Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Tuesday, 8th July, 1919.

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

Private Business

London County Council (Money) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Oral Answers To Questions

Ukraine (Pogeoms Against Jews)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the pogroms against the Jews in the Ukraine instigated and conducted by the counter-revolutionary troops, and in particular by those under the command of Grigorieff; is this Grigorieff receiving any support from the Allies; and what steps it is proposed to take to have these outrages stopped?

Reports have been received that many Jews have lost their lives in the course of the operations which have been proceeding between the forces of the Russian Soviet Government and the forces under the command of the Ukrainian leader Grigorieff, who is stated to be strongly anti-Jewish in his sympathies.

The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

As regards the last part, His Majesty's Government are not in a position to take any steps as there are at present no Allied troops in the area in which Grigorieff is operating.

May I ask what Grigorieff's relations are with General Denikin and the other counter-revolutionary leaders in the South of Russia?

I should require notice of that question.

52.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information as to Gregorieff's activities in South Russia; whether he has carried out wholesale depredations and massacres; whether he has instituted pogroms against the Jews and in many places wiped out the whole Jewish population; whether the British Government are now giving him financial, moral, or other assistance; and, if so, what is the precise nature of that assistance?

According to a wireless message received through Berlin from Odessa, the Ukrainian Chief Grigorieff has recently announced the capture of Odessa by his forces from the forces of the Russian Soviet Government. As regards the second and third parts of the hon. Member's question, little reliable information has been received, although Grigorieff is reported to be strongly anti-Jewish in his sympathies. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative. The fifth does not, accordingly, arise.

British Representatives Abroad

South Russia

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the political interests involved in South Russia, Sofia, and Vienna, a political agent or commissioner can at once be sent by the Foreign Office to each of these places with definite instructions as to the policy of His Majesty's Government and an adequate staff to carry it into effect?

If by South Russia the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the areas controlled by General Denikin, a British Military Mission has been attached to General Denikin's headquarters, and an Economic Mission has been despatched by the Supreme Economic Council at Paris to investigate conditions on the spot.

As regards Bulgaria and Austria, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that a state of war still exists with those countries, and diplomatic relations are, therefore, strictly speaking, impossible. But owing to the very special circumstances, His Majesty's Government have been carefully considering the question of making exceptional appointments to Sofia and Vienna, and it is hoped that a definite decision in the matter will be taken shortly. In the meantime, there are, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is no doubt aware, British Military Missions at Sofia and Vienna which are examining conditions in Bulgaria and Austria.

Would the hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper, whether a Political Agent will be sent to South Russia? That is the whole point of the question.

I am sorry the answer did not make that clear, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down another question.

Will the Foreign Office consider the advisability of sending a political agent to South Russia in addition to the British Military Mission?

I will consider that.

Has the Foreign Office any responsibility at all in this matter as regards the political situation in South Russia, or is it entirely under the War Office?

The Foreign Office is always responsible for diplomatic relations.

Prague

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that great harm is being caused to British interests by the failure of His Majesty's Government to send a Minister and an adequate diplomatic and consular staff to the Czech Republic; and whether steps can at once be taken to appoint a suitable Minister with an adequate diplomatic and consular staff?

I am not prepared to accept the statement which the hon. and gallant Member makes in the first part of his question, but I may say that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to appoint a Minister shortly to reside at Prague. He will have adequate diplomatic and consular staff.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both Franco and the United States of America have appointed adequately-staffed missions and that the interests of this country are grievously suffering by the under-representation of British interests in a most important part of Central Europe?

Yes. I have just stated that we are now about to repair that omission.

Can he say when the new Minister is going to be sent there? It is now eight months since the Armistice was signed, and no Minister has yet been appointed.

Yes, he will be despatched there as quickly as possible.

Poland (Special Mission)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present staff of the political mission to Poland, and whether a Minister has yet been appointed?

Sir Percy Wyndham has been accredited as His Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary on a special mission to the Republic of Poland. His staff consists of four secretaries.

Does that mean that Sir Percy Wyndham is the permanent Minister appointed to this Republic?

I should not like my hon. and gallant Friend to put any other meaning into what I have said.

Will he be translated into a Minister at an early date?

That will be very carefully considered.

The following question stood on the. Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY:

13. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House what is the present staff of the British political mission to Poland; and whether a Minister has yet been appointed?

May I ask, in view of the fact that this question is exactly similar to one I have previously asked, how it is that it appears on the Paper a second time?

The printer will probably have to bear the blame.

At the conclusion of Questions.

The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) asked me a question earlier in to-day's proceedings as to why two questions in his name, in almost identical terms, appeared on the Paper. For the moment I threw the blame upon the printers. Now I am afraid I have to shift the blame on to his own shoulders, because I have in my hand the two questions which he himself handed in.

Yugo-Slav Kingdom

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state who are the persons who form the British mission to the Yugo-Slav kingdom; and whether any Consuls have yet been appointed to Croatia?

I am a little doubtful what exact information the hon. and gallant Member wishes me to give him. Sir C. des Graz has been accredited as His Majesty's Minister to the King of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. He resides at Belgrade, and is assisted by a commercial secretary, a military attaché, and two diplomatic secretaries. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Can the hon. Member say how long this mission has been at the Capital of the Slovene Kingdom?

I could not say that off hand.

Finland

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state who is the British political representative in Finland; whether he holds the rank of Minister or Chargé d' Affaires; and, if he does not, why a British Minister or Chargé d' Affaires has not been sent to the Finnish Government?

Mr. Henry McCrady Bell is at present His Majesty's representative at Helsingfors, and holds the rank of acting Chargé d' Affaires. A Minister is about to be appointed, and will proceed to Helsingfors almost immediately.

What are General Gough's functions?

I think that question had better be put to the War Office.

United States

10.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the American scientific attaché, Major Mendenhall, professor of physics in the university of Wisconsin, has presented his credentials; and whether His Majesty's Government has reciprocated the compliment by appointing a scientific attaché to Washington?

The appointment of this gentleman as Scientific Attaché to the United States Embassy has been notified to the Foreign Office by the United States Ambassador. No steps have as yet been taken in the sense of the second part of the question.

11.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement as to appointments to diplomatic and Consular posts in the United States of America?

I regret that I am unable to make any announcement on the subject as yet.

Is it as difficult to find a Consul-General as it is to find an Ambassador? Cannot the Foreign Office appoint a Consul-General if they cannot appoint an Ambassador?

Are our Consuls now being selected by the Foreign Office or by the Oversea Trade Department?

The functions are dual, but primarily they are exercised by the Department of Oversea Trade.

Is it because the functions are dual that they are so late in making their appointments?

Is not the position of Consul-General at New York much more easily filled than that of Ambassador, and can he give any reason whatsoever why this very important British post in New York has remained so long unfilled?

I share my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety that this post should be filled as quickly as possible.

Is it not a fact that every gentleman so appointed must show that he has an income of at least £400 a year?

That rule does not now apply in the Foreign Office.

Is not the post of Consul-General at New York a post which the Foreign Office has complete discretion to fill up, and which they could fill up tomorrow if they wished?

Trade And Commerce

British Interests In China (Newspaper Subsidy)

9, 14, and 101.

asked (1) the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Department has recommended a small subsidy to the sole British commercial paper, the "Ch'eng Pao," which is published in China; whether he is aware that the British Authorities in China are in favour of this course; that of the seven Chinese newspapers in Shanghai five are on the Japanese register, one is American, and the seventh is a purely Chinese paper subsidised by one of the parties in Pekin; (2) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the Consular Service in China has recommended financial assistance to the continuation of the British paper "Ch'eng Pao," which is a non-profit making paper published in China for the benefit of British trade, and which did such invaluable service in the War; (3) the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the reasons actuating the Department in refusing the sum of £6,000 as assistance to the continuation of the "Ch'eng Pao," the sole British commercial propagandist paper in China?

Having regard to the existence in China of a large and wealthy British community directly interested in commercial propaganda, it is not thought that a subsidy or guarantee from public funds would now be justified. If, however, a local resident in Shanghai is successful in continuing the paper as a business venture on his own account, as is proposed, arrangements have been made to subscribe for a certain number of copies to be distributed among the Consulates. This course is in accordance with a recommendation from His Majesty's Consul-General in Shanghai.

Esthonia

12.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the growing anxiety among our Allies, the Esthonians, as to their future status; and what is the Government's policy towards these people?

The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative.

As regards the second part, I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fifth condition attached by the Allied Powers to the continuance of assistance to Admiral Koltchak in which it is stipulated that "if a solution of the relations between Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Caucasian and Transcaspian territories and Russia is not speedily reached by agreement, the settlement will be made in consultation and co-operation with the League of Nations, and that until such settlement is made the Government of Russia agrees to recognise these territories as autonomous, and to confirm the relations which may exist between their de facto Governments and the Allied and Associated Governments." Meanwhile, the Esthonian National Council in recognised provisionally by His Majesty's Government as a de facto independent Government.

May I ask who represents the hon. Gentleman's Department in Esthonia at the present moment?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to refresh my memory on that.

It is represented?

We have some representation.

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

New Pension Conditions

15.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether new pension conditions are under consideration for officers and other ranks of the Regular Army; and whether it is intended to apply them retrospectively?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I can at present make no statement as to the second part.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us how soon he will make a statement as to the new conditions?

I am afraid I cannot name a date, but I am doing my best to expedite it.

Is the question of making them retrospective being considered, in view of the high cost of living and the great necessity now being felt by a large number of retired soldiers?

It is being considered. All aspects of the question are being considered.

Full-Time Engagements

20.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the necessity of raising the present scale of pay service pensions and of granting a pension of suitable amount to men who have completed their full-time engagement of twelve years and the extra year for war service?

Some alteration in the scale of service pensions is under consideration, but my hon. Friends will realise the difficulty of justifying the institution of life pensions for men who may be only thirty years of age and in perfect health.

Mother's Allowance

64.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether Private A. Jones, No. 59217, of the 1st Northants Regiment, was believed to be missing and then presumed dead; that pension papers have been sent to the aged parents to duly sign, but have been returned blank as the son is still living and a member of His Majesty's Forces and is at present on leave; and, seeing that the mother's allowance has been stopped, will he take steps to pay up arrears at once and find out who is to blame for such an error of over twelve months' standing?

Inquiry will be made, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result as soon as possible.

Armies Of Occupation

16.

asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that many men now serving m Egypt are willing to volunteer for a year or more in the Armies of Occupation provided they do not remain in Egypt but are sent to the Rhine; and whether arrangements can be made by which men could be afforded a choice of accepting obligations either for general service where most needed, or else for certain spheres such as the Rhine, Egypt, and India?

My right hon. Friend hopes that the rate at which the reductions of the Army of the Rhine can proceed after the Ratification of Peace will be such as to render the adoption of this course unnecessary. The principal difficulty now is not to provide for the Army of the Rhine, but to find relief for the demobilisable men in India and Egypt.

Newspaper Censorship

63.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether any censorship is now exercised over newspapers delivered to the troops in Cologne; and, if so, for what purpose?

66.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the circulation of the "Daily Herald" among the private soldiers serving in the Army of the Rhine is being prevented; if so, by whose authority this censorship is being exercised; whether the circulation of the "Daily Herald" is being permitted among commissioned officers; and whether he will take steps to remove any ban upon the circulation of this newspaper among all ranks?

During the War arrangements were made by the War Office to purchase newspapers out of the canteen funds and send them out for distribution to the troops. The "Daily Herald" was included among these papers in the ordinary course.

On the last occasion when the Army Estimates were debated in the House I found it necessary to point out that this paper was deliberately attempting to foment discontent in the Army and to encourage mutinies, strikes, and riots. I was, therefore, surprised to learn some days later that the War Office had itself been unconsciously responsible for purchasing with canteen funds and distributing by official agency upwards of 60,000 copies of a paper which I have regretted very much to be compelled to characterise in these terms.

Since then I have received formal representations from the General Officer Commanding the Army of the Rhine, from the General Officer Commanding the troops in France and Flanders, from Sir Douglas Haig, Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Great Britain, and from the Adjutant-General at the War Office, who is directly responsible for the discipline of the Army, to the effect that harm has been done to the troops by the circulation of this paper, and that various instances of disorder and insubordination, which might at any time have taken a very serious turn, are directly attributable to its activities.

In these circumstances, it was obviously quite impossible for the War Office to continue to be responsible for the purchase and distribution to the troops of the "Daily Herald"; and I have issued directions that it is no longer to be included among the papers which are forwarded officially to our Armies abroad.

This does not mean that the circulation of the paper among the troops is prohibited, or that officers or soldiers would be proceeded against for having it in their possession. It does mean, however, that we cannot ourselves afford any assistance to the circulation of propaganda of an essentially disloyal and subversive character.

It follows from the above that bundles of this paper which had reached their destination in France and in Germany before the Order removing them from the list of publications forwarded to the troops was issued should be destroyed; and I accept full responsibility for any measures which may have been taken in this respect by the responsible officers on the spot.

I should add that all I have said is, of course, without prejudice to any further action which it may subsequently be necessary to take should it at any time be deemed desirable to institute a prosecution.

Is it not a fact that these canteen funds are contributed to by private soldiers, and that they are resenting this action very strongly, and is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that this method of secret repression is fanning the flame of discontent in the Army?

In the first place, I am confident that the Army, as a whole, greatly resent the circulation of this kind of publication, although there is always a small proportion of individuals who revel in it. So far as secret repression is concerned, nothing could be more open or candid than the full explanation that I have given to the House of Commons.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take action to prevent generals in the Army from attacking one another in the Press?

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a copy of the reply, which he has read to the House, is handed to the Attorney-General in order that he may consider what steps he ought to take?

I might ask the right hon. Gentleman to do that; because in the opinion of most people it is the right hon. Gentleman himself who is responsible for the discontent which exists in the Army and in the country?

Wall the right hon. Gentleman cause a copy of this reply to be circulated through the same medium to the Army on the Rhine?

I dare say that it will be reported in the newspapers which reach them.

When will the House have an opportunity of discussing the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken?

Any question of business must be addressed to the Leader of the House, although I am at the disposal of the House if there is any desire to discuss it.

May I put the question to the Leader of the House?

We have already promised that a Supply day will be given for the Army. Of course, on what particular day depends upon the Opposition. We have always given whatever Vote they wish.

