and the motor driver runs down a person and kills him by an act of simple negligence. He will, under the new proposal, be guilty of manslaughter. A train is coming along the railway and runs into a person. The driver of the railway train will not be liable to punishment unless he is guilty of culpable negligence. A motor car driving along a road runs into a person and by simple negligence injures him; the driver is guilty of a crime. The driver of a two-horse dray, driving at a furious speed, does the same thing and is not guilty of a crime. That sort of anomaly brings the law into contempt. The real source of the difficulty is not the weakness of the law but the weakness of the way in which the law is administered. The law is strong enough.
Lord Cecil of Chelwood said we need not bother about words—about calling it manslaughter. He said let us make it some other offence and call it by some other name. It seems to have escaped the attention of the supporters of the Bill that there is a provision at the present moment which will meet all the cases dealt with. It is the provision dealing with dangerous and reckless driving. That is an offence already, and one that can be tried before the magistrates and upon indictment. The punishment at the present moment extends to four months imprisonment, and also to this, that the magistrates or court trying the case have power to deprive the offender of his licence—to suspend it for a year, or longer. That is the punishment which was referred to by Lord Howe. It is almost the exact equivalent of the arrestment of the vehicle. It is a punishment which ought to be brought into force more often. People may drive dangerously and recklessly along the roads and at present not be punished sufficiently by the magistrates. You could do an immense amount of good if the Home Office were really to address, not a remonstrance but a memorandum to the justices generally, pointing out the appalling toll of life and the extreme importance of administering the law firmly in this respect.
I myself am surprised at some of the penalties that are imposed. Lord Cecil
174
of Chelwood quoted figures showing that there were 19,000 convictions for dangerous driving. I consider dangerous driving to be a most serious offence, and I know of benches of magistrates who think that the right punishment for it is 40 s. or £5. So you can endanger the lives of citizens for 40 s. per time. I think that that is a complete misapprehension of the duties of the magistrates. I think they should consider seriously, in every case of a private driver, whether he should not be punished by the suspension of his licence, for a time at any rate. I believe it would have a valuable effect. I go further and I think that if a man is convicted twice of dangerous driving he ought to be off the road altogether. He has disregarded the lives and interests of people on the road, and in those circumstances I venture to think he might be punished in that way, which is a much more satisfactory punishment than sending a man to prison. Those are the penalties at the present moment for reckless and dangerous driving—four months imprisonment and the possible suspension of the licence. I think if that law were firmly administered it would serve the whole purpose for which my noble friend is contending, and render unnecessary anomalous encroachments upon the existing law.
As to Clause 2, dealing with failure to give notice, I agree that there may be cases of a man driving recklessly and killing a person and driving off, but this clause deals with the much milder case of a man driving without negligence at all, and by an accident and without fault injuring a person, and then leaving him by the roadside, surrounded by friends and everybody else. That man must under this clause have his licence suspended for twelve months if he drives on, whatever may be the circumstances of or the motive for driving on. That appears to me to be quite unreasonable, and I think the present law and the present punishment are quite sufficient. Let it be remembered that if a person drives negligently and injures a person he is liable to imprisonment. I say nothing about the speed limit, because I think that can very well be left to the Minister of Transport and to regulations made in that respect. We have to remember that only two years ago this House was engaged for days in considering this very question of the Speed limit

175
and the penalties to be imposed. I venture to think that no case has been made out for any alteration. Full consideration was given in this House and the Lower House to these very questions, and the true remedy is strictly and properly to enforce the present law.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the supporters of the Bill were glad to hear the sympathetic opinion expressed by Lord Howe as to the value of the Bill, coming as that opinion did from so ardent and experienced a motorist. I think the only real constructive criticism of the Bill has come from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He did not say that he was not in sympathy with the object of the Bill, but he said he would rather trust to the administration of the existing law than to any alteration. He did not particularise in what respects he thought the law could be improved to carry out the objects of this Bill. My own view is that the removal of the speed limit has increased the number of accidents, and I also think the number would be very much larger but for the fact that many people nowadays refuse to cross the streets. For myself, I should have thought the right thing was to have a speed limit and to provide that anybody infringing the speed limit, and having an accident, should have cast upon him the burden of proving that he had not been negligent. I hope that Lord Buckmaster intends to press this Bill through. It will be a very valuable indication of the views of your Lordships' House. As for the five-mile an hour limit for five-ton lorries in London, to which Lord Howe referred, why should you have a five-ton lorry in London at all? Why not have three tons, or something less bulky and less obstructive to traffic in London than a lorry of five tons? That seems to me an answer to the objections to Clause 3 in the Bill.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I speak here simply as a layman. We have had the legal side ably put by the Lord Chancellor and by my noble and learned friend behind me (Lord Atkin). Into that I cannot enter. But I came here this afternoon as one of those who, having paid careful attention to this subject, both as a pedestrian and a motorist, have come to the conclusion
176
that something requires to be done. What that particular step may be is for the lawyers to decide. My noble and learned friend, in his extraordinarily powerful speech, put first the case for something to be done, and the Lord Chancellor says that we must not alter the law, as the law is effective at the present moment, though it is not fully enforced. I think your Lordships were impressed by the figures given by my noble and learned friend. Is it not appalling that there should have been at least 20,000 people killed in the last three years and half a million injured by these motor cars? Does it not show that an entirely new development has taken place among us, and that something has to be done by legislation to meet that difficulty?
Motor cars are increasing day by day both in numbers and in size. In old days we spoke and thought of the King's highway. That meant that it was accessible for everyone to use. At the present moment it is the most dangerous place in the Kingdom. And though it may be said that these reckless motorists are few in number, I think that everybody who goes motoring will agree that any day you go out you come across a certain number of persons who are driving recklessly and without any consideration for the comfort, the convenience, or the safety of others. It is with those persons that we want to deal. My noble and learned friend proposes to deal with them in a very drastic way—whether it is too drastic I am not competent to say. But I do feel strongly that it would be an advantage if your Lordships were to give this Bill a Second Reading by a large majority, or even unanimously. I do not suppose that my noble and learned friend thinks his Bill is perfect. I am sure he would be willing to agree to any Amendments that are necessary to make the Bill workable. As a layman I shall vote for the Bill because I think it is a step in the right direction.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has brought this important question before your Lordships' House, for it is a question which is thought about and talked about throughout the whole country, and it does seem an extraordinary thing if Parliament is unable to devise some scheme

177
which will put an end to some of those terrible things which we have heard of from the noble and learned Lord. I am afraid that after the important speeches which have been made by distinguished lawyers in this House, dealing with the civil and criminal law of this matter, I am hardly disposed to vote for the Second Reading, because I think that such an important change in the law, if it is to be made, ought to be made by a special Bill; but I do hope that His Majesty's Government will take this matter up. It is a thing for the Government to do. It can be dealt with properly if the Government really are sincere about it, and I cannot, but think that they must be sincere.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack spoke about civil compensation. There is some difficulty in getting civil compensation. I know more than one case in which people have not been able to get civil compensation because the difficulty was to obtain evidence about the accident. A system has sprung up by which, whenever a chauffeur has any serious accident, he goes round among those who have seen it with a view, if possible, to gather up evidence in order to clear himself. A lady friend of mine saw an accident; the other day, and she was immediately approached by the chauffeur, who said, "Now didn't you see that accident I was not to blame." She said, "You were entirely to blame." The result, of course, was that she was not brought; up to give any evidence. With regard to civil compensation. I think that in any Bill of this kind any one who causes an accident ought to be compelled to pay compensation. That compensation can easily be insured against, and we have a system in connection with the miners' permanent relief fund by which, if an accident takes place, even in cases where the man himself brings it about by wilfully disregarding rules, he still receives compensation. I think the same principle should apply to compensation for motor accidents. How many accidents there are in which poor people cannot afford to bring a lawsuit! I think we could easily make everyone who causes an accident, whether he is to blame or not, responsible for reasonable compensation, and I feel sure it would have a beneficial effect in preventing accidents.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord in introducing this Bill spoke with great eloquence, with great passion, and with great sincerity in commending it to your Lordships. We all feel that nobody could have done it more eloquently than he did. But I would ask your Lordships to look at this very great and serious problem with cool heads and clear minds. The noble and learned Lord made it plain that the primary object of this Bill was to take action by one means or another to reduce the alarming number of accidents of all kinds which take place upon our roads, and with that object, I venture to say, every single one of your Lordships whole-heartedly sympathises. Nobody could fail to do so. The Government are fully alive to the gravity of the position that exists in this respect. The appalling toll of deaths on the road is recorded day by day in the newspapers, and the Government are determined to do everything in their power to reduce to a minimum the risks incurred by users of roads of every kind. But I am convinced that the Bill which the noble and learned Lord has brought forward to-day will not attain the object which he has in view.
May I examine for a few moments what this Bill does? One of the first things the Bill does is to provide, as has already been pointed out this afternoon, that in the case of a motor driver, and a motor driver alone, the common legal interpretations which for generations have been attached to the terms "manslaughter" and "unlawful wounding" shall be fundamentally changed. Up to the present a culpable degree of negligence or deliberate intention has been implied 'by the use of those terms. The Bill proposes, on the other hand, that proof of mere negligence shall be sufficient to secure a conviction for manslaughter. That is to say. if the Bill is passed the terms "manslaughter" and "unlawful wounding" will mean something entirely different, where the driver of a motor vehicle is concerned, from what they will mean in any other circumstances. I naturally speak with very great diffidence indeed in your Lordships' House on matters which are essentially of a legal character, but speaking as a layman I must confess I am a little surprised that the noble and

179
learned Lord should have brought forward these proposals. The objections from a legal point of view have already been very clearly stated and I think are obvious. One of the chief impediments, which I think has been emphasised already this afternoon, to a substantial reduction in the terrible toll of deaths and injury on the road, lies in the reluctance of magistrates and juries to convict or impose adequate penalties in really serious cases of dangerous driving. In my view it is no remedy merely to increase the maximum penalties to which offenders are liable. Indeed, the effect of drastic penal legislation may be exactly opposite to that intended and serve to increase rather than diminish the reluctance of juries and magistrates to convict.
It has been suggested by the Pedestrians' Association, amongst others, that juries are unwilling to return a verdict of manslaughter because of the associations of the word, and that some other term should be used to describe the offence of a motor driver who through culpable negligence causes the death of a fellow creature. I think there is a great deal to be said for the psychology underlying this argument, although I hesitate here and now to express an opinion as to the practicability of the suggestion. What I want to point out is that this Bill proceeds in a precisely opposite direction. Instead of doing away with the term "manslaughter" altogether in these cases this Bill, if put into operation, will widen the scope of manslaughter. In my opinion, therefore, there will be a greater reluctance still on the part of juries to convict. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, stated that as the law stood now it was difficult for juries to be satisfied that the evidence was strong enough for them to convict. I venture to think that these proposals will have no effect in remedying that difficulty. On the other hand, I believe they will increase that difficulty, because if you widen the scope of the terms "manslaughter" and "unlawful wounding," it will make juries even more reluctant and more chary than they are at present to convict people of those offences for fear that they will be convicting them without real justice.
Several of your Lordships have dealt with the figures regarding the accidents within the past year. As I have said before, the Minister of Transport is fully
180
aware of the gravity and the meaning of those figures. The actual figures for the year 1931 have not yet been published, but in a reply given in another place the Home Secretary stated that the number of deaths resulting from road accidents had decreased during the year 1931 by something like six hundred. This is the first occasion on which there has been a drop in the number of deaths on the road. That in itself must be some source of satisfaction, though I am afraid it has to be discounted to a certain extent by the fact that there were fewer vehicles on the road in that year than there were in the previous year, 1930. It is also unfortunately true, as has been pointed out, that the number of accidents has increased very considerably, though that, I think, can also be attributed to the fact that under the Road Traffic Act of 1930 every accident of such a nature as may result in damage or bodily injury has now to be reported to the police. As your Lordships are already aware the Minister of Transport is in consultation with the Home Secretary regarding the better enforcement of the law against motoring offences and, in particular, the enforcement of the legal speed limit for heavy vehicles on which many of your Lordships have dwelt considerably this afternoon. Action has recently been taken in this direction which it is hoped will have a beneficial effect.
With regard to the motor coaches I should like to say that the effect of the control of the Traffic Commissioners resulting from the passing of the Act of 1930 is only now beginning to show itself. Up to now vehicles have been worked on their former schedules. I should explain to your Lordships the reason for that is that a great many applications for services under the Road Traffic Act are under appeal or have been under appeal during the past year. So long as those appeals were not settled applicants in each case were entitled to carry on their services as previously according to their old schedules. Therefore, it is hoped that the decisions of the Traffic Commissioners will have increasingly marked results during the course of the next year.
Recurring to the clauses of this Bill a little more specifically, may I say that with regard to Clause 1 I do not think there is anything further I can add. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and others have dealt with that