War Gratuity

67.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what date officers who remain in the Army of Occupation are to be paid their war gratuity?

The question of extending the service on which gratuities are assessed is under consideration, and I am not in a position to name a date at this moment. I hope to do so very shortly.

Royal Abmy Medical Corps

17.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain men were enlisted during the War as privates in the Royal Army Medical Corps for home service only; what pay and allowances these men receive, and by whom they are paid; whether their demobilisation is now arranged; and what bounty or gratuity they will receive on discharge?

I presume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the men who were formerly employed as asylum attendants, etc., under the boards of guardians, and who were enlisted pro forma on the institutions being taken over as military hospitals. These men are not entitled to Army rates of pay and allowances, but have continued to be paid as before enlistment at civilian rates of pay by the Asylums Committee, who have recovered the cost from the War Department. Their demobilisation is now being arranged. They are not entitled to bounty or gratuity on discharge, as such gratuities are, payable only to men who have drawn Army rates of pay.

Are they entitled to any separation allowance?

I think not.

Mesopotamia

Sickness Among Troops

18.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many troops are now in Mesopotamia; what is the percentage of sickness per month at the present time; and whether soldiers who have been there more than two years without leave and have been several times in hospital with dysentery could be sent to a hill station in India for the hot season?

The latest return shows that the strength of British troops in Mesopotamia on the 24th May, including officers, was 26,291. The average percentage in hospital during March was approximately 3.6 per cent. These are the latest figures available. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend can assure my hon. Friend that everything possible is done to safeguard the health of the troops. My right hon. Friend is, however, obtaining a report from the authorities in Mesopotamia, and will write to my hon. Friend later.

Arising out of the answer to the latter part of the question, can I be informed whether native levies are being raised to relieve these troops?

There is no reference to that in the question on the Paper.

War Decorations

19.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a special ribbon to all officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who have fought in the late War and who have been mentioned in dispatches?

I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion. This matter has already been fully considered, and it has been decided to issue a special certificate to all officers, non-commisioned officers and men who have been mentioned in dispatches for services in the field during the War. The certificates are in course of preparation, but may not be ready for some months owing to the large numbers involved.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman see that it is very much more valuable and interesting to a man mentioned in dispatches to have a little piece of ribbon on his coat than a certificate which he might leave at home and nobody might ever see?

We are multiplying ribbons very fast now, and I am doubtful of the advantage of issuing a new one.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that, although some men have got a great many ribbons, some of these gallant fellows who have been often recommended for decorations, but have not got them, might in this way get some recognition?

Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to reconsider this question? It would cause great satisfaction to thousands of officers and men.

I cannot give any promise. The French have a system of stars on ribbons. I am not sure that is not worthy of consideration.

Army Canteen Profits

21.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he can now make a statement regarding the control and distribution of canteen profits?

This question is still under consideration, and I regret I am unable to make any statement on the subject at present.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me when to put down the question?

I am very sorry I am not in a position to do so. Perhaps he will put it down this day week.

Restoration Of Army Rank

Warrant And Non-Commissioned Officers

22.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he can now state whether, on the conclusion of Peace, he will be prepared to consider applications for restoration of rank without pay or allowances from warrant and non-commissioned officers who, having rendered excellent service during the War, find them selves for various causes discharged in a lower rank than that held on mobilisation or attained during service, provided that such reduction was not in any way due to misconduct?

I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to refer to soldiers who have lost their rank owing to technical offences. This has been considered, but I regret that the suggestion cannot be entertained.

Voluntary Army (Propaganda)

23.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he contemplates the commencement of effective national propaganda to increase the Army on a voluntary basis; and whether he will take into consideration in deciding thereon the numbers of men now with the Colours who would thereby the earlier be demobilised?

Considerable efforts have been made in all parts of the country for several months past to open up voluntary recruiting for the Army. The response has been good, and is improving. The recruiting position is being closely watched, and the extent to which additional measures will be necessary in the immediate future will be determined by the scale of Army requirements. Every endeavour is being made by means of the re-enlistment of trained men, and otherwise, to release as soon as possible all men eligible for demobilisation who have not volunteered for service with the Armies of Occupation.

Demobilisation

Order Of Release (Memorandum)

24.

asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the signing of Peace, he can hold out hopes of the preferential treatment, in respect of demobilisation, of the married men now with the Colours?

25.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the shortage of skilled workmen in the building trade, he can, now that Peace is signed, see his way to release all building trades workmen whose services arc not absolutely required in the Army?

32.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many men who were formerly dock labourers and are now in the Army quartered in Great Britain have for some time past had no occupation except sport; whether he is aware of the great shortage of labour in Liverpool and other ports of the United Kingdom, resulting in congestion, delay to British shipping, loss of perishable food, and increased price of food; and whether he can see his way to release men from the Army who have employment waiting for them?

34.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, when the time comes for enlarging the scope of the Demobilisation Regulations, he will ensure that a priority is given to Irish soldiers who volunteered over those who were called up under the Military Service Acts in Great Britain?

I hope next week to publish the Memorandum which I promised the House last week, setting forth the further steps which will be taken consequent on the ratification of Peace to reduce our armed forces and to release men in the order best calculated to mitigate hardship. I do not wish to anticipate this by partial answers.

In connection with Question 32, does the right hon. Gentleman not see that it would be in the natural interest, both as regards economy and efficiency, immediately to release these men? They badly want it.

That is typical. Once you make out a case for one particular class, there arc fifty other cases almost as good in every way. There are a variety of local circumstances to support them. Then you introduce a system, and soldiers do not consider it just or fair that men should go before their turn.

But the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I presume, of the great congestion and delay to shipping?

Arising out of Question 34, can the right hon. Gentleman say that he realises the class to which I refer are in a very special category, in view of the fact that many joined in face of great hostility, and possible danger to themselves?

That adds greatly to the merit of their action, but I am afraid it does not afford grounds for altering the administrative arrangements necessary for demobilisation.

Will the new Regulation contain new grounds for compassionate release?

It will deal with what we think are the best arrangements for the release of men. We want to release as many as possible, and in a way to give as much satisfaction as possible.

Army Paymasters (Acting)

26.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he received a statement of the claim for bonus and other matters forwarded by acting-pay masters during the month of March; whether, in consequence, he called for a Report; whether he has been furnished with the same; whether on 14th June he received a further memorandum on the claim of acting-paymasters; and is he now in a position to give a reply?

Representations have been received as stated in the question. As regards the claim of acting-paymasters to Army of Occupation bonus, I can add nothing to my reply on the 30th of June, to a question by my hon. Friend the Member of Canterbury. An Order granting an increased war bonus to civilian acting-paymasters has recently been issued. The other main point raised is still under consideration.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consent to receive a deputation of acting-paymasters?

I do not think that is necessary, because I am fighting their battle for them.

Army Motor Lorries

27.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are many hundreds of motor lorries and motor chassis stored on the roads in Lee, S.E.; that these vehicles have been there, in many cases, for periods up to six months; that in a number of instances the bonnets are not on, and the engines are, consequently, red with rust, while very few of them have on bonnet covers; and what steps he proposes to take to dispose of these vehicles before they be come valueless through lack of attention?

I have been asked to answer this question. A number of motor vehicles which had been parked at Kempton were moved to Grove Park, Lee, S.E., and were thrown up by the War Office to the Ministry of Munitions for disposal. Owing to the shortage of storage it was not possible for the War Office to place the vehicles under cover. Covered accommodation has now been provided at Slough, 211 lorries have been removed and the remainder will be moved by the end of this week. I am informed that no bonnets are missing and there has been no serious depreciation in the value of the articles.

Why could not the vehicles have been moved before, and not after, the question was put down on the Paper?

Because of the lack of covered accommodation. The accommodation has only become available in the last few days.

Oil Discovery, Derbyshire (Royalties)

47.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to a decision concerning the payment of royalties on the oil discovered in Derbyshire?

The Government have this matter under consideration, and an announcement of their decision will be made as soon as possible.

County Court Judges (Salaries)

48.

asked the Prime Minister whether attention will be given to the question of the salaries of County Court judges, reduced by taxation and the higher cost of living to less than one-half their pre-war value, and that regard will be had to the increasing duties thrown upon them by legislation and the extreme importance of retaining and obtaining men of recognised ability and character for such positions?

The Government is alive to the considerations urged by my hon. Friend, and they have extended to County Court judges the war bonus of £300 a year awarded by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board to Civil servants with salaries of like amount.

Liquor Trade (State Purchase)

49.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in considering the functions to be assigned to the new Liquor Commission, the Government will have due regard for the scheme for the State purchase of the liquor trade, which was adopted by the War Cabinet of 1917 and favourably reported upon by the Committee appointed to inquire into its practicability?

In considering the functions to be assigned to the new Liquor Commission, the Government will have due regard to all possible solutions of the liquor problem.

Cruelty To Animals Act, 1876

50.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to take the administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, out of the hands of the Home Secretary and to place it in the hands of the Minister of Health; and, if not, whether he will state why the conduct of the Dogs' Protection Bill was on the occasion of its Third Reading taken out of the hands of the Home Secretary and placed in the hands of the Ministry of Health?

It is not proposed to make any change in the administration of the Act. The discussion of the Bill raised the general question of its effect upon medical research, and it was arranged that the Minister of Health should speak on behalf of the Government.

Am I right in supposing that the Under-Secretary was unwilling, under the circumstances, to move the rejection of the Bill on its Third Reading?

I never heard of it, and I have no reason to think so.

Will my right hon. Friend inquire?

I may—as a matter of curiosity?

And tell me—as a, matter of curiosity?

Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill

51.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to pass the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill into Law before the adjournment for the Autumn Recess?

It is the hope of the Government that this Bill should be passed into law before the Recess.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced?

No, I cannot say without notice.

Will he promise to give facilities to pass the Bill into law before the Recess?

Oh yes, we are very anxious that it should have the same facilities as are given to the English Bill.

Diplomatic And Consular Services

53.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Report of Lord Cave's Committee upon the Relations of the Diplomatic and Consular Services will be published; if so, when; and whether the Committee has been considering the question of the amalgamation of the Consular and Diplomatic Services?

Lord Cave's Committee has not yet reported, but will do so immediately. In the meantime, as I stated in answer to a question on the 5th June, steps are now being taken to carry out a complete reorganisation of the Consular Service.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question—"Whether the Committee has been considering the question of the amalgamation of the Consular and Diplomatic Services"?

I think the working of them generally is, at all events, being considered, but I am not sure as to the amalgamation.

Is this being done in connection with the Oversea Trading Depart- ment set up some time ago? The arrangement then adopted was supposed the solution of this difficult problem. I should like to know whether that solution has been a success, as it affects the question of dealing with the whole thing?

The reason of setting up this Committee was to inquire into the whole working of the Consular and Oversea Trading Department—that was the object—

and the Diplomatic?

Yes; but I cannot say anything more until we have got the Report.

As a matter of fact, the Oversea Trading Department at present is not supposed to have been quite a success. Is that so?

Everything in this world is relative.

Will the reorganisation of the whole Consular Service be proceeded with before an opportunity has been given to study the Report of the Committee, which may recommend the amalgamation of the Consular and Diplomatic Services?

No, Sir; but there are certain parts of the reorganisation of the staff—I explained in the Debate here—that can be, and are now being, taken in hand.

India

Dispatch Of Troops (Hot Season)

29.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of the dispatch of troops to India during the summer months, arrangements will be made that all the men on board will be able to sleep on deck during their passage through the Red Sea?

37.

asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made for the health and comfort of troops on voyage to India during the hot season?

The special arrangements for the voyage to India during the hot weather season include the fixing of an ample scale of accommodation in the ships based on approximately 50 per cent. of the normal scale of accommodation for troops on this voyage. As far as possible men will be permitted to sleep on deck. I am told that practically all who want to, and who are not on duty, will be able to do so. Each vessel is fitted with double awnings, windsails, and provided with sail and shower baths. Special attention is being paid to ventilation, and electric fans will be installed where desirable. The hospital is to be on the cool side of the ship. Ice is being provided on a liberal scale, and an ample supply of mineral waters will be available. All ranks will be provided on embarkation with good sun helmets. Every vessel allocated for this service is thoroughly inspected before being accepted as suitable by selected officers of the War Office, who, in conjunction with an officer of the Ministry of Shipping, are charged with inquiring into all matters affecting the health and comfort of the troops, and satisfy themselves that all possible steps are taken to minimise the hardships of the voyage. I may add that the Cabinet have themselves been into this question, and have approved of these special arrangements.

Karachi (Rest Camp)

44.

asked the Secretary of State for War the reply to his inquiries in India as to the health of the troops in the rest camp at Karachi; how many men are in hospital; what deaths, if any, have taken place owing to the heat; whether he is aware that the latest news from home received by soldiers there is dated January last; and whether their wives' letters are still being returned to England instead of being sent on to Karachi from Mesopotamia?

I regret I can add nothing at present to my reply to my hon. Friend on Friday last.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not communicated by cable with India, and with what result?

Yes, Sir, but do answer has yet been received.

Burial Of British Soldiers

30.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has now been arrived at as to whether British sailors and soldiers buried in Germany may be brought home at the wish of the relatives if and when transport facilities are available?

In Article 225 of the Treaty of Peace recently signed with the German Government, that Government agrees to respect and maintain the graves of our soldiers and sailors who died as prisoners of war and were buried in Germany, and also in order to meet the wishes of those who do not wish that the bodies of their relatives should rest in German soil it has further been agreed that in such cases every reasonable facility shall be afforded for the removal of the bodies to their own country. But, until the ratification of the Treaty, no detailed arrangements can be made, and these must in any case take some time to complete.

I suppose that will also apply to the men on the Rhine?

Yes, Sir; German soil.

Non-Commissioned Officers (Promotion)

36.

asked the Secretary of State for War if any decision has been arrived at regarding the promotion of non-commissioned officers who, through no fault of their own, were taken prisoners during the War?

I am strongly of opinion that non-commissioned officer prisoners of war should be dealt with in a similar manner to commissioned officers in regard to their promotion, and I am examining the steps necessary to give effect to this obviously fair principle.

Overpayments By Officers

39.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, regimental paymasters are instructing Army agents to withhold from officers certain sums which have been overpaid to soldiers by these officers; that in many cases these overpayments were not made intentionally nor negligently, and the paying-out officers had no means of knowing that he was overpaying the men, and that in some cases nearly the whole of an officer's gratuity is withheld; and is there any means by which these aggrieved officers can have the matter investigated?

I will inquire into this matter and communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Russia

Russian Legion

31.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state if the men of the Russian legion who had fought by the side of the Allies on the Western Front were transported some three months ago to Join the forces of General Denikin, K.C.B.; whether they refused to fight against the Red Army; and whether they were then surrounded by General Denikin's volunteers and shot?

In answer to the first part of the question, about 500 officers and men, who volunteered for service under General Denikin, were sent to join him. As regards the second and last parts of the question, the Chief of the British Military Mission, who has just returned from South Russia, states that these reports are without foundation. I am informed, however, that a number of Russians who had joined the Volunteer Army subsequently deserted from the front line in the face of the enemy, and that these men were fired upon by the troops on their right and left and sustained heavy losses before they reached the Bolshevik lines.

Where are the remainder of the Russian Legion reported in France?

That is not in the question.

Concentration Camp, Muding Island, Archangel

42.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to statements as to the conditions existing in the concentration camp for suspected Bolsheviks at Muding Island, off Archangel; and whether he has any information that the inmates are grossly overcrowded, half-starved, and deprived of medical necessaries, and that forty out of the 250 have already died?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as it is too long to read out in the House, a full statement which has been furnished to me regarding this camp. It shows that there is no foundation for any suggestion that the inmates are overcrowded, half-starved, or deprived of medical necessaries. There are only twenty-eight altogether in the prison at present, and I gather that these are practically all, if not all, bad cases of sentenced criminals or men charged with serious civil crimes, such as murder.

The following is the statement referred to:

The prison was an overflow from Archangel main prison. It was inspected by General Ironside shortly after his arrival in October, 1918, when he decided that only the worst cases of sentenced criminals, and men charged with serious crimes, such as murder, should be sent there. Many of these cases had been imprisoned by the civil authorities before the Bolsheviks entered Archangel, some by the Bolsheviks during their stay in Archangel, and some by the Russian authorities when the Allies arrived. The records were in hopeless confusion when taken over by the Allies. Many prisoners, in nearly every case civil, were in poor condition, and there was a large proportion of syphilitics among them. General Ironside at once placed the prison under Colonel Donop, the French Governor of Archangel, under whose charge it remained until handed over to the Russian authorities in May, 1919. The guard was made up of French Marines. Staff and medical officers of the British Command made constant visits to the island, and all the necessary medicines were provided. The present number in the prison is twenty-eight, and General Ironside states that conditions are excellent. Many have been released, as they have completed thier sentence.

Early in November, General Ironside increased the rations of all prisoners after reports by an Allied Commission, and, having regard to the approach of winter, ho again increased the ration on 25th November.

In January, scurvy appeared in some cases, and an absolutely free hand, as regards medicines and rations, was given to the deputy-director of medical services. All sick were treated in exactly the same way as our own cases in hospital.

Lime juice has always formed a portion of the rations.

As soon as summer came, the whole establishment of Muding Island vacated the winter barracks and went under canvas.

As regards prisoners incarcerated for Bolshevik tendencies, unless they were under suspicion of definite crimes, General Ironside, in April, personally gave all prisoners the option of going over to the Soviet Russians if they so desired. The greater portion, however, declined to accept this offer. Including men from the army and civilians, who were also given this opportunity as well as prisoners, only some 400 availed themselves of it.

There has never been any overcrowding on the island, and General Ironside states in his Report on the subject that, considering the state of things when the medical authorities took over in October, they carried out their work most efficiently.

The rations scale fixed on 25th. November was:

11 ozs. flour, 7¼ ozs. rice, jam or beans
7¼ ozs. meat or herrings, 1¾ ozs. bacon or pork.
¾ oz. salt, 1/320 gallons lime juice, ¼ oz. tea.
1 oz. sugar.

Expeditionary Force Canteen

33.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many copies of the book "West and East with the E.F.C," by Captain E. Vredenburg, have been printed; what has been the total cost of producing this book and has it been paid for out of the profits of the Expeditionary Force Canteen; and whether Captain Vredenburg makes anything out of the book himself?

Twenty-one thousand, three hundred and twenty-three copies have been printed at a cost of £2,760 paid by the Expeditionary Force Canteens to the publishers. No payment out of Expeditionary Force Canteen Funds was made to Captain Vredenburg.

Was the expenditure of that money authorised by the Army Council?

I think it was one of the running expenses of the organisation.

Field Glasses

35.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the proposal to present a pair of field glasses to those gentlemen and ladies who responded to Lord Roberts' appeal on behalf of the Army, but whose glasses have not been returned, as requested by Lady Roberts, now that hostilities have ceased?

I will inquire into this question.

Peace Celebrations

Travelling Warrants

38.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that his Department is arranging triumphal marches to celebrate the conclusion of a victorious Peace, he will issue free travelling warrants to all ranks living at a distance from the locality where the parade is to take place, so that all, whatever their financial circumstances, may be in a position to attend?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich on the 3rd July, 1919.

Concentration Camp, Boulogne

40.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the Ferlingham Concentration Camp, Boulogne, demobilised men returning home are compelled to submit themselves to medical examination by a German army doctor in German uniform, and there is resentment among the soldiers in consequence, and whether he will take steps to substitute some other medical man; whether he is aware that at the same camp returning men are compelled to change their clean underclothing given to them at their billets for underclothing which, though fumigated, had been previously verminous, and that the men are refusing to wear them and prefer travelling without any underclothing; and whether he will make inquiries into this matter?

I regret that the inquiries in this case are not yet complete, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to give him any information on the matter.

Food Supplies

Malt (Home-Brewed Ale)

54.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that discontent exists among agricultural labourers owing to the issue of malt for home-brewed ale being limited to those who applied for a supply last year; and whether he will consider an amendment to extend such facilities to all bonâ fide workers in agriculture by granting permits to farmers for the total number of men employed?

I have been asked to reply. Since 14th May, 1919, licences for malt for home brewing have been issued to those who brewed in the years 1916, 1917, or 1918, and under these licences malt may be purchased at the rate of two bushels per man. Owing to shortage of available supplies of malt, it is not practicable at present to adopt the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Member.

If it is possible to increase the supply of malt allowed to brewers, why is it not possible to allocate some of this extra malt to the agricultural labourers?

It is obvious that the extra malt allowed to the brewers to increase beer supplies pro tanto leaves less malt available for other purposes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by limiting the permits to those who had malt in 1916–17 the returned Service men are deprived of homebrewed beer, although it is available to those who stayed at home during the War?

Beer (Additional Duty)

55.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the additional duty of £1 per barrel on beer, the price of 4d. beer has been raised from 64s. to 69s. per barrel net to retailers, which in the case of workmen's clubs means an additional tax on the consumers; and whether he will take steps to prevent the increased price being continued and the additional price already paid to wholesale merchants refunded?

I have been asked to reply to this question. It was the intention of the Government that the additional duty should be equitably apportioned between wholesalers and retailers. The precise method of apportionment, in case of disagreement, is considered by joint local committees of wholesalers and retailers, and I know of no case where such committees have failed to reach agreement.

Liquor Restrictions

58.

asked whether His Majesty's Government intend to remove all restrictions on the manufacture and sale of liquor; if so, is it intended that profits incidental to the removal of restrictions are to go to the private interests concerned; and, in framing proposals for the future of the trade, will the Government consider the desirability of checking profiteering and acquiring profits on drink for the benefit of the community?

I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The new Beer (Prices and Descriptions) Order will, it is hoped, secure that the profits incidental to the recent removal of restrictions on output will enure to the benefit of the public.

Convictions For Profiteering

80.

asked the Food Controller in how many instances the Ministry of Food has taken action under the Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Act, 1918, against food traders convicted of illegal profiteering, and with what results?

I understand that proceedings under this Act have been successfully taken in one instance in Ireland. Proceedings are now being instituted in one case in this country.

Why have so few cases been proceeded with?

In cases of illegal profiteering it is open to the Ministry of Food either to institute proceedings under the Food (Profits) Act, 1913, or to institute summary proceedings for breaches of the Regulations, and so long as substantial penalties are imposed by magistrates in respect of summary proceedings there is no object in initiating the more expensive and elaborate proceedings under the older Act. Very numerous cases have been brought before the Committee, and substantial penalties have been recovered.

81.

asked the Food Controller whether, since December last, the Manchester local food committee has been unsuccessfully urging the Ministry of Food to take immediate proceedings under the Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Act, 1918, against a Manchester firm which has been convicted on several occasions for illegal profiteering; whether he is aware that, owing to the dilatory action of the Ministry, the Manchester Committee has refrained from sending a considerable number of similar cases; and what steps he proposes to take to inquire into the efficiency of the staff engaged in this section of the Ministry?

Proceedings under the Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Act, 1918, have now been filed in the matter to which the hon. Member presumably refers. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am not of opinion that there has been any avoidable delay.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that this very matter has been before his Department since last December, and that on one occasion, in May, it was said that the reason for the delay in dealing with it was the prevalence of influenza among the officials? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that as late as June last the answer was that the delay was owing to illness in the legal department? I think the House will be very glad to hear if at the present time these legal gentlemen are convalescent, in view of the long time taken—

The hon. Member is not entitled to comment on his question.

Income Tax

56.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that large numbers of those engaged in the coal-mining industry are offering an organised resistance to the payment of Income Tax; and will he say what special measures the Inland Revenue authorities are taking to deal with the situation?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries through his collectors or the revenue authorities?

Yes, Sir.

61.

asked whether on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill he can see his way to moving an Amendment to Clause 16 to enable officers demobilised prior to the introduction of the Finance Bill, and from whose gratuities Income Tax has been deducted by their Army agents, to obtain direct repayment of the same through their agents?

The actual arrangements for repaying Income Tax on gratuities under Clause 16 of the Finance Bill will not require legislation. They arc at present under consideration, and I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement shortly.

In order to remove inequality of treatment in this case, will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Government should pay interest on the amount deducted up to the date upon which repayment is made?

No, Sir; I am not prepared to do that.

It is very unequal.

Victory And War Loans

57.

asked whether, in view of the assistance in the successful floating of the Victory and War Loans given by the management and staffs of banking establishments throughout the country and the extra time and work which such assistance has entailed, he proposes to recognise the same in some special way on the conclusion of the flotation of the present Loan?

The remuneration to the banks for their services in connection with the Loan is fully provided for, and I must leave it to the banks themselves to make such arrangements as they think proper for their staffs.

How is the remuneration provided for? Is it financial?

The actual remuneration is provided for in the terms of the Loan, and the banks also have the use of the money for a certain period.

Do not the banks receive a commission on all applications that go through them?

Yes.

National Shipyards

59.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state under what estimate has authority been granted for the expenditure of £80,000 per month on subsidiary construction and housing at the national shipyards; and whether the Treasury is satisfied that the nation will get value for this expenditure?

The expenditure is being defrayed from Subhead K of the Vote for the Ministry of Shipping, where specific provision is made for national shipyard construction. The policy approved by the Treasury is that such, and only such, further expenditure should be incurred as is necessary to secure that the ultimate sale of the shipyard shall take place on terms favourable to the State.

Is the Treasury really assured that the nation is getting value for this £80,000 a month now being spent on the national shipyards?

The primary responsibility does not rest with the Treasury, and neither the Treasury nor I can, or ought to, attempt to discharge the duties of individual Ministers or other Ministers; but we are satisfied that the course proposed is in principle the most advantageous to the State.

Does not the Treasury exercise any control over the expenditure on these national shipyards?

Yes, the same kind of control which the Treasury exercised when the right hon. Gentleman was in office over his expenditure as Civil Lord of the Admiralty.

Is this expenditure on houses in connection with the shipyards being incurred simply on the chance of these shipyards being used some day?

The expenditure is being incurred in order that they may be disposed of on the most favourable terms to the State.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the national shipyards do, as the Admiralty did when I was in office, submit an estimate of their expenditure to the Treasury?

I must have notice of that.

Why did you make a charge?

I made no charge against the right hon. Gentleman. The control is the usual normal Treasury control. What I am anxious about is that the House should understand that the responsibility of the Treasury does not relieve the Department concerned of any of its own responsibility.

Is it not a fact that all the Departments submit an estimate to the Treasury, and has the Ministry of Shipping submitted any estimate to the Treasury for the national shipyards?

Yes, they have. I asked for notice of that question because I wanted to be certain, and the question was put without notice. I am now informed that they have.

Death Duties

60.

asked whether the payment of Death Duties by Victory Bonds can only be made at par provided that they have been in the hands of the deceased for six months before death?

As stated in the prospectus, Victory Bonds will be accepted at their face value as the equivalent of cash in satisfaction of Death Duties provided that the bonds surrendered have formed part of the estate passing on death either for a period of not less than six months immediately preceeding the date of death or continuously up to the date of death from the date of the original subscription.

Royal Army Ordnance Corps (Eastern Drafts)

65.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether thirty men of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, 21st Company, including 1917 men, are being sent to the East against their will; and is it the intention to only send volunteers to the East?

Drafts of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps are being sent from France to Egypt and the Army of the Black Sea to replace men who are entitled to be demobilised or who have served a long period in those theatres. They will consist of men who have volun- teered for the Armies of Occupation or who were called to the Colours on or after 1st January, 1916, and will not have attained the age of thirty-five by the 1st April, 1920. Men who joined the Colours under the Derby scheme for continuous service in January, February, and March, 1916, are specifically excepted from these drafts. Only Regular soldiers or men who have voluntarily enlisted for short periods are being sent to stations east of Suez. I could not, however, carry out the reliefs of demobilisable men in the Near East unless men other than volunteers were included.

Army Pay Office

68.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of women employed at the Army Pay Office, Upper Thames Street, the number of them under eighteen years of age, and the number above that age who have claims for special consideration on account of having lost their husbands in the War?

The number of women employed at the Army Pay Office, Upper Thames Street, is 327, the number of these under eighteen years of age is sixty-eight, the number above eighteen years who have claims for special consideration on account of having lost their husbands in the War is seven.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing back some of the discharged men in place of those among the women who have no special claim?

In view of the figures that I have just quoted, I have directed a special inquiry to be made into the whole of the circumstances.

69.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the ex-soldiers who were appointed to posts in the Army Pay Office, Upper Thames Street, had to pass an examination before being appointed; and whether the men who have been discharged have not been discharged for inefficiency, but on the ground of the reduction of the staff, and have been given credit for the satisfactory way in which they performed their duties?