181
clause in considerable detail, and I think have shown the very serious objections which can be taken against it. Personally I very much fear that if we were to put it into operation it would have precisely the opposite result to that for which the noble and learned Lord hopes. With regard to Clause 2, I would like to say only this. This clause has been dealt with perhaps not so fully, but the effect of Clause 2 is merely to increase the penalties and to make disqualification, in circumstances such as are prescribed, compulsory. I should like to remind the House that under the Criminal Justice Act of 1925 a person who was convicted of being drunk while in charge of a motor car was automatically disqualified from holding a licence. It was found in practice that wherever this disqualification would have serious results to the offender, as for example depriving him of his livelihood, the Courts declined to convict, and in the course of the debates on the Road Traffic Bill the view in all eases was that some measure of discretion should be left to the Court in the matter of disqualification, and the Act of 1925 was amended accordingly. It is quite clear that the fixing of a minimum penalty nearly always defeats its own object to an even greater extent than the fixing of a maximum penalty which is not likely to be imposed.
I should like to pass on to Clause 3 and say a word or two about it. This clause proposes that all goods vehicles exceeding five tons of laden weight shall be limited to a speed of five miles per hour in any city, town or village. I was not quite clear before the noble and learned Lord spoke what precise object he had in view in bringing this suggestion forward. I did not know whether it was with a view to minimising accidents or whether it was due to other reasons. It appears, however, that the main object he has in view is to reduce the damage which is done to property by the heavy vehicles moving speedily along the streets. If that is so, I must say I am somewhat at a loss to know why he has differentiated between goods vehicles and passenger vehicles. There are many passenger vehicles upon the roads which exceed the weight of five tons laden, and they would in the circumstances, I presume, do as much damage as the goods vehicles. But I think I ought to make it clear to the House that if such a provision were desirable effect could be given to it by the
182
Minister of Transport under Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930 by a regulation amending the First Schedule of that Act. Under that provision any speed limit can be imposed by regulation other than a speed limit in respect of light cars. Such a regulation would require an affirmative Resolution in each House.
The point has already been emphasised by several speakers this afternoon that if effect were given to this clause by legislation, and if its provisions could be enforced, which I think is rather doubtful, the practical result would be to reduce the speed of all traffic in busy streets and congested areas to five miles per hour. Take, for instance, the Strand. A few vehicles there going in either direction and limited in their speed to five miles an hour would have the effect of reducing the speed of all traffic to that limit, and would bring about a most appalling state of congestion. There is another point which I do not think has been alluded to this afternoon, and that is that the modern motor lorry could not proceed at five miles per hour except on second or even on third gear, and your Lordships can well imagine the noise which a large number of heavy lorries travelling in urban areas on low gear would make. It would be absolutely appalling. The only means of avoiding this would be to evolve a special type of vehicle, probably steam driven, and clearly the effect of that upon the motor industry generally, and upon the export of heavy motor vehicles, would be very disastrous.
A further point that I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention is this. Administratively it would be very difficult to distinguish between vehicles by their laden weight. The enforcement of a provision of this nature would be almost impossible, except in extreme cases. I think your Lordships are aware that existing speed limits are in every case based on the unladen weight of a vehicle, which in the case of a lorry is marked on the vehicle itself. Reference has been made this evening to the road and the railway problem. It would be wrong for me, in view of the fact that this subject is now being investigated by a Committee, to express any opinion this afternoon, but several of your Lordships have said that in their view goods vehicles of any considerable weight ought not to be allowed upon the roads at all. I do not