I am inquiring into this, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

If it is proved that any of the men who have been discharged were not inefficient, will they be replaced in their posts if women are doing the work?

I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to complete my inquiries before saying anything further.

Canteen Funds (Distribution)

70.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, since it has now been disclosed that £850,000 of the canteen funds has been distributed, he will now state to whom, when, and in what sums these payments were made, and upon what policy was the selection of various charities and organisations arrived at; whether he is prepared now to give an assurance that no further payments will be made from this fund until a definite decision has been arrived at and communicated to Parliament by the Government as to purposes to which the canteen funds will be devoted in future?

The details of the grants from canteen funds are too lengthy to be given in an answer to a question, but I will arrange for them to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As the hon. and gallant Member is probably aware, the question of the distribution of the central funds of the Army was the subject of inquiry by Lord Rotherham's Committee, who, in a Report presented to Parliament in November, 1914, recommended that they should be administered

"in the interest of the troops on approved objects on a wider scale than could be adopted by officers commanding units."

Applications for grants are fully investigated before submission to the Army Council, by whom all grants are authorised. In arriving at their decisions the Council are now guided by the recommendations of a Committee composed of officers and other ranks representing the Armies at home and abroad. Representatives of ex-Service men have recently been added to the Committee. The future management of these funds is under consideration, and I hope an announcement will be made soon, but I am not prepared to agree that all payments shall be held up meanwhile.

The following is the statement referred to:

STATEMENT OF GRANTS FROM CANTEEN FUNDS TO 31ST MAY, 1919
Grants made.	1914–1915.			1916.			1917.			1918.			1919 (to 31st May).
	£	s.	d.	£	s.	d.	£	s.	d.	£	s.	d.	£	s.	d.
Newspapers, Expeditionary Force, France and Mediterranean	17,402	15	0	—			15,689	0	0	6,046	10	4	534	17	1
Newspapers, Expeditionary Force, Mesopotamia	—			229	19	0	600	0	0	232	9	11	—
Newspapers, Expeditionary Force, Russia	—			—			—			—			200	0	0
Newspapers, Expeditionary Force, Egypt	—			—			—			—			510	0	0
Camp Libraries	2,040	0	0	3,000	0	0	5,000	0	0	5,000	0	0	—
Women's Active Service Club	—			—			—			2,000	0	0	—
Smokes, Soldiers and Sailors	—			300	0	0	1,200	0	0	1,450	0	0	500	0	0
Canteen Furnishing Fund	—			50,000	0	0	50,000	0	0	—			—
Men's Hospital Fund, Southern Command	75	0	0	18	15	0	56	5	0	75	0	0	18	15	0
Men's Hospital Fund, Northern Command	18	15	0	—			131	5	0	75	0	0	18	15	0
Royal Military Benevolent Fund	—			—			150	0	0	—			100	0	0
General Officer Commanding Southern Command^*	—			—			500	0	0	500	0	0	125	0	0
General Officer Commanding Northern command^*	—			—			500	0	0	500	0	0	125	0	0
General Officer Commanding Western command^*	—			—			500	0	0	500	0	0	125	0	0
General Officer Commanding Eastern command^*	—			—			500	0	0	500	0	0	125	0	0
General Officer Commanding Irish command^*	—			—			500	0	0	500	0	0	125	0	0
General Officer Commanding Scottish command^*	—			—			500	0	0	500	0	0	125	0	0
General Officer Commanding Aldershot command^*	—			—			500	0	0	500	0	0	125	0	0
General Officer Commanding London District^*	—			—			500	0	0	500	0	0	125	0	0
													(for 1918 and 1919)
Officer Commanding Guernsey District^*	—			—			—			—			100	0	0
Director-General Voluntary Organisations	—			1,000	0	0	6,000	0	0	10,000	0	0	—
Union Jack Hostel	45,000	0	0	—			6,000	0	0	—			—
Soldiers' Central Club, Dublin	—			—			500	0	0	—			—
Royal Drummond Institute, Dublin	—			—			25	0	0	25	0	0	—

Dr. Barnardo's Homes	—			—			115	0	0	—			—
Royal Imperial Services League	—			—			—			—			1,000	0	0
Women's Emergency Canteen	—			—			—			25	0	0	—
Royal Patriotic Fund	—			—			—			250	0	0	—
Prisoners of War in Holland	—			—			—			3,500	0	0	—
Annual Allotments to Foreign Commands	—			—			—			380	0	0	380	0	0
Queen Alexandra's Field Force Fun	—			—			—			240	0	0	100	0	0
Scottish Union Jack Club.	—			—			—			2,500	0	0	—
Chevrons Club	—			—			—			1,000	0	0	—
Army Children's Home Committee	—			—			—			—			35,000	0	0
Army Sports Control Board	—			—			—			500	0	0	5,500	0	0
Belfast Soldiers' and Sailors' Club	—			—			—			—			500	0	0
238th Brigade, Russia	—			—			—			—			200	0	0
Russian Relief Force	—			—			—			—			200	0	0
General Officer Commanding Ireland (Soldiers' Club)	—			—			—			—			3,000	0	0
Trust Fund for Benefit of Star and Garter Home, Richmond	100,000	0	0	—			—			—			—
Fund for Supplying Bovril for Troops	—			525	0	0	—			—			—
Recreational Grant	—			8,000	0	0	5,000	0	0	50,000	0	0	100,000	0	0
Recreational Grant, Italy	—			—			—			1,000	0	0	—
Recreational Grant, Salonika	—			—			—			3,850	0	0	—
Recreational Grant, Egypt	—			—			—			1,000	0	0	—
Recreational Grant, Mesopotamia	—			—			—			1,000	0	0	—
Recreational Grant, Constantinople	—			—			—			—			1,000	0	0
Army Compassionate Fund	—			—			4,000	0	0	—			—
Hospital for Officers, Royal Air Force	—			—			2,000	0	0	—			—
Christmas Puddings for Troops	—			—			37,000	0	0	65,174	0	0	57,616	0	0
Luxury Parcels for Prisoners of War	—			—			—			25,000	0	0	19,000	0	0
Prisoners of War from Mesopotamia	—			—			—			400	0	0	—
Literature for Troops	—			—			—			29,054	0	0	29,547	0	0
Housing Association for Officers' Families	—			—			—			—			10,000	0	0
Gramophones for Troops in Russia	—			—			—			—			974	17	0
Divisional Canteens, &	—			—			—			—			10,065	0	0
^* To meet local claims.

Police (Pensions And Conditions Of Service)

72.

asked the Home Secretary when he proposes to publish the final results of the work of the Committee which is considering the whole question of police pensions and conditions; and whether he will take steps to expedite their Report if this is not already in his hands?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The first part of the Report, which deals mainly with the question of police pay and allowances, is already in the hands of my right hon. Friend, and will be published shortly. The Committee are proceeding at once with the second part of their Report, but it is too soon yet to say when it will be ready.

British Maritime Supremacy

75.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he is aware that the United States Government claim to have established American maritime supremacy; that 33.7 per cent. of all tonnage afloat is under the American flag and that 33.5 per cent. is under the British flag; and that the United States in. March last had over 4,185,000 gross tons of vessels under construction while vessels building in the United Kingdom on the same date only amounted to 2,250,000 tons or thereabouts; whether he is aware that shipping is of more vital importance to Great Britain than it is to the United States; and can he state what measures are being taken to deal with this situation?

I have seen in the Press the statement to which my hon. Friend refers, but am unaware of the facts on which the statement is based. According to Lloyd's Register, the world's steam tonnage on 30th April was about 42,000,000 tons gross, of which about 17,250,000 tons, or 41 per cent., was British, and 8,355,000 tons, or nearly 20 per cent., was American. The tonnage under construction at that date was as stated. The Shipping Controller has complete confidence in the ability of the British ship-owner and shipbuilder to maintain the pre-war supremacy of the British Mercantile Marine.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that the figures named in my statement are supplied by the American Navy Department, and that Lloyd's do not get full particulars of all vessels building in America; has my hon. Friend included in his figures the large number of German ships which were appropriated by America, amounting to about 700,000 tons; and furthermore—

The hon. Member had better put down some of these questions.

May I have a reply?

The figures that I gave with reference to the American tonnage include all the ships taken under the terms of the Armistice and all the ships dealt with in the American Prize Court.

Would not the simpler way be to refer the subject to the League of Nations?

Liverpool (Congestion In Port)

76.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he is aware of the congestion prevailing in the port of Liverpool; whether that at times as many as thirty large steamers have been waiting for berths, and that many of them have to wait for several weeks before obtaining discharging berths; whether this congestion and the delays and losses occasioned thereby to British shipping are due to the inability of the railways to deal with the cargoes and clear the port; and, if not, what is the cause of the congestion?

The congestion at Liverpool and other great ports has been the subject of earnest consideration by the Port and Transit Executive Committee for some time past, and efforts have been made to relieve the situation in every way possible. Though the railway situation is undoubtedly one of the factors, the present state cannot be wholly attributed to this. Other contributory causes are the concentration of stocks of foodstuffs in the ports, the diminished traffic through the smaller ports due to the cessation of Continental supplies and labour difficulties in the ports, and the fact that a large amount of traffic formerly carried by the coastal services and canals is now carried by the railways.

Will the Shipping Controller use his best efforts to increase the coastal service and thereby relieve the railway pressure?

My right hon. Friend is doing everything possible.

Why are not some of the thirty large steamers sent round to the East Coast ports which are not congested?

These are all steamers which by reason of the nature of their cargoes can only be taken into Liverpool, and no port on the East Coast where there is not congestion is available.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while steamers are lying in the Mersey waiting to be unloaded labour is frequently idle in Manchester, and that many of these ships might be diverted to Manchester?

I can assure ray hon. and gallant Friend that we have done everything possible to divert ships to harbours which are not congested. The situation is undoubtedly very serious, and it is receiving the anxious consideration of my right hon. Friend.

Compulsory Grain Freights

77.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether British steamers, by the direction of the Shipping Controller, are required to carry grain from Buenos Ayres to the United Kingdom at 62s. 6d. per ton weight, while vessels of other nationalities are free to obtain 260s. per ton and upwards to Continental ports; whether he is aware that time-charter rates for British steamers are about 25s. per ton, and that similar steamers of other nationalities are obtaining 40s. per ton and upwards; whether he is aware that the freights earned and profits made by American and neutral-owned steamers are a handicap to British shipowners in their efforts to maintain British maritime supremacy; and if the Shipping Controller will take measures to deal with this situation?

The Shipping Controller is aware of the disparity between the freights which foreign ships earn and those at which British ships bring Government-owned grain to this country. The latter rates are fixed at the level referred to by my hon. Friend in the interests of the consumer and the Shipping Controller is not prepared to alter this policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the enormous profits and great reserves that have been made by foreign shipowners, and will he explain how English ships are to compete against them under these circumstances?

My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the large profits which are made by foreign shipowners at the present time, but as long as a moderate profit is given the British shipowner, the interests of the consumer must be the first consideration.

Land Tenure (Scotland)

78.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the numerous recent sales of estates to land speculators, he will introduce legislation to give to all farmers the same rights of security of tenure, compensation for improvements, and fair rent, which arc given to small landholders or statutory small tenants under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to what I said on this subject last Thursday in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and West Aberdeen.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of these speculations farmers have been turned out of farms which have been in their families for long periods?

The situation, I know, is rather a difficult one, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, has promised to make a statement at an early date.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture speak for Scotland, and will his statement include the question so far as it relates to Scotland?

I cannot say that, but if it does not cover the case of Scotland, I will see if a statement can be made.

Smallholders (Scotland)

79.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of applications by leaseholders to be declared statutory smallholders under the Scottish Smallholders Act, 1911, received during the years 1914 to 1917, inclusive, and the number rejected on the ground that they were not lodged within the period prescribed by the Act; and whether, in view of the anxiety of so many leaseholders to become statutory smallholders, he will introduce legislation at an early date with a view to enabling leaseholders to make such application at any time during the currency of the lease?

The number of such applications in the years mentioned was twenty-eight. Of these, I am informed that seven were dismissed as premature, where a long period of tenancy had still to run. The remainder, where short periods of tenancy had to run, were held over for disposal at the expiry of the lease. There is no period prescribed by the Act, as my hon. Friend suggests. The rules of the Land Court explicitly authorise the lodging of such applications during the currency of the lease.

Victory Loan

Statement By Mr Chamberlain

(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the propriety of extending the date for the closing of subscriptions to the Victory Loan over the 19th instant, in order that advantage may be taken of the Peace celebrations to secure further applications?

I have carefully considered this suggestion, and taken advice upon it, but I have come to the conclusion that it would not be advantageous to extend the period for which the lists are open.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make some representation to the Treasury to expedite payment of the gratuities, in view of the fact that the delay in paying them is keeping many people from subscribing?

It is not a question for the Treasury. It is the military authorities, and I believe the administration are anticipating the payments of gratuities. Arrangements have been made by which the gratuities to which Regular and temporary officers of the Army and Air Force, at present serving, will become eligible may now be invested in either Victory Bonds or Funding Loan. Officers who have not already made arrangements with their agents or bankers to take up War Loan in anticipation of the receipt of their gratuities, and who wish to take advantage of this concession, should immediately inform (by telegram, if necessary) their Army and Air Force agents, stating the sum they wish invested.

Applications must be received on or before Saturday, the day the Loan closes, and must clearly state that the investment is to be made from the officer's gratuity, and that the amount required is in addition to any sum for which he may already have applied. The securities will be handed over to the agents on the officer's behalf for issue with any balance of gratuity. Gratuity so invested will bear interest as from 4th August, 1919. Income Tax will not be deducted at the source.

Does this apply to the Navy?

Certainly. I hope it has not been overlooked.

Are not two-thirds of the gratuities already available paid for War Saving Certificates?

I cannot answer that without notice, but it does not seem to affect the merits of the answer I have already given.

Lancashire Cotton Dispute

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister for Labour whether he is aware there is much distress in South-East Lancashire among discharged soldiers who have obtained employment in the cotton trade through the Labour Exchanges, and who are not in a position to have joined a trade union, and, therefore, are not receiving strike pay during the continuance of the present strike; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

I understand that the question refers to about fifty demobilised men recently placed by the Employment Exchanges in some of the cotton mills, who have been thrown out of employment as a result of the dispute in Lancashire. The rules of the out-of-work donation scheme, which are the same as those laid down by Parliament for Unemployed Benefit under the National Insurance Acts, do not permit of the payment of the donation in such circumstances.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the prohibition of the use of unemployment donations in the case of Labour disputes was based on the fact that those taking part in the 'disputes presumably had the benefit of pay from the unions to which they belonged? Is he also aware that the men referred to in the question have not been in a position, however much they may desire to join a trade union, and are therefore in a position of exceptional helplessness for that reason? Is he further aware that this extends to more than the fifty to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred in one particular Lancashire town; and is he prepared to take some steps to deal with persons in a quite exceptional position through no fault of their own?

May I ask if the Minister for Labour is aware of the fact that none of the trade unions have prevented soldiers joining the unions, and that they have also kept going the membership of soldiers while serving, and that there is absolutely no bar to taking in discharged soldiers?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether it is not a fact that in a number of these cases discharged soldiers have only been in employment for a few days, and according to the very proper rules of the trade unions they have not had the opportunity in that time of joining, and therefore cannot get the benefit from the union?

I shall be very glad to have particulars of the cases to which my hon. Friend refers. I shall, of course, go into the whole matter. I do not at all agree with the foundation upon which he bases the rules of the unemployment insurance scheme. I think it was based not merely upon the fact that men could get provision out of their unions, but on whether or not unemployment insurance could be paid to people who were on strike. That is a salutary rule which, if you abandoned it, would give rise to great abuse. However, I am quite willing to take into account any exceptional hardship and see what I can do. But I do not wish to start a scheme which by any chance would cause great trouble in questions arising out of labour disputes.

Do I understand my right hon. Friend to be of opinion that no information has been given on this point which constitutes a case of hardship?

The information I have does not cover anything like the number of cases to which my hon. Friend referred.

Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to give equal consideration to the claims of unskilled workers affected by a dispute?

As I have said, the rule laid down, which is a salutary one, is that unemployment donation cannot be paid to people who are on strike.

These people are not on strike. They are thrown out of work because of a strike. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give consideration to them?

That depends on the precise circumstances in which they are out of work.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that relief was refused in the case stated by the hon. Member in the county of Durham recently, and did he not receive a letter from me on the subject?

I may have received a letter from the hon. Gentleman, but I do not carry in my head all the letters I get. The rules which are laid down in these circumstances are quite precise and well understood.

Do they refuse benefit to a man who is not on strike but who is thrown out of work by other people being on strike?

It entirely depends upon the circumstances. I can imagine very remote towns in which people were affected by people being on strike. Obviously you cannot apply it right through the whole chain of circumstances.

Standing Committees (Chairmen's Panel)

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Archibald Williamson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Restoration of Pre-War Practices (No. 3) Bill) (transferred from Standing Committee E).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Private Bills

Group A

Sir HARRY SAMUEL reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That Mr. Grattan Doyle, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Group C

Sir CHARLES HANSON reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee B

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir Arthur Shirley Benn; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Electricity (Supply) Bill: Mr. MacVeagh.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Dr. Edward Hopkinson and Sir Philip Pilditch (added in respect of the Electricity (Supply) Bill; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Electricity (Supply) Bill: Mr. Thomas Robinson and Captain Bowyer.

Standing Committee C

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the. following Members from Standing Committee C: Sir Alfred Mond and Captain Ormsby-Gore; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Hamar Greenwood and Mr. Cecil Harmsworth.

Standing Committee D

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D at the conclusion of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill: Mr. Thomas Brown, Mr. Burn, Mr. William Coote, Captain Dixon, Sir Maurice Dockrell, Mr. Donald, Mr. Harbison, Mr. Lynn, Mr. M'Guffin, Mr. Moles, Mr. John Murray, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Rae, Captain Redmond, Mr. Reid, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Colonel Stephenson, and Mr. Swan; and had added to the Committee (for the consideration of the National Health Insurance Bill): Mr. Adamson, Mr. Barrand, Mr. Britton, Mr. Thomas Davies, Mr. Devlin, Mr. Hogge, Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Haydn Jones, Dr M'Donald, Major Molson, Captain O'Neill, Colonel. William Thorne, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Sir Robert Woods.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee D the following Fifteen Members in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill: Dr. Addison, Major Astor, Mr. James Bell. Mr. Cairns, Sir Walter Cheyne, Captain Eliot, Major Farquharson, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Philip Magnus, Mr. Munro, Dr. Murray, Mr. Purchase, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Alfred Warren, and Sir Kingsley Wood; and had added to the Committee the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Bill [ Lords] and the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill: Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Houston, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Commander King, Mr. Neil Maclean, Lieut-Colonel Malone, Captain O'Grady, General Sir Ivor Philipps, Sir Owen Philipps, Sir William Raeburn, Mr. Renwick, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Sturrock, and Mr. Havelock Wilson.

Standing Committee E

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee E (added in respect of the Restoration of Pre-War Practices (No. 3) Bill: Mr. Bigland.

Standing Committee A

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee A (for the consideration of the Restoration of Pre-War Practices (No. 3) Bill): Major-General Davidson and Captain Edge.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Message From The Lords

That they have agreed to,—

Statements of Rates Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Urban District

Council of Shoreham-by-Sea to construct a footbridge over the River Adur; and for other purposes." [Shoreham-by-Sea Urban District Council Bill [ Lords.]

Statement Of Rates Bill

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

Private Business

Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Shoreham-by-Sea Urban District Council Bill [ Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Grant Of Administration (Bonds) Bill Lords

Road the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

Law Agents Apprenticeship (War Services—Scotland) Bill Lords

Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

British Mercantile Marine Uniform Bill Lords

Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

Member Sworn

Sir Robert Balfour, Glasgow Burgh (Partick Division), took the Oath and signed the Roll.

Bill Presented

POLICE BILL,—"to amend the Law relating to the Police in Great Britain," presented by Mr. SHORTT; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

Orders Of The Day

Ministry Of Ways And Communications Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 19—(Staff And Remuneration)

(1) The Minister may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine.

(2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Minister an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds, and to each of the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry an annual salary not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds, and to the other secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine.

(3) The expenses of the Ministry, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(4) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry such of the persons employed under any other Government Department in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred by or under this Act to the Minister, as the Minister and the other Government Department, with the sanction of the Treasury, may determine.

(5) The Minister may from time to time distribute the business of the Ministry amongst the several persons transferred or attached thereto in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Section in such manner as he may think right, and those officers shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Minister:

Provided that such persons shall be in no worse position as respects the tenure of office, salary or superannuation allowances than they would have been if this Act had not been passed.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words

"provided that there shall not be more than one paid Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry."

The object of the Amendment is to restrict the number of paid Parliamentary Secretaries to one instead of two, as the Bill provides. I do not know whether the Government will accept the Amendment, but they must feel, as the House does, that economy at the present time is an exceedingly important matter. We in this House can hardly do better than set an example of economy. In a case such as this, the new Ministry should be able to do with one paid Secretary and one unpaid Secretary. There is not the slightest doubt that at the present time there is a great feeling on the importance of keeping the House of Commons strong in the eyes of the country. The question of the independence of the House of Commons probably has never been more important in any period in the history of the country than it is now. Last Session there was a feeling that if we have a large number of members of the Government who are in receipt of pay from the Government, that tends to sap the independence of the House. They naturally are bound, by the etiquette of the House, to vote for the Government on any particular question and do not take an independent line. I may over-rate the tremendous importance of the House of Commons, but I do hold it very dearly. Anything which tends to weaken the influence of the House outside ought to be looked at very carefully, and anything which tends to increase the number of paid officials should be carefully regarded. On the grounds of economy and respect for this House, I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

4.0 P.M.

The argument of economy is a very strong one but, in my view, the argument which the hon. and learned Member last made is even more convincing, and, in fact, irresistible. Of late years there have been constant additions to the number of Members of the House of Commons attached to the Government of the day, either by holding office, by performing functions as Secretaries, or by being attached to various Commissions which the Government has set up. The independence of the House of Commons is absolutely invaluable; it is vital to the existence of Parliament and to the government of the country. If the House of Commons ceases to be independent, Parliament ceases to be an institution of any value. I submit that the House should not consent in this Bill to the appointment of two paid Secretaries. It has been asked for again and again in Bills presented by the Government. Why they wanted two paid Secretaries was never made very clear, but the inference is that they wished to have a paid Secretary both in this House and in another place. But even at the present time there are Ministries in which that has not been found necessary; they have been able to obtain sufficient representation without salary in another place to carry on the business of the Government in connection with those Departments in which such arrangements have been made. The House ought to be most jealous in adding to the entourage of the Government of the day, who already in this House number about 100. It is difficult to keep count of the number; it varies from day to day. Before the end of the last Parliament it reached over ninety, and has since been considerably added to. There is a strong case why the Government should not succeed in their present proposal. I should like to remind the House that objection was taken and there was a Division on this very question, hurriedly, late one evening, in connection with another Bill. That was not successful, but on the same point being taken in another place the Government gave way and accepted it. It will be agreed that this House should take action in a matter of this kind, and press it on the Government that they should not appoint two paid Secretaries, both on the ground of economy and in order to avoid further encroachment upon the independence of the House of Commons.

I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment, but I do not in the least quarrel with or dispute the arguments which the Mover and Seconder have used in support of the view they presented to the House. I agree with every one of those arguments. But the reason why I do not accept the Amendment is that, as I shall hope to convince the House, the grounds which have been alleged particularly as to economy, will not be served. It is a perfectly fair argument to say that this House ought to set the example in economy. But it also ought to set the example in efficiency. Each of these appointments is to carry with it a sum not exceeding £1,500 a year, and my hon. and learned Friend would be the very last person to attach any great importance to such a sum as compared with getting adequate efficiency in the work that has to be done. He would never suggest, as might be speciously suggested outside, that the House of Commons voted £1,500 a year to someone who was merely going to sit in it, and had thereby added seriously to the financial burdens of the country. What one has to do is to look closely into the duties that have to be carried out under this Bill, and see on which side the truest economy lies. I should like to remind the House that there is really no analogy between this case and what happened in the case of the Ministry of Health Bill. In that Bill it was not originally proposed that there should be two paid secretaries. That was an afterthought proposed in Committee and accepted there; and, if I am correctly informed, the Amendment was agreed to without a Division, and indeed a discussion in the Committee. I think, too, that the hon. and gallant Member for Burton is not correct in saying that there was an actual Division upon it on the Report stage, but I am not quite sure, and he may be quite right.

Yes, there was a Division.

Then he is right and I am wrong, and I apologise for my error, but when the matter got to another place, and a Motion was made to eliminate the second Parliamentary Secretary, this House decided to disagree with that Amendment and again put in a second secretary. The elimination of the second secretary was, however, adhered to by the Lords, and ultimately the Leader of the House advised this House to accept the Lords' Amendment and the matter passed. But this House had twice over adhered to their view that two Parliamentary Secretaries ought to be appointed, so that there is really no analogy in that, and I am quite sure that hon. Members of this House would not like to say that they had received advice from another place which prevented them from scrutinising the true merits of the present proposal, and seeing whether or not it was a wise one to adopt. As to the merits of the appointment of two Parliamentary secretaries for the purposes of this Bill, I would remind the House that the Minister who is entrusted with the very important duty of carrying out the Bill will necessarily be engaged in his work against time. He has, in accordance with the Clause which gives him his powers, in the course of the next two years to consider and formulate the policy to be pursued as to the future position of the undertakings which are entrusted to him. That is a limited time, and he has got to do the work. If he discharges his functions properly it will, I am quite sure, be agreed in all quarters of the House that he will be wise to consult in various localities the various authorities, traders, chambers of commerce, and persons in charge of undertakings in different parts of the country, in order to ascertain the precise circumstances that prevail in those different districts and parts of the provinces, and to keep in close touch with a number of bodies and persons whose interests are deeply affected by this Bill. I cannot myself recollect any Bill which places upon a Minister functions of such an itinerant character. It is obvious that he must spend a great deal of time in going about the country, and I think that probably, if he is to act efficiently, he would be wise to have one of his Parliamentary Secretaries with him in order to deal with such questions as may arise. During the course of the passage of this ill we have time and again accepted Amendments which have insisted upon the giving of greater Parliamentary control over the various acts and procedure which should be adopted or carried out by the Minister. I will give one or two illustrations of that. Under this Bill, any new scheme involving an expenditure beyond £500,000 must be submitted to this House, all grants or loans exceeding £1,000,000 must be submitted to this House, and all schemes entailing the acquisition of land must be submitted to this House; while the work of the Department will obviously necessitate close and frequent relations with other Departments, of which I may mention the Treasury, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health, the Board of Agriculture, the Scottish and Irish Offices, the Ministry of Shipping, and so on. Anybody who is at all familiar with the working of our Constitution knows that a very grave amount of work will be thrown upon one of the secretaries, to whom will be entrusted what I might call the actual working side of the Department. On the other hand, a great many financial matters have to be dealt with. The powers under this Bill directly affect—I do not think it is too much to say "directly"—almost every trader, traveller, producer, and consumer, all persons who are holders of railway or canal stock, and almost every other person who is interested, either as a captain of industry or in a humbler position, in the industries and trade of this country. The number of questions that have been asked and had to be answered during the course of this Session by the Board of Trade on matters which will be taken over by this Department was 210. That involves a close scrutiny of the affairs and working of the Department, and I cannot suppose for a moment that, once this Bill is brought into being and the Ministry is set up, the anxiety—I do not at all suggest the curiosity—of Members will be reduced, or that they will not be desirous of having information constantly placed before them, and will not ask, very properly, questions upon a large number of matters which will be brought to their attention by their constituents in all parts of the country.

That is a very short summary, of the work which is going to be placed upon this Department. I am assuming now that, at the stage we have reached in the Bill, hon. Members in all quarters of the House will desire to make it a good working scheme. It may have its faults. Some hon. Members may be vitally opposed to the Bill. But I put this proposal before the House on the basis that the scheme which is embodied in the Bill must be carried out efficiently and to the best purposes to which the Minister can adapt it. Under these circumstances, what is the right model for us to take? A Bill that travels over so large a part of the whole country, including Scotland and Ireland, raises matters, if not of controversy, yet of importance, with all sorts and kinds of industries and persons. What is the standard that we ought to adopt? What is the parallel that we ought to study! I think I am right in saying that the system which prevails in the Admiralty and in the War Office forms a much closer parallel than any other to the circumstances of this Bill.