183
express any opinion about that now. That is the kind of question which is to be investigated, and which this Committee is investigating, and I venture to say that a very great and important matter of this kind, which affects two of the very greatest industries in the country, ought not to be dealt with in a Bill like this which is comparatively limited in its scope.
I do not think there is very much that I can add to what has already been said. I can only repeat what I have said, that the Government have the warmest sympathy for the object which the noble and learned Lord has in view, but they are convinced that this Bill will do nothing whatever to attain that object. I really do not think that piecemeal legislation of this kind can do any good. In my view it is much more likely to do harm than good. The Road Traffic Act of 1930 has not been in operation two years. It has not been possible to gauge what its effects are going to be, and I venture to say that an enormous problem of this kind ought to be dealt with more comprehensively than it can be by legislation such as is proposed by the noble and learned Lord. I am fortified in this view by the fact that my noble friend behind me, Lord Danesfort, as I think he has already told your Lordships, introduced another Bill this afternoon which is intended to amend the Road Traffic Act of 1930. I do not think that this is the right way of dealing with the question. I should like in conclusion to assure the noble and learned Lord, and the House in general, that the Minister of Transport is naturally giving constant and anxious attention to this grave problem, to see what further can be done from time to time to reduce the terrible number of road accidents that occur at the present time.
Speaking for myself, my Lords, I am convinced that the most important factor and influence with regard to this problem is public opinion, and until the public insists that those who drive about the country dangerously and recklessly, causing death and injury, should be adequately punished, I doubt very much whether there will be any very large diminution in the number of accidents. That to my mind is the real point, and in my opinion this Bill will not achieve
184
the object which all of us have in view. I do not think I can add anything more except to express doubt as to whether your Lordships would be wise in the circumstances in giving this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies and before the Lord Chancellor puts the question may I address to the noble and learned Lord a suggestion? That is that after the observations that have been made he should not press the Bill to a Division. I came here as one who from experience is strongly in favour of something being done to enforce the law as it at present stands and if necessary to reinforce the law. The noble and learned Lord's speech added force and weight to the opinion I had already formed, and I was very anxious indeed to cast my vote in favour of the measure if the measure would reinforce the existing law in a manner which would be effective. But like many of your Lordships I am placed in great difficulty. It is quite impossible for me as a lawyer to vote for Clause 1. I am quite satisfied, after what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said and after what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, has said, that the effect of that clause would be distinctly bad. You would not get convictions. You would fail in your purpose. The probability would be that you would relieve a great number of persons, by the verdicts of juries, from the punishment that they deserve. You would prevent the effect of the existing law and you would imperil any enforcement of the law as it stands to-day, because juries will not take the responsibility of fastening upon persons who undoubtedly have been negligent the guilt of manslaughter with its consequential results. What we really need is the strong enforcement of the law as it stands. Whatever clause you pass, please do not pass this Clause 1 which, for reasons already given by other lawyers, is bad and ineffective and will be harmful in its effects.
I believe also that it will be impossible to get convictions under Clause 2, because it all depends upon the person having done something "to his knowledge" and it will always be possible

185
for juries to find that he had not that knowledge. I could not vote for Clause 2. Then I come to Clause 3. I should like to include in that those very dangerous vehicles, the huge omnibuses which come round corners suddenly and are quite unsuited to the roads over which they travel. But something depends on the hour at which those vehicles are travelling. At five o'clock or six o'clock in the morning it might be possible for those heavy vehicles to be driven at a higher speed, but this clause would prevent them from being driven at a higher speed than five miles an hour in any city, or town or village. That clause obviously requires an immense amount of amendment, although we might desire most earnestly to put some limitation on the speed at which these heavy vehicles are driven.
Clause 4 says:
"This Act may be cited as the Road Traffic Act, 1932, and shall be construed as one with the Road Traffic Act, 1930."
My recollection is that that Act occupied several days in Committee before your lordships. It is a most complicated Act. I should most certainly like to reconsider that Act in the light of these proposed additional clauses. Therefore I find myself in an unhappy predicament. I want to vote for this Bill. I want something to be done, but I cannot vote for any one of these four clauses. I find myself in the predicament which I think was stated by Lord Melbourne years ago, when he said that whenever he heard somebody say that something ought to be done he always knew that somebody was going to do something stupid. If we all want something done do not let us pass these four clauses. We ought to pass something different. We all do want something done and I think the proper solution might be, after the undertaking given by the Government that the matter will be considered, to ask for a still further assurance that something will be done in this Session. I think we might ask the noble and learned Lord not to place us in the difficulty of saying that we want this Bill and at the same time find ourselves compelled to vote against his Motion, which I for one cordially desire to support. I hope that he will withdraw the Bill after the assurance given by the Government.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, as no assurance whatever was given by the Government and as no undertaking whatever was entered into your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I do not intend to withdraw my Bill. I was not reassured by what the noble Earl said. I hope he will forgive me for saying that I have heard before that the Government Departments are anxiously considering what they should do, that the problem is before them night and day and that they want to determine what is the best step. If that really is the fact, why have they not done something? The real fact is that they have done nothing at all, and they will do nothing unless this House compels them. The speech of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has filled me with amazement, but he at least—he is the only one—has discovered Clause 4. I congratulate him on that discovery. But for the rest he says that this will is bad and ineffective, that it will have the opposite effect of what it was intended to have, that although it is aimed at the very thing which is his heart and soul's desire, he is yet unable to support it. I am not surprised. More than one noble and learned Lord said the same thing.
They do not appear to have realised what is the true position. They do not appear to have realised that in licensing people to use these vehicles you are granting a special licence to a special class of persons to use what is in careless hands a lethal weapon. There is nothing comparable to it in the whole history of transport. That is the reason why I want special legislation affecting it. If it can be shown that there is anything comparable between a waggoner and a motor car driver with a car capable of travelling ninety miles an hour, then I will agree that there is no reason why we should have a special law for a special class of people. It is because there is that special class with a special privilege that special legislation is required. We are told: "Oh, be careful. Juries will not convict if you do this." Do they convict to-day? You know they do not. Everybody has been saying they do not. Yet we are told that if we pass this measure juries will not convict. It is only a few days ago that a man who in two years had killed two people, who was held to have been guilty of reckless driving, who was found by the jury to have

187
driven dangerously, was acquitted. What more do you want? Do you think my Bill is going to render acquittal easier for that man than before? Do you not think it possible, if you pass this Bill, that a man like that would be convicted, as he should have been and sent to prison? The idea that the law is now being administered with firmness and that my Bill will render conviction insecure is one of the most amazing imaginations that ever afflicted the mind even of a lawyer.
As for the second part of the Bill the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said, "You forget there is a punishment." I have never forgotten it, but I have said and I repeat that that punishment is little short of a disgrace to the law. It is a £20 fine for a man who knowingly kills another and drives on, or leaves him dying in the road. If your Lordships think that is a sufficient punishment for such a crime then to my great and deep regret I have misunderstood your Lordships' feelings. I cannot believe it possible that when such a set of circumstances is placed before a body like your Lordships you will approve it. With regard to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack I felt that the first part was his own, and that nothing but a Government Department could have produced the latter part, that it was better not to interfere because now a woman might go to Court and get damages for her husband's death whereas under this Bill it might be that she could not. The point of this Bill is to prevent the man being killed and to make these people fear that unless they do take care punishment lies behind. We believe that fear is the only thing that will give security to passengers on the road. It is said that the great thing is public opinion. How will public opinion be expressed if not in this House, and where is it to rise if your Lordships reject the Bill saying that public opinion is against it? I ask your Lordships to express that public opinion now by voting for this Bill and I will add that my friends must have misunderstood me if they thought that I should contemplate withdrawing it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

LAW OF PROPERTY (ENTAILED INTERESTS) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BLANESBURGH: My Lords, I do not think if I tried I should find it possible to discover for your Lordships' House a subject so entirely different from that which the House has been debating as the one that I have now to bring to your notice. Your Lordships have been discussing a contemporary question of great solemnity and importance. I am going to bring to your notice a subject which, as will appear from the title of the Bill, is redolent of conveyancing and technicality and forbidding in almost every word and syllable. Nevertheless it will be found in the few observations I have to make that in truth this Bill is designed to remedy an injustice which inadvertently has been done to a very considerable section of the community, for the most part of slender means and done by a judicial view of a conveyancing Statute which, right or wrong, was contrary to its intention.
Your Lordships will recall the Law of Property Act. You will remember that that Act was one of a series of Statutes for which Lord Birkenhead made himself responsible seven or eight years ago. The Act had two quite separate objects. It had as one object the getting rid of inconvenient anomalies which had crept into the law, tenures which had become obsolete and processes and systems which had become burdensome. Thus there were achieved great alterations in the law. But there was another purpose of the Act equally important and that was to simplify conveyancing, to make land more readily saleable; to secure to purchasers safe titles without undue inquiry and to enable vendors to dispose of their property by sale without having to produce unnecessarily elaborate abstracts of title. So far as it was a conveyancing Statute, one cardinal feature of the Act was that there was to be no change in the beneficial interests of the owners of the properties dealt with by the Act, and that principle is enshrined in one passage from the Act which I will read, namely:
"All estates, interests and charges in or over land. … which immediately before the commencement of this Act were estates, interests or charges, subsisting at law, or

189
capable of taking effect as such, but which by virtue of Part I of this Act are not capable of taking effect as legal estates, shall as from the commencement of this Act be converted into equitable interests, and shall not fail by reason of being so converted into equitable interests either in the land or in the proceeds of sale thereof …."
That being the keynote of the Act one of the great problems with which the Statute had to deal was that of undivided interests in real estate. Those undivided interests are very numerous throughout the country and in very many instances are interests in small parcels of property possessed by people of slender means. The complications of title in relation to them before Lord Birkenhead's Act became law were really heartbreaking. You would find a small parcel, say, of fourteen acres of agricultural land held by five people as tenants in common. You would find that one of those persons was entitled to his undivided interest in fee simple. Another was entitled to a tenancy in tail. A third might be an infant and still another a lunatic. In such circumstances it was practically impossible to sell the entirety of the property, however much to the interests of everybody that was desirable, because it was impossible to give a good title otherwise than by means of a partition action, and than such an action no more expensive form of procedure was known to the Court of Chancery. It involved an inquiry as to title, reference to a conveyancing counsel and one difficulty after another. The result was that these partition actions were, on the score of cost, impossible in cases of small properties, and therefore the persons interested in these undivided estates had simply to enjoy the misfortune of being unable to dispose of their property at all.
That was one of the things which Lord Birkenhead's Act set itself to remedy, and it sought to remedy it by a very simple procedure which has been very effective. It decreed that the property subject to these undivided interests should be made the subject of what is called a, statutory trust, and the trustees thereof were by virtue of the Statute appointed trustees of the whole property and were enabled to sell and make a title to the entirety of it and receive the purchase price, and after
190
paying prior charges hold the residue of the money subject to such powers and provisions as might be necessary for giving effect to the rights of the persons interested in the land.
Now about three years ago a case came before Mr. Justice Clauson, the case of in re Price. It was assumed that those words were effective to carry out the purpose of the Act. The interest of Mr. Price in the land had been an estate in tail and it was assumed that his interest in his share of the proceeds of sale remained the same as had been his interest in the land. He had died. Who was entitled to that share? The answer was not so clear as had been supposed. All the ghosts which had been laid by the Act were parties to the summons: his customary heir and another who claimed as heir-at-law. These were all brought before the Court and the ease was elaborately argued as to who was entitled to Mr. Price's interest in the property. The learned Judge decided that none of those who were before him were entitled, but that the person entitled was the legal personal representative of Mr. Price, because the effect of the Act was to give an interest in tail in a fund of personalty and that was an absolute interest and no less passing to his executors. I think it is agreed that, whether or not the decision was called for by the words of the Act, the result is entirely contrary to its intention and I think it will meet with the approval of the profession that the intention should now be given effect to, as it is by this Bill.
The only objection that I can conceive to that course is that it might be said that this after all, although the decision of a very learned Judge, is the decision of a Judge of First Instance only and that it may not be correct: that the Act may really express the intention of the Legislature and that Mr. Justice Clauson may have been mistaken in that respect. It may be said why not bring the matter before the Court of Appeal or even before your Lordships' House as a court of final appeal before again approaching the Legislature. I agree that in many cases that would be very strong criticism against the proposal which I now make, but in the present instance I think it is not of very great force and for the reason that, as I have said, these interests are