In these Departments there are two Under-Secretaries—one the Financial Under-Secretary and the other the Undersecretary who answers questions on what I might call the main purpose of the Ministry—and upon a close examination of the duties which will be entrusted to these Departments it appears to those who are best qualified to judge, and who know something like the measure of work which will fall upon the Ministry, that it really will be physically impossible, in view of the limit of time in which the schemes have to be suggested, considered, and adopted, to work with only one Under-Secretary.

The best interests of economy—not in the mere sense that the £l,500 a year more, or whatever it may be, will not be paid, but the true interests of economy in the larger sense—demand that the Department's work should be separated into two Departments—one the financial Department, and the other the ordinary work of the Department—and that those two De- partments should be represented by two separate secretaries. I will, however, make one suggestion which may meet my hon. Friend's point. It will be possible to limit the appointment of the second Secretary for a period of time, for the observations I have made indicate rather a pressure of business in the early history of the Department, and in order to make that point good and not press my argument, too far, I am quite prepared to accept an Amendment that the power to appoint two Secretaries should be for three years only, so that Parliament may reconsider the question whether there should be a second Secretary at the end of three years. The reason I say three years is that the schemes have to be adopted by the Minister within a two years' limit, but that does not put a term to the powers and duties which are imposed upon him, and I think, therefore, the main pressure of business will be for a period of three years. I hope I have shown that the true interests of economy are not served by merely cutting down the staff of the Ministry to one Secretary, but I am perfectly prepared to meet the view, and, as a pledge of good faith, to indicate that it is during the earlier part that we think the greatest pressure will arise, and to suggest that an Amendment should be put in that the power to appoint the second Under-Secretary should be limited to three years, when Parliament can reconsider the matter in the light of certain events and of the history of what has taken place. I hope that view may be accepted, and that my hon. and learned Friend will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

I have a rather painful recollection that on the Debate to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred as to the appointment of a second Under-Secretary to the new Ministry of Health, I not only spoke but voted for that proposal. I desire to do penance for that act. I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong, and that the other House was right. I have thought it over very carefully, and long before this occasion I arrived at that conclusion. I think that leaves me free to express my opinion upon this Amendment. The proposal has been defended with all the skill which we are acustomed to see displayed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The seductive suggestion at the end was perhaps the most dangerous of all. What really are the arguments which he has put before us? He has read out portions of the Bill, and a terrifying list, undoubtedly, it is, of the duties which are to be performed. He compares the future of the new Ministry with the Army and the Navy. If that is going to be the scope of the new Ministry, Heaven help us! No mistake, we are in for it. Let me take one or two of the other Ministries of which the same thing could be said. What about the Home Office? If I were to call to mind the vast scope of the operations of that great Department it would exceed by a very great deal even the list which has terrified us to-day. What about the multifarious duties of the Foreign Office and of the Board of Trade? The list of duties, and the scope of operations of the Board of Trade is alarming in its magnitude. No one suggests at all in any of these Debates that either the Foreign Office, the Home Office, or the Board of Trade requires an additional Parliamentary Secretary.

The Board of Trade, certainly, in its present condition is, I think, something like eighty years old, and has been developed successively by gradual increases of work, and the Home Office is still older, and has been developed over a succession of years. If we were to start per saltum, the Home Office and the Board of Trade to-day, does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that one man, or one man and one Secretary, would be sufficient?

There are two Under-Secretaries at the Foreign Office.

Not two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries.

Yes, the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and the Under-Secretary who answers questions here.

I have heard the interruptions, and given such weight as I can to them, but to say that they began seventy or eighty years ago is no answer to my argument. The whole experience of public Departments shows that you can manage with one Minister, admirably efficient, and in his way an equally admirable and efficient Under-Secretary whoever he may be, but there has been no real answer given to one of the most important points, and I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman does not try to answer it, as to the danger, as far as this House is concerned, of increasing the number of official members of it. There cannot be any doubt about it. Some time or other it may be the lot of hon. Members on this side of the House to be sitting on the Front Bench on the other side. We never know when it may come, but whenever that might be I say now, with such knowledge of the House as I have—and I have been in it about thirteen years, and have spent much more time in it than the average Member has—that the constant development of the official and semi-official Member is a real deterrent to that independence of the House on which so much depends for effective criticism of administration and effective criticism in shaping legislation. One of the real matters to which the country looks is the maintenance of its independence. I agree that during the War it was quite inevitable that there should be a large number of officials and semi-official Members, but the sooner we get back to something resembling the old state of affairs with regard to that the better for us. No case of substance has been made out for the proposal—and we require an overwhelming case. The bait which was so skilfully thrown out by the hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of his speech was, "Let us try it for three years." We all know what will happen at the end of the three years. I can imagine the extraordinary difficulty of getting rid of that office once it has been created. The pressure of friends of this meritorious individual who fills the office would be overwhelming. Let the House face this fact once and for all. If you appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries now you will always have two Parliamentary Secretaries. That is the case you have to meet. I hope my hon. Friend who is responsible for the Amendment will press it, and I shall certainly vote for it in the interests of that economy which we can and ought to exercise, and in the interests of the independence of the House of Commons. I think on the facts of the case given us no sufficient reasons can be shown.

I hope the House is not going to be overborne by the arguments which have been used by the Solicitor-General. There was one in particular which, so far as my short experience goes, is always produced on these occasions, and that is that it is necessary to have another Parliamentary Secretary to answer questions. I enjoyed the advantage during the War of being a humble servant of a Department, and I drafted a great number of answers to questions to satisfy the insatiable thirst of Members of the House, but I never discovered really that the hard work in connection with them rested upon the Parliamentary Secretary. It rested upon the unfortunate humble official who had to collect the information and put it into grammatical and intelligible form. The Parliamentary Secretary no doubt recited the answers with great skill and ability, but that is no argument against the Amendment. One statement which the Solicitor-General made I listened to with surprise. He cited the case of the Admiralty as requiring the assistance of two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. I have been trying to recollect who the Parliamentary Secretary for the Admiralty is in addition to the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara). I find in Vacher that there is a Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, and he combines those two offices in his eminently distinguished person with great ability and adroitness. I have never heard it suggested that someone is required to assist him in the discharge of his duties in this House.

The Civil Lord acts as an Under-Secretary at present. One Under-Secretary sits in the other place, and we have the right hon. Gentleman. (Dr. Macnamara) in this House.

The root objection is not to providing £l,500 a year out of money provided by Parliament, but to adding one more to the already large number of persons who are in receipt of Government pay, I confess that it did not occur to me that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty fulfilled the duties of a Parliamentary Secretary. He no doubt discharges some duties in another place, but the Solicitor-General cited the Admiralty as an illustration of the necessity for having two Parliamentary Secretaries in this House—one to answer questions and one to carry out other duties. The Admiralty is not an illustration at all in favour of the Government's position, but an illustration which supports those of us who think that in this House it is quite sufficient that the Minister of Ways and Communications shall have one Parliamentary Secretary to assist him. We are told that the right hon. Gentleman will need to perambulate the country in order to ascertain the views of the public authorities, and that it is desirable that he should take a Parliamen- tary Secretary with him. I thought duties of that sort were generally fulfilled by Private Secretaries.

We have had a eulogy from the Prime Minister upon the ability with which Civil servants performed their duties. So far as these duties are concerned, I think that a Civil servant can fully perform them without using up one of the remaining independent Members in this House, and, so far as the perambulatory duties are concerned, they will be adequately fulfilled by one of the Private Secretaries who will, no doubt, be at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman. On these grounds I suggest that this Amendment, either in its present or in a modified form, should be accepted. The Solicitor-General suggested that it should be provided that there should be two Parliamentary Secretaries, at any rate for three years. May I suggest the converse of that, and that this Amendment should be so drafted as to provide that for three years there shall not be more than one paid Parliamentary Secretary. If a compromise is desirable, let that be the compromise. For the next three years let there be one Parliamentary Secretary, and when the right hon. Gentleman, with his haggard Parliamentary Secretary, comes here to appeal for a second Parliamentary Secretary the House will be in a position to say, after experience, whether or not the duties require the appointment of another gentleman to perform them. I hope the House will support this Amendment, and that the right hon. Gentleman will bow, I will not say to the storm, but to the prevalent breeze.

I hope the Government will give way on this point. It is a serious point for this House. We have too many people on the Front Bench. We generally see it overcrowded, and many Ministers cannot find room on it. The peace time system was not this system of having so many people paid by the Government. Almost the whole of the speech of the Solicitor-General was devoted to pointing out the hard work which these Parliamentary Secretaries would have to perform. Almost everything that he pointed out has been done in other Ministries in the past by private secretaries or Civil servants. If one analyses the speech it really came to this, that it was so necessary to have Members of Parliament to do this Civil Service work that practically every Civil servant ought to be a Member of Parliament. That is an impossible position. The representatives of the Ministry in this House are not supposed to be men who do permanent Civil Service work. They are not supposed to be men who go round the country to find out what the local authorities want. The Local Government Board has more to do with finding out the feelings of local authorities than almost any other Ministry, but they do not send the Parliamentary Secretary round to find out what is wanted. They send a Civil servant appointed for the purpose. If the Minister is to go it would not be necessary to send one of the Parliamentary Secretaries, because they are Members of Parliament, and if he does not go himself a permanent Civil servant would do just as well as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary.

It is quite true that this case is not on a par with the Ministry of Health in the way that the Solicitor-General put it. In the Ministry of Health there was a reason for having two Parliamentary Secretaries, because there were two totally different subjects to deal with, the old Local Government Board administration and the new Ministry of Health administration. These were to be undertaken by the same Ministry, and they were not homogeneous in any way. I will not trust my memory, but I think that was the argument put forward in Committee on which the Committee gave way. The work under the present Bill is homogeneous; it is one sort of work, and therefore one man is just as good as two, so far as the Parliamentary work is concerned. I do not want to sec this Bill in any way hindered or the Minister's important work crippled, but I do not think that his powers will be added to by having a second Parliamentary Secretary who is a Member of Parliament, instead of having a Secretary who is a Civil servant. I am inclined to think that for that sort of work a Civil servant is much better than a Member of Parliament. If it comes to a Division, I should propose to vote for the Amendment that there shall be only one Parliamentary Secretary.

I do not rely much on the question of economy in regard to this matter, because if you do not appoint this second Under-Secretary I am sure the Minister-designate will find a friend in the North-Eastern Railway who will do the work for the same or perhaps double the salary. From the Parliamentary point of view, it is rather serious that we should increase the number of what our forefathers used to call placemen. That is a very useful word. We object to increasing the placemen in the House of Commons. The word arose in the time of the Georgian Kings, when placemen were the men the King paid, or who were supported by him, and they were given honours and position in this House in order to vote down independent Members. The rise of placemen has grown during this War to an abnormal extent, and it is the duty of the House of Commons whenever they get the opportunity to cut off the head of a placeman. There must be a, Minister and there must be an Undersecretary, but the work of an additional Under-Secretary can perfectly well be done by an additional outside secretary. There is no difficulty in getting them. My right hon. Friend has access, as we have seen in the Press, to men who have been appointed as additional secretaries of this new Minister. Any one of them could do the work instead of a Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, I shall vote against the addition of another placeman in the House of Commons.

An equally important question was raised by the Solicitor-General when he spoke of the peripatetic work of the Minister. There, again, we have to guard the rights of the House of Commons. We find that the Ministers when they have an Under-Secretary, and still more when they have two Under-Secretaries, neglect the House of Commons and do a certain amount of work outside. The duty of Minister of the Crown when the House is in Session is to be on the Front Bench. There has been a growing dislike of Ministers to sit in the House of Commons either to listen to criticism of their own Department or to take their part when their own Department is not concerned in guiding and helping the House of Commons in its ordinary work. We see the Front Bench often empty. How can the country expect the private Member to sit here and do his work, while the Ministers who are paid, not too large salaries, but adequate salaries, are all over the country doing, perhaps, important work, but work which might be done by an Under-Secretary or a permanent official? As regards the work of Ministers outside this House, they do not seem to realise that their primary duty during the sitting of Parliament is to the House of Commons. I hope a good many of my colleagues who are independent Members of the House will see that now we have secured peace and got over the difficulties of the War we insist upon Ministers doing their duty in the House of Commons more than we could reasonably expect of them in war-time. If we give the right hon. Gentleman two Undersecretaries he will leave the Under-Secretaries to answer questions. When a man is a Cabinet Minister he ought to answer questions. We had a good example today in the Secretary of State for War, who is one of the busiest Ministers, and, although there were nearly forty questions, he answered them himself, and was able from his position as a Cabinet Minister and Secretary of State to give much more effective answers to supplementary questions than a mere Under-Secretary could do. How often we hear an Under-Secretary saying, "I must have notice of that question," on some supplementary subject which the Minister would have answered offhand? From the point of view of the House of Commons, I hope the Government will withdraw the proposition for a second Under-Secretary, and that they will appoint a permanent Civil servant to do the work, and so keep us free of one more placeman and keep the Minister free for the House of Commons.

It is quite clear that there is a division of opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, I put myself on one side, and that makes a difference of opinion. I am quite confident that there should be two Under-Secretaries. If there is no division of opinion, then we need not go to a Division. It is a clear issue, and if we have to have a Division—well, let it be so. The speeches which have been made by my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) have been made by Members who have changed their opinions. The right hon. Gentleman, with all the energy and conviction of a pervert, has changed his views, and he now becomes an admirer of the system of one Secretary and one only. The hon. Member for Twickenham has altered his views even more rapidly. Last night there was an Amendment on the Paper in which he desired that we should have a particular form of panel, and on that panel there was to be a chairman. The panel was to advise the Minister, and in the Clause setting up the panel it was provided in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member that a chairman of the panel, who shall be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Ministry and Secretary of the Roads Committee, shall be appointed by the Minister. He was asking the House to appoint as chairman of the panel a person who was to be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he has altered his views.

The Solicitor-General knows that that Amendment was made when the Bill had passed through the Committee with two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in it.

But that does not prevent the point being made. It is perfectly clear that the hon. Member at one time held the view that there should be this extra Parliamentary Secretary. However, he is entitled to change his view. So is the light hon. Gentleman. But he must not be surprised if those who hold strongly to a view disagreeing with his, and endeavour to present it in the way in which he was good enough to say I had endeavoured to present it, still hold to their belief. I invite the House to come to a decision on this question now in order that we may get on with some other Amendments. The different views have been presented in a very clear-cut way, and I trust that we may not spend too much time on this.

The speech which has just fallen from the Solicitor-General is most unsatisfying. I am one of those who have supported the Government on every Amendment on this Bill, but I certainly do not intend to do so on this Amendment. I venture with all respect to say to my hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have the most profound admiration, that he is utterly ignorant of the feeling both in the House and in the country on this point. As I see the Patronage Secretary on the Front Bench I make this remark: If this Government are to continue, the sooner they realise the strength of that feeling in the House and in the country the better for them. Hitherto there has been no serious attempt to keep within anything approaching reasonable limits the number of offices held by hon. Members in this House. Several of us on different occasions have pressed this upon the Government from time to time during the present Session, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition has taken up a very proper attitude on this question. He also has protested on several occasions against the failure of the Government to carry out their election pledges to do something to remedy the growing abuse of places being given to Members in this House. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) very properly called attention to the fact that we are rapidly approaching a state of affairs similar to that which existed 100 or 150 years ago. He also called attention to the fact that existing Ministers treat the House of Commons, I will not say with contempt, but with a lack of consideration which seems to me to grow progressively from Session to Session. I have been in this House fifteen years, and my right hon. Friend who sits below me, who has been here even longer, has remarked in private conversation that when we came first to the House it was most unusual for a Debate of any importance to take place without the Minister and the Under-Secretary concerned with the subject under discussion being present. Now it is the exception for both to be present at the same time, and the Front Bench is generally occupied by Whips who might be much better employed doing their work outside in the Lobby.

Not only is that so, but many Ministers and Under-Secretaries show a really lamentable lack of knowledge of the procedure of this House. I understand that it is common knowledge that one of the Under-Secretaries-designate is an hon. and gallant Gentleman who got into the House last January. I hope that, if this Amendment be not carried, and the Clause be passed as it stands, that hon. and gallant Gentleman will make himself more acquainted with the procedure of the House than the Minister-designate, because old Members of the House have serious complaints to make of the lack of knowledge of procedure of the House by Ministers who have come in during the War. And that is a most strong argument against the creation of fresh posts, the truth being that if Ministers knew the procedure of the House better, as they did in the old days, there would be no necessity for the enormous number of assistants which they wish to have. The Foreign Office, the Home Office, and the Board of Trade are just as important offices as the office which it is proposed now to create, and each of them has got only one Under-Secretary. There is another point on which it is possible also to appeal to the House to come to an independent decision, because, fortunately, there is a number of independent people in it. The creation of each fresh Under-Secretaryship means, on an average, thirty or forty Civil servants, whose time is taken up almost entirely attending the Under-Secretary. In these days when we hear with an ever-growing menace complaints against the extravagance of Parliament and the Government is this the time lightly to create a number of additional Under-Secretaryships, which are not in the least necessary? We hear a great deal of direct action outside. All I can say is that I can conceive nothing more calculated to encourage in every possible way direct action than to go on adding to the ever increasing number of placemen in the Houses of Parliament, in the light and frivolous way in which the Government are now proposing to do.

I think that I am rather like the voice of one crying in the wilderness in supporting the proposal of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said that he would like to have the heads of placemen in the Government, but I would suggest the the heads of those who in Committee upstairs and elsewhere have been advocating private interests are the heads which should fall. As the House is aware, under another Bill a large number of powers of the Board of Trade is to be transferred to the Minister of Ways and Communications, and I suggest that those are totally different matters altogether, from the matters in reference to railways and transport, that we are dealing with here. That Bill does not, I believe, provide for any Under-Secretary, and I would suggest, having regard to the large powers connected with these big electrical undertakings and municipal undertakings, that a Member of Parliament is required and not a Civil servant, and it is not unreasonble that a second Under-Secretary should be appointed.

I would appeal to the Government to reconsider this question. I look upon it as a great mistake for the Government to be hauled over the coals every time in another place. We all know what vote the House of Commons, if it was free, would give on this question, and I hope that we shall not have to go across the Passage to get our wishes carried out. We have already got a Government beyond numbering. I do not know what proposals Mr. Speaker has got to submit to us. But every day we get new Bills with rows and rows of new officials of the Government. In a few short years, if the present Government remain in power, as I hope they will, there will be nothing but Members for whom the pay of £400 a year is not considered enough, and they will get paid this additional money by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Why should we leave it to the House of Lords to deal with a question like this? We should legislate for ourselves. I appeal to the hon. and learned Member to reconsider the matter, and not to force us always to vote against our opinion on such a small matter as this.

I hope the Government will reconsider the position. The one feeling in the country now is that the Government arc determined to get more paid Under-Secretaries, and I am convinced that if independent Members will not speak out now, and, if necessary, vote against the Government on questions such as this, we are not going to give the country any confidence in the independence of the House of Commons. I am anxious to support the Government and anxious to get the Transport Bill on the Statute Book. But when independent Members of this House, as they have done just now, with one exception, express the opinion that this second Under-Secretary is not necessary, I do feel the Government would be well advised if they would meet those Members who express this opinion. The one Member of the House who has supported the Government on this particular Amendment has alluded to another Government Bill, which is shortly coming before the House. That Bill is one which many of us are considering with considerable doubt. If that Bill affects matters of Ways and Communications, then it will be time enough to consider whether those duties are sufficient to necessitate another Under-Secretary.

I am also in an exceptional and difficult position. I do not belong to any of the interests or prospective interests in the Bill. I am in thorough support of the main principles in the Bill, but I am also convinced, from what I hear around the country, that there is a very dangerous and growing disinclination to support the Government in various ways, because of its extravagance. That is to be found in almost every walk of life at the present time. We have had some very useful advice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech, He said that every Member in the House should give up his own particular hobby as regards legislation, and try to meet the general need to economise, I do not like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes) to economise. I rather doubt if he would understand the meaning of the word, but I would like to appeal to the Government to impress on him at any rate, the desirability of economising, and compel him to do for the time being with only one Under-Secretary. It is very easy to add another, but it is very-difficult to bring one back once you have got him in. If the Government are not able to take that position and meet the general wishes of the House and adopt the position which the country would wish them to adopt, then I would ask them to take off the Whips, and allow the House to vote on this question freely and exactly as it likes.

5.0 P.M.

I would like to add to the appeal made to the Government to change their views. The Civil Service, whose feelings I fairly well know, has a certain view with regard to these political under-secretaryships. We know perfectly well that the political Under-secretary is there to represent his political chief, not to do effective work in the administrative Department. It is not his business to do effective work in administration; he cannot do it if he attends constantly at the House. He is a perfectly useless cog in the wheel; he interferes with the administration; he draws with him one Private Secretary, if not two, who have to be paid. He has a constant call upon all the staff of the office, who are obliged to be at his call. Do not add to this increasing army of political Under-Secretaries who only represent more the power of the Government in this House, and who do not add in any way to the efficient administrative power of Parliament.

Just before I came to this House five minutes ago, I went on a deputation to one of His Majesty's Ministers to ask him to do something for discharged men in this country. I want to ask him whether, now that this cotton dispute is on in Lancashire, he could take some steps to prevent discharged men and their families from starving—discharged men who are out of employment owing to the strike and who can get no benefit from their union, not having paid their contribution for twenty-six weeks.

That has nothing to do with this particular topic. There are hundreds of thousands of subjects on which the money could be spent.

I join in the appeal to the Government to spend the money in a proper way and not on a redundant Under-Secretary.

If this goes to a Division, it will be carried by the Government with the votes of those who have not been present. With the exception of the speech of one speaker the Debate has been unanimous. Seldom has this House heard a more concerted chorus of disapprobation of a course proposed by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General quoted as one of his arguments in favour of two Undersecretaries the number of questions put to the Board of Trade during this Parliament. He said that 210 questions had been put to the Board of Trade, that only one Minister was available to answer them, and, therefore, that Minister had been put to an intolerable amount of work. Take the case of the Foreign Office. They have had as many questions put to them in this Parliament as any Office of the Crown, because at this time matters of enormous importance in foreign politics are being dealt with both in Paris and at home. Those questions appear on many days of the week, and they have been successfully answered by a Department which at this moment has not only not got two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, but has only one Minister representing it in this House, the Foreign Secretary being away. There is an even more striking instance to be quoted, in reply to something mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. He stated that the War Office and the Admiralty had their two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, and that the multifarious duties that those Departments have to perform were ample justification for the two secretaries. But take another Department; take the Department of Ireland. There you have a Department which is administered not only in this House but in Dublin. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has to travel over to Ireland in the course of his duties many times during the Session, if not many times in a week, and that man, who has to face constantly the most hostile and bitter criticism in all quarters of this House—or, at any rate, has had to do so in former years—not only has not a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, but is actually unaided in the House except by the Law Officers of the Crown. With regard to Irish questions, we constantly see Law Officers of the Crown dragged in from duties which they should be performing to answer questions relating to the general policy of the Irish Government.

If you must have—I say you ought not to have—two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in this new Department, all I can say is that practically every Department of the Crown should be placed on the same basis. I think that this proposal is most unwarranted, and I hope that the Government will, even at this late hour, fall in with the absolutely unambiguous and united opinion of the House, and agree now to a course to which they will have to agree when the Bill comes back from the House of Lords, and recognise that they are the custodians of the liberties of the nation, and not here simply to impose their will upon this House.

I am very sorry it has happened that I have not heard the Debate up to now, but I have had an account of it, and my hon. Friend who has just spoken (Major O'Neill) has, I believe, expressed the fact that the speaking has all been in favour of this Amendment. I, as representing the Government, feel myself in considerable difficulty in this matter. As a matter of fact I honestly think the House of Commons is wrong. I honestly think that this is a Department which will have an immense amount of work to do, and my own experience of Government Departments has been, right through, that one of the greatest mistakes that can be made is to try to get the political head of that Department to do all the work. There is a certain part of the work which can be done only by people with a certain amount of political experience. When I was first a member of the Government, I do not know how many years ago, I remember perfectly well the Under-Secretary had no definite work of any kind to do; he had no specific work allotted to him. I have found, as years have gone on, that that has changed, that more and more the heads of the Departments are delegating particular branches of their work to their Under-Secretaries. It is of immense advantage that many of these questions should be dealt with by somebody who has political experience. For instance, among the duties which have to be performed constantly is the receiving of deputations, hearing the points of view of people outside. I know perfectly well that when I was at the Treasury it was impossible for me to see them all, and it was of immense assistance that that could be done by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who, like myself, had political experience, and was able to put not merely the Government point of view, but the House of Commons point of view too. I do feel that the House of Commons in this matter is showing an amount of feeling on a very small thing which it does not merit. It is perfectly true that the Foreign Office has only one Under-Secretary, and that the Foreign Secretary himself is away; but on the other hand my Noble Friend (Earl Curzon) is doing the work of the Foreign Secretary in England, and he is finding a great deal to do.

Take the War Office, take the Admiralty, take one of the new Departments set up, the Ministry of Munitions. I have not the slightest doubt that there was work in the Ministry of Munitions for two Under-Secretaries, and I remember perfectly well that one of the complaints of the House of Commons about that Department was that one of the Secretaries was not specially deputed to look after the financial side of the work. It was largely at the wish of the House of Commons that an arrangement was made that, just as at the War Office, there was a Financial Secretary, so in the Ministry of Munitions one of the Under-Secretaries should take the financial side and be responsible for that. This Bill is going to set up a Department with an immense amount of work, and in advance you cannot tell what that work is to be. I do say that it is not worth while, if you think the Bill is one which we ought to try, curtailing the use of the Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Hear, hear!"] I can only give you my reasons. You are really curtailing the usefulness of the Department, out of what I think is to a considerable extent prejudice. I sympathise with that. There is an idea, and everyone can understand it—it is the result of the growth of new Departments during the War—that a very large number of Members must support the Government on critical Divisions or they must resign. I quite agree, and I think it is a disadvantage. But you want to put the one thing against the other. You ought to put that disadvantage against the other side—that there is really work for these two men. Take only the analogy I have given of the Ministry of Munitions. One of the most important and most difficult things in connection with this new Department will be a proper control of expenditure. Everyone will admit that. Would it not be an immense advantage that, whether in this House or another, there should be some political understudy who is responsible to the Ministry for that part of the Department? I am quite sure that if the Members of the House of Commons had seen, as I have seen, the actual working, they would realise, as I do, that it is of great advantage, assuming that there is anything like equal ability, that there should be an Under-Secretary with experience of the House of Commons instead of a pure Civil servant. If you will take that view, I am convinced that, on its merits, the House of Commons would take the view that I honestly take myself.

But I am going to say something more. Is has been said all through that this is a Bill which is being rushed in a most autocratic way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes) has been accused and is being regarded as an autocrat who is driving all of us in front of him in the way be wishes us to go. He is one of the most modest men I know, and there is not any truth in that statement. But it is said, in addition, that the Government itself, in regard to this Bill, is simply trusting to its majority, and saying that the House of Commons must do what it says. I do not want them to do that. I wish the House of Commons, for what it is worth, to believe me when I say that I do really think that the work of this Department would be hampered if you did not allow it to have the two Under-Secretaries. That is my honest opinion, but from what I have heard in the Debate I am afraid, in spite of the feeble way in which I have tried to put my case, the majority of the House of Commons will not take that view. I think they are wrong. I really think if you are willing to have this Bill at all it is like spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar to make a fuss about something which everyone responsible for the Bill thinks will be really necessary. But I am going to say something now, in spite of the criticism that can easily be levelled against me. I shall be told that the Government should have the courage of their convictions, and insist on what they themselves think right. I do not altogether take that view. The Government is the servant of the House of Commons, and I have felt—I have said it before in the House of Commons—I have felt it very much more in the kind of Government for which I have had responsibility since the War broke out. There is not the ordinary party allegiance. In an ordinary party Government there would not be a moment's hesitation in sticking to the decision of the Government, and our supporters would back us up; but we do not wish to run this Government on those lines. We wish to get the support of the House of Commons in all we do, and, in spite of the criticism which may be levelled against me, I have decided that I will leave the decision of this Amendment to the House of Commons, without Whips. They can take their own view. And I am going to say something more. I do not wish my hon. Friends to think that I shall feel as if they were putting a slight on me if they do not take my view in this matter. All that I can say is that it is my honest belief that you are making a mistake if you do not have them, and, having said that, I leave it to the free decision of the House.