191
interests possessed most frequently by people of small means. Approach by them to the Court of Appeal would be entirely out of the question, especially when you find that if they do go there and establish their position there would be no fund out of which their costs could come except the property which was the subject of litigation. The position therefore is that this ought to be set right by the Legislature at the earliest moment because a great deal of injustice may be done, as things are, which cannot be redressed. It is a case for doing it sooner rather than later because purchases are being effected and interests are intervening which may prevent complete justice being done.
Accordingly I ask your Lordships to approve of this Bill and particularly of this part of it which is dealt with in Clause 1 which simply means this: that after the Section I have referred to in which trusts are declared for those who are entitled to the undivided interests, these words should be inserted:
"and the right of a person who, if the land, had not been made subject to a trust for sale by virtue of this Act, would have been entitled to an entailed interest in an undivided share in the land, shall be deemed to be a right to a corresponding entailed interest in the net proceeds of sale attributable to that share."
Clause 2 deals with another matter arising under that Act of a totally different character. It relates to the question with regard to rentcharges which are described as "rentcharges in possession." One of the results of the Act is that there are only two forms of legal estates which remain. The one is an estate in fee simple and the other is a "rentcharge in possession." The "rentcharge in possession" was by the framers of the Act, I am quite satisfied, intended to mean a rentcharge not in reversion: one which had not to wait to come into operation until the termination of some other estate or interest. But a difficulty has arisen from the fact that it has always been a very common practice in developing building estates that when an estate is conveyed by its original owner to a builder in order that he may complete his building scheme, the arrangement very frequently has been that instead of receiving from the builder the price in purchase money the estate is charged with a rentcharge, it might be in per-
192
petuity or it might be over a term of years, which would be the consideration received by the owner for the property which was handed over to the builder. Your Lordships will realise that in those cases it is very nearly always necessary that the first payment of the rentcharge shall not be due for a term of months or a year because the builder, having no revenue during that period from the land which he is developing, might find it difficult to make payments at once. So accordingly it has been a very common practice that the rentcharge shall not for the first time be payable for, it may be, six months or it may be a year from the date when it is created, and the question has arisen whether, when you have a rentcharge of that kind, it is within the meaning of the Act a "rentcharge in possession."
Particularly, I believe, in Bristol the old custom has continued and these rentcharges have since the Act been created in connection with building estates with this interval of time elapsing before the first payment becomes due, and they have all been dealt with on the footing that they are "rentcharges in possession" with the advantage that under the terms of the Act they are legal interests. Now if it were to be held that these rentcharges were not "rentcharges in possession" the effect would be that they would become equitable interests requiring registration under the Land Charges Act and void as against a subsequent purchaser if not so registered. Accordingly unless this matter is made quite plain titles which ought not to be in any way in doubt may be jeopardised. It is desirable the doubt should be removed by a declaration of the real meaning of the Act by your Lordships now. I have satisfied myself that this alteration would make no difference of any kind to the principle which is embodied in the Act, and indeed I think I am entitled to say it has met with the approval and support of those who understand these things and who have considered the proposals which I make. It may be that the actual phraseology of this clause can be improved in Committee but the effect, I think, is plain. It is simply to say that such a rentcharge as I have indicated is a rentcharge in possession within the meaning of the Act so that any doubt on that subject is removed. I commend the Bill as one which

193
is required by fairness and justice and one which is in accordance with the intention of the Legislature when these Acts were passed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Blanesburgh.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading he would move, That this Bill be read 2a this day four months, said: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord last week put down a Bill which I as a layman could not understand, and I put down a Motion to reject it, because my experience, extending now over forty years in one or other House of Parliament, shows me that very many bad Bills are passed simply because nobody understands them. And I think that what took place in this House yesterday shows the necessity of carefully looking into all these Bills. If the Bill which we sat yesterday to pass through all its stages had been carefully considered in 1909 by the learned members of the House at that time there would not have been all the trouble which took place at the end of last week and yesterday.
Now, the first part of the Bill which the noble and learned Lord introduced he withdrew, and he has brought in a second Bill, which reproduces the clauses of the first Bill, and adds another clause. As I understand, what really takes place is this. A learned Judge makes a mistake, though I thought that learned Judges never did make mistakes. But in this case a learned Judge makes a mistake, and I should have thought that the proper course was then to go to the Court of Appeal and, if the Judges in the Court of Appeal thought that the learned Judge was wrong, to get that decision overruled. It is not an unusual thing, I believe, to find that learned Judges are wrong, because we had a proof of it this evening, when one noble and learned Lord got up to advocate something and another noble and learned Lord said practically "He it talking nonsense and what his Bill is supposed to enact will not take place." Therefore I thought that, whether or not the clause was right, it was an extremely dangerous precedent to introduce in this House to say that, where a learned Judge makes a mistake, the ordinary course of procedure in law should not be followed, but that somebody should go to Par-
194
liament and move a Bill which sets aside the decision of that Judge. I think that there have been occasions during the last five or ten years when decisions have been given by a Court of Law against the Government of the day—I make no distinction, because I think all Governments have been to blame in that way. What do the Government Departments do? They come and do exactly what the noble and learned Lord wants us to do now. They introduce a Bill to over-ride the decision of the Judge. I do not think they go so far as to make it retrospective. I am not sure. The noble and learned Lord makes it retrospective, which is a thing I have always been taught is utterly wrong, and should never be done except on very rare occasions.
That was the first Bill. The second Bill is the same with regard to Clause 1, but it enacts another clause about rent-charge, which the noble and learned Lord has just explained. I must confess I do not understand that clause, and I have had a little talk with a learned friend of mine, who thinks it is all right, but is not quite sure he understands it. But that clause does not in any way interfere with the legal decision given. As I understand it, this last clause is merely a clause amending Lord Birkenhead's Act
LORD BLANESBURGH: Removing doubt with reference to its meaning.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I dare say that is right, and I have no objection to that, but where a learned Judge gives a decision, that decision, if wrong, should be overruled in a Court of Law, and a Bill should not be brought in to make that decision wrong and to make it retrospective. I do not know what is the view of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, but I presume that if he is in favour of the Bill it is no use my saying anything. I thought it right, however, to bring this matter forward for this reason. I think it is a very serious thing, and I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord when he introduced this Bill remembered that it is a very serious thing, if Governments (it is only the Governments of the last few years) are to be encouraged, when they have been defeated in a Court of Law, in the practice of bringing in an Act of Parliament to put themselves right. I beg to move formally.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day four months").(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should not have troubled the House at this late hour had it not been for the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. Let me say that I entirely agree with him in his first remarks that the usual way of setting right the mistake of a learned Judge, if it is a mistake, is to go to the Court of Appeal. The noble Lord is perfectly right. But this is an exceptional case. The object of Clause 1 certainly is to meet the decision in re Price, reported in 1928 Chancery, at page 579. No doubt in Price's case the individual interest of the tenant in tail was not made to fail by conversion into an absolute interest; but what was made to fail were the interests of the heirs to the entail. I should not venture to say a word against anything said by such a great master of real property law, if he will allow me so to describe him, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Blanesburgh, but having regard to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, I believe that what has happened is that since that decision attempts have been made to take the point to the Court of Appeal. These have failed for want of sufficient funds and for this reason: though the collective value of the property affected by the decision is large, the value of each share is too small to warrant any application involving an appeal.
Really this clause may be properly described as intended to do justice to relatively poor persons, and I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, with regard to that. With regard to the other point a doubt has arisen whether, if the rentcharge is made to commence at a future date, the rent in question is a legal interest. This depends on whether such a rent can be properly said to be "in possession." The object of Clause 2 is to remove this doubt so as to prevent another learned Judge from making a mistake in the future.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for what he has said. I have no doubt that in this particular case it may
196
be the best thing to do, but I hope it will not be taken as a precedent. I am so much afraid of these things being taken as precedents, and I hope that if another learned Judge makes a mistake we shall not be asked to overrule that mistake by an alteration in the law. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the object of this Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading tonight is to give legislative effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade in May, 1929—that is, in the Government of my right hon. friend Mr. Baldwin, just before they left office—to consider and report whether any, and if so what, amendments in the Patents and Designs Acts or changes in the practice of the Patent Office, were desirable. The last occasion on which the patent law was extensively revised was in the year 1919, when the Patents and Designs Act of that year was passed to amend the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, which is the principal statutory provision dealing with patents and designs. The working of the Act of 1919 had shown that a number of amendments in the law were necessary, and representations had been made to the Board of Trade from time to time by various interested bodies that such amendment should be undertaken.
The British Science Guild had themselves appointed a committee to consider the existing patent law and the report had been submitted to the Board of Trade with representations that changes in the law should be made. Accordingly, the then President of the Board of Trade, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, in May, 1929, appointed the Departmental Committee I have mentioned under the chairmanship of the right hon. Sir Charles Sargant, a former Lord Justice of Appeal. Sir Charles Sargant when a

197
Judge of the High Court was for several years the special Judge nominated by the Lord Chancellor to hear appeals to the Court in patent cases and possesses, of course, a wide and intimate knowledge of patent law. He was assisted by an expert Committee eminently suited to deal with the technical matters involved in its terms of reference.
The Committee sat on forty-three occasions and heard evidence from representatives of industries and science as well as from patent agents and lawyers conversant with patent law, and also from the Patent Office itself. Its recommendations were unanimous. They are contained in the Report dated March 14, 1931, which was presented to Parliament and issued as Command Paper No. 3829 in March, 1931, just over a year ago. The Report was considered by His Majesty's Government, then the Labour Government under Mr. MacDonald, and, as was to be expected having regard to the constitution and unanimity of the Committee, its recommendations were substantially accepted. The present Bill is designed to make the necessary changes in the law in order to give effect to those recommendations.
The Bill of necessity consists of detailed amendments in the existing law and, admittedly, is not very easy to follow. The more important recommendations have been dealt with in the body of the Bill, whilst a large number of minor recommendations dealing with technical details in the administration of the law of patents and designs are included in the Schedule. In order to assist the House in following the changes which are to be made a White Paper has been prepared and will be available to members, I fancy from to-morrow, showing what those changes are. In this White Paper the provisions of the existing law which are to be deleted are shown in italics. The provisions of the existing law which remain unaltered are shown in ordinary type; while the additions to the existing law are shown in heavy type. In addition to this the numbers shown in square brackets in the margin of the Bill indicate the recommendation in the Report to which the particular provision in the Bill relates. This is the arrangement already prescribed for in the printing of the existing Patents and Designs Acts,
198
and by Clause 14 of the present Bill it is proposed to continue the practice in the reprinting of the principal Act as amended by the present measure when duly enacted. This provision will enable those affected by the measure, and practitioners in patents and designs to see what changes have been made without reference to a series of complicated amending Acts. I do not think it would assist your Lordships at this stage if I were to go into its provisions in detail, but I would call attention to a few of the more important recommendations and the statutory provisions designed to give effect to them.
Turning first to Clause 2 of the Bill, it will be appreciated that an application for a patent may be refused by the Patent Office upon the ground that the invention has been previously described in British patent specifications covered by applications lodged at the Patent Office within the previous fifty years. Section 7 of the existing Statute places an obligation upon the Patent Office examiner to search through these British specifications in order to ascertain whether there has been any such anticipation. The attention of the Committee which sat to consider the matter was called to the fact that in some countries, for example, Germany and the United States, a search of unrestricted scope was undertaken with the result that the patents issued in those countries were said to have a higher reputation and value than British patents. On the other hand, the Committee came to the conclusion that an unrestricted search was quite impracticable and that it would be better, if the British search were to be extended, that it should only extend over such an area as the Comptroller of Patents might, think useful in any particular case: for example, to search in the specifications of another country or to search in certain groups of technical publications. At the same time the Committee realised that an extension of the search would probably mean increased expenditure and they, therefore, made their recommendation subject to financial considerations. These considerations must, of course, be specially paramount at the present time. Accordingly, it is proposed that the extended area of search shall be within the complete discretion of the Comptroller and that any expenditure in-

199
volved shall be covered by an increased fee on the filing of the complete specification.
Then there is Clause 6, which is designed to carry out the Committee's recommendation with regard to defects in the existing law relating to unjustifiable threats of legal proceedings with regard to patents. It is obvious to everyone that considerable damage may be done by a person threatening the retail customers of a manufacturer with legal proceedings upon the ground that the manufacturer's goods which the retailers are selling constitute an infringement of patent. Then there is Clause 11, which enables the Comptroller of Patents to refuse an application for a patent if the alleged invention is so obviously contrary to well established natural laws as to be frivolous, as, for example, to take an extreme absurdity, a machine for the production of perpetual motion. Hitherto the Comptroller had no such power, and the Patent Office have been consequently compelled to grant patents, and thus increase the risk to the investing public, although the invention was obviously impracticable and contrary to natural laws.
Clause 12 deals with a very important matter—namely, the tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions of the Comptroller of Patents. At the present time all appeals in patent matters down to the time of the actual grant of the patent are heard and finally decided by the Law Officer. In all matters subsequent to the grant any appeal lies to the High Court. For many years the question has arisen as to whether this arrangement is entirely satisfactory. The Committee considered the matter very carefully, and came to the conclusion that a Judge conversant with patent matters would be a more satisfactory tribunal for hearing those appeals than a Law Officer. On the other hand, the Committee were impressed by the fact that the transfer of these appeals to the High Court, as High Court proceedings, might result in increased expense to the parties, and in order to obviate that possibility they have recommended that while the appeals should go to a Judge the persons who now have a right of audience before the Law Officers should have audience before the Judge, and the proceedings should not be treated as High Court proceedings. It is probably correct to say that most Law Officers within recent years have been in favour
200
of this change, and it is hoped that Parliament will accept the proposal.
The matters which I have mentioned are, it is thought, the more important points covered by the Bill, although no doubt some may take the view that other provisions of the Bill are equally important. However this may be, it is not thought necessary to comment at the present moment on any of the numerous amendments which are set out in the Schedule, as these no doubt can be considered by your Lordships in detail if desired at a later stage of the Bill. As I have said, this is a complicated Bill, and in order that there may be no complaint in the minds of any noble Lords as to undue haste over the matter the Government would propose to allow a rather longer time between the Second Reading, if it is carried tonight, and the Committee stage than is usual in these matters. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Templemore.)
LORD MARKS: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to deal with the technical aspects of this subject, of winch I happen to know something. This country was the first to introduce protection by patents 309 years ago. The Bill now before the House is for the purpose of remedying defects with which everyone familiar with the patent law has been acquainted for very many years. It is unquestionably true that a great many worthless patents are granted every year by the British Patent Office, due to the fact that the Comptroller has no power whatever to investigate that which may be called the subject matter of the invention. That is for the High Courts only to deal with. The result is that many people obtain patents, and those patents afterwards become the occasions for fraud and for deceit owing to the fact that people believe that the mere existence of a patent is a guarantee of the Government that there was something worth having in the patent for which the inventor applied. This Bill, fortunately, comes before us not as a Departmental Bill only. It comes to us from the Committee who for sixteen months, with the assistance of the British Science Guild, gave very great attention to this very difficult matter with the object of finding

201
a remedy. Subsequently another Committee sat for twenty-six months dealing with the same matter, so that we have in fact before us now a Bill which has been, in effect, before a Select Committee for three and a half years before being brought here in the form in which we now have it.
All the matters dealt with in the Bill affect not one industry but every industry in this country, and I have no hesitation in saying that all people familiar with patents, and all those associated with the industries concerned with patents, will welcome this Bill as a step not only in the right direction but as a step which is just and fair not only to the patentee but to the public generally. It is fortunate that the Government are going to allow a little longer time than usual between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, because it happens that from the 16th May until the 21st May this year there will be an International Convention sitting in London composed of experts from all over the world concerned with the protection of industrial property, and it may be that their deliberations in London may bring to light some points which it may be desirable to introduce into the Bill when we get into Committee. On behalf of those who, like myself, know something about this matter—I have been practising in the Courts for forty years in connection with patent law—I unhesitatingly say this is one of the best Bills that the Government could bring in, and it is one which will affect advantageously every industry in the country. I congratulate them upon bringing it in and give it my warmest support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY AND AIR. FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (POWERS OF INVESTMENT).
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House, communicated to them on April 21, on the subject of Gas Undertakings (Powers of Investment), as desired by this House.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, a few days ago the House gave consent to a proposal of mine that a Joint Committee should be set up to consider the powers of investment of gas undertakings. Consent has been given to that proposal in another place. I now venture to move the Motion standing in my name, and that the noble Lords whose names appear on the Paper be named of the Committee. I understand counsel will be admitted before the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the interim recommendations, dated March 22, 1932, of the Gas Legislation Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, and generally the extent to which gas undertakers should be authorised to invest funds in other undertakings, and to report accordingly:
That the Lords following be named of the Committee—

L. Fairfax of Cameron,

L. Carnock,

L. Russell of Liverpool,

L. Swinfen,

L. Marks.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Joint Committee to hear parties interested, by themselves, their counsel, agents and witnesses, so far as the Committee think fit.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint five members to be joined with the said Committee.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.

HOVE PIER BILL [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
WELWYN GARDEN CITY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

RADNORSHIRE AND BRECKNOCK- SHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Special Order in respect of parts of the Counties of Radnor and Brecknock:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDERS (MARGATE AND YEOVIL) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.