The offer which was made by the Solicitor-General was that there should be an Under-Secretary for three years, and no longer. In this Bill there are two Parliamentary Secretaries in this House, and power to appoint another Parliamentary Secretary in another place as well, and my Amendment is that it should be limited to one.

If that is in the Bill it is a mistake. We only want two Parliamentary Secretaries altogether in this House or the other.

In the Clause it is "in this House."

I say that all we ask is the right to have the power to appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries, in one or other of the Houses of Parliament.

The Solicitor-General made me an offer, but in reality the offer was nothing at all, because the House has the power to wreck this Bill by declining to vote the Estimate in any year for a second Under-Secretary, so that the offer of a Secretary for three years would merely tie the hands of the House of Com- mons. It is a purely technical point, but I felt bound to put it. In regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), I had no idea that there; had been two Secretaries already appointed for this purpose, and I am glad to say I do not know their names—

That is not so.

We were told by the hon. Member for Horsham that there were, besides the Minister-designate, two Parliamentary Secretaries-designate, and all I say is that I did not know it. The Solicitor-General said there were 210 questions answered by the Board of Trade in reference to this very matter, but will not the Board of Trade help this Department afterwards? I used to come to this House when I was a boy to hear a man whom I looked upon then, and still do look upon, as a very great statesman—Mr. Gladstone. What would he think of the speech of the Solicitor-General to-day? I am always told that not only was he here on the Treasury Bench himself, but he would always want to know why other members of the Government were not there as well. How

Division No. 61.]	AYES.	[5.21 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke	Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry	Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Adair, Rear-Admiral	Curzon, Commander Viscount	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)	Kidd, James
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Davies, T. (Cirencester)	Kiley, James Daniel
Allen, Col. William James	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	King, Commander Douglas
Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Atkey, A. R.	Dennis, J. W.	Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Austin, Sir H.	Duncannon, Viscount	Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Du Pre, Colonel W. B.	Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.	Entwistle, Major C. F.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-	Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray	Lorden, John William
Barker, Major R.	Farquharson, Major A. C.	Lowe, Sir F. W.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.	Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)
Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.	Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot	M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)	Galbraith, Samuel	Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Bennett, T. J.	Gange, E. S.	M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Betterton, H. B.	Glanville, Harold James	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Bigland, Alfred	Grant, James Augustus	McMicking, Major Gilbert
Birchall, Major J. D.	Green, A. (Derby)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Bird, Alfred	Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)	Mallalieu, Frederick William
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Griggs, Sir Peter	Marriott, John Arthur R.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Molson, Major John Elsdale
Brackenbury, Col. H. L.	Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)	Moreing. Captain Algernon H.
Bramsden, Sir T.	Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)	Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Briant, F.	Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)	Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.	Hall, Capt D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Burdon, Colonel Rowland	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)	Newbould, A. E.
Butcher, Sir J. G.	Hancock, John George	Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)
Campbell, J. G. D.	Hanson, Sir Charles	Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward
Campion, Col. W. R.	Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)	Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Carr, W. T.	Hayward, Major Evan	Nield, Sir Herbert
Casey, T. W.	Henderson, Major V. L.	Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Cautley, Henry Strother	Hennessy, Major G.	O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson	Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.	Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)
Clough, R.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.	Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Coats, Sir Stuart	Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)	Perkins, Walter Frank
Colfox, Major W. P.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Perring, William George
Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.	Inskip, T. W. H.	Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)
Courthope, Major George Loyd	Jesson, C.	Purchase, H. G
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)	Johnstons, J.	Raeburn, Sir William
Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)	Joynson-Hicks, William	Ramsden, G. T.

greatly altered are we now! and if by voting against the Amendment I should be thought to encourage the suggestion that the new Minister would be able to ramble about the country instead of attending on the Front Bench, I am afraid I for one would certainly vote more strongly in favour of the Amendment. After the great courtesy of the Leader of the House, I appeal to the House to strike this blow not only for economy, which is a point of great importance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]. We shall have a Finance Bill later this evening, and we shall then see who are ready to pay these extra expenses, when we come to the £250 Income-tax limit. Economy, I say, is important, and even more important is the question of the position of the House of Commons. We ought once for all to stop this continued patronage of the Government in this House and to strike as far as we possibly can for an independent House of Commons.

Question put,

"That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 132.

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.	Stevens, Marshall	Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)
Remer, J. B.	Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)	Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)	Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)
Robinson, T. (Stratford, Lancs.)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)	Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Rodger, A. K.	Tickler, Thomas George	Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud
Rowlands, James	Townley, Maximilan G.	Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)	Tryon, Major George Clement	Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)	Turton, Edmund Russborough	Winterton, Major Earl
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.	Wallace, J.	Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)	Wardle, George J.	Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.	Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)	Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Sitch, C. H.	Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Steel, Major S. Strang	White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)	Rawlinson and Col. Gretton.

NOES.
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.	Grundy, T. W.	Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Armitage, Robert	Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Baldwin, Stanley	Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')	Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Hacking, Captain D. H.	Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Barnston, Major Harry	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Pratt, John William
Barrand, A. R.	Hallas, E.	Prescott, Major W. H.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Raper, A. Baldwin
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Hartshorn, V.	Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)	Rendall, Atheistan
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Herbert, Denniss (Hartford)	Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)
Bethell, Sir John Henry	Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.	Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)	Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Borwick, Major G. O.	Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.	Royce, William Stapleton
Bowles, Col. H. F.	Hodge, Rt. Hon. John	Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hope, Harry (Stirling)	Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Brittain, Sir Harry E.	Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis	Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Broad, Thomas Tucker	Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)	Seager, Sir William
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Hurd, P. A.	Seddon, J. A.
Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)	Jephcott, A. R.	Sexton, James
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Jodrell, N. P.	Simm, Col. M. T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)	Jones, J. (Silvertown)	Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)	Kellaway, Frederick George	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Spencer, George A.
Clay, Capt H. H. Spender	Knight, Capt. E. A.	Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)	Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.	Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)	Stewart, Gershom
Cohen, Major J. B. B.	Lloyd, George Butler	Strauss, Edward Anthony
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Loseby, Captain C. E.	Sturrock, J. Leng-
Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)	Lunn, William	Sutherland, Sir William
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.	Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)	Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)	Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)	Mason, Robert	Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander	Middlebrook, Sir William	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.	Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Mitchell, William Lane-	Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)
Foreman, H.	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.	Waddington, R.
Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.	Morgan, Major D. Watts	Weston, Colonel John W.
France, Gerald Ashburner	Morison, T. B. (Inverness)	Whitla, Sir William
Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)	Mosley, Oswald	Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)	Woolcock, W. J. U.
Gilbert, James Daniel	Nall, Major Joseph	Younger, Sir George
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John	Neal, Arthur
Glyn, Major R.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col.
Greig, Colonel James William	Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)	Burn and Commander Dawes.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "each" [each of the Parliamentary Secretaries"], and insert instead thereof the word "one."—[ Mr. Rawlinson.]

Clause 20—(Seal, Style And Acts Of Minister)

(1) The Minister may sue and be sued by the name of the Minister of Ways and Communications, and may for all purposes be described by that name and shall be responsible for the acts and defaults of the officers and servants of the Ministry and shall be liable to pay, and entitled to receive, costs in like manner as a private person.

I beg to move, in. Sub-section (1), after the word "sued," to insert the words

"in respect of matters whether relating to contract, tort, or otherwise arising in connection with his office."

This is merely put in in order to provide what has already been agreed in Committee, that the Minister shall be liable, and capable of being sued, in all matters relating to contract, tort, or otherwise.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), after the word "servants," to insert the words

"and agents."—[Mr. Kiley.]

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words

"and shall be liable to pay, and entitled to receive, costs in like manner as a private person"

and to insert instead thereof the words

"in like manner and to the like extent as if they were his servants, and costs may be awarded to or against the Minister."

This is a small Amendment to carry out and emphasise the full rights of the subject against the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21—(Ability Of Minister And Secretaries To Sit In Parliament)

(1) The office of Minister of Ways and Communications, or of the secretary in the Ministry of Ways and Communications, shall not render the holder thereof incapable of being elected to or sitting or voting as a member of the Commons House of Parliament, but not more than two such secretaries shall sit as Members of that House at the same time.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words

"but not more than two such secretaries shall sit as Members of that House at the same time."—[Mr. Rawlinson.]

Clause 22—(Short Title And Interpretation)

(1)This Act may be cited as the Ministry of Ways and Communications Act, 1919.

(2)In this Act the expression "Government Department" includes any Government or other public department and any Minister of the Crown acting as the head of a Government Department, and for the purposes of this Act the Light Railway Commissioners and the Road Board and the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland and the Commissioners of the Caledonian Canal shall be deemed to be Government Departments, and the expression "tramway" includes a trackless trolley vehicle system, and the expression "undertaking" includes any services carried on as ancillary to the principal business of the undertaking, and the expression "transport services by water" shall not include any transport service by sea other than such as is or could under their existing statutory powers, or any extension thereof, be established by the owners of any undertaking of which the Minister is for the time being in possession under this Act.

(3)Any Order in Council under this Act may be altered or revoked by a subsequent Order.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words

"or other public."

I want to know exactly what these words mean. I do not know whether they in- clude Ecclesiastical Commissioners or the London County Council, or what. If there is any substance in the words, let them go-in, but I do not think we ought to pass a Bill which might transfer to the Minister powers of which we are unaware.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The answer is very simple. There are a certain number of public bodies, such as the Irish Board of Works and the Congested Districts Board in Ireland. Those are illustrations of the bodies which are included in these words "or other public Department." Inasmuch as this Bill extends to Ireland, it is necessary to include words which make it applicable to those bodies.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words

"Light Railway Commissioners and."

I think if these words are left in, the right hon. Gentleman himself becomes the Light Railway Commissioners. I do not think that can possibly be. If they are a Government Department, the whole of the powers and duties of the Commissioners will be transferred to the Minister, and that means apparently that he will embody in his own single person the powers and duties of the Light Railway Commissioners, and if he wants to promote a new light railway as Minister he will come before himself as the Light Railway Commissioners, and will decide as such whether the proposal is good or not. I do think that requires a little inquiring into. The Solicitor-General seems to have an air of honest doubt on his countenance, but I do not press him at this moment, if he will undertake to consider the point before the Bill goes to another place. I am sure it cannot be intended, but I am told that that is the legal effect of the words.

The Light Railway Commissioners are not, as the Railway and Canal Commissioners arc, purely a judicial body. They were set up for the purpose of facilitating the construction and working of the railways of Great Britain. That is the purpose for which the Ministry-is set up, and what my hon. Friend suggests is undoubtedly the case under the Bill that the powers of the Light Railway Commissioners would be transferred to the Minister. Undoubtedly he would have to set up some such tribunal to hear appli- cations for the construction of light railways. Whether that body is called the Light Railway Commissioners or not does not seem to matter very much, because its functions are practically the same. Under the Bill we have already agreed that the functions of the Board of Trade in reference to light railways are already transferred to the Ministry. So far as the Government is concerned, we do not mind whether the Amendment is carried or not, because some such body is essential. This body, if it remains in existence as a separate body, has certain powers, and those powers can go to the Minister; he has them in other parts of the Bill.

I understand my right hon. Friend to say that, while powers are taken over by himself as Minister, he would have to set up for certain purposes a tribunal analogous to the Light Railways Commissioners. If that be so, would my right hon. Friend in another place insert in the Bill words setting up such a tribunal, or indicating what it was and how it was to act, because I see the difficulty of keeping these words in the Bill when part of the administrative powers they connote are already taken over?

If the House desires it, I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not think it makes any difference.

It is a point of substance, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "Canal" ["Caledonian Canal"], to insert the words

"and the Commissioners of the Conservancy of the River Mersey."

The Commissioners, as the House is doubtless aware, are the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. This is one of the instances, just as the Caledonian Canal was an instance, where the powers of a body set up for specific purposes are transferred to the Ministers.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words

"or any extension thereof."

Those words have really to do with ser- vice by sea, and I hope the Minister-designate will accept the Amendment, because it is really on a par with his own statement upstairs in Committee. He said there that he did not wish to take any more power 'than already existed in the railways he was taking over The words were:

"It is not proposed to extend these existing powers in any way, but the Minister may have the same powers of such undertakings as he takes over"

and that

"There is no extension of powers in this at all."

My point here would be quite met if other appropriate words were used, or if my subsequent Amendment be adopted.

We shall be able to accept the latter Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "thereof" ["or any extension thereof"], to insert the words

"which may hereafter be authorised by Parliament."

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words

"and where an undertaking is leased to or worked by a company or person other than the owners, the expression 'the owners of an undertaking' shall include that company or person, except where such an interpretation is inconsistent with the terms of the lease or working agreement, and except for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to payments to be made to or by the owners of an undertaking in respect of any reduction or enhancement of the value of the undertaking."

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule—Transitory Provisions

(1)In the construction and for the purposes of any Act of Parliament, judgment, decree, order, award, deed, contract, regulation, bye-law, or other document passed or made before the transfer to the Minister or Admiralty from any other Government Department of any powers or duties by or under this Act, but so far only as may be necessary for the purpose of such transfer, the name of the Minister or Admiralty shall be substituted for the name of the other Government Department.

(2)Where anything has been commenced by or under the authority of any other Government Department before the transfer to the Minister or Admiralty of any powers or duties by or under this Act, and such thing is in relation to the powers or duties so transferred, such thing may be carried on and completed by or under the authority of the Minister or Admiralty.

(3)Where at the time of the transfer of any powers or duties by or under this Act any legal proceeding is pending to which any Government Department is a party, and such proceeding has reference to the powers and duties transferred by or under this Act, the Minister or Admiralty shall be substituted in such proceeding for the other Government Department, and such proceeding shall not abate by reason of the substitution.

Amendments made: In paragraph 1, after the word "Admiralty" ["Minister or Admiralty"], insert the words "or Secretary of State."

After the word "Admiralty" ["Minister or Admiralty"], insert the words "or Secretary of State."

In paragraph 2, after the word "Admiralty" ["Minister or Admiralty"], insert the words "or Secretary of State."

In paragraph 3, after the word "Admiralty" ["Minister or Admiralty"], insert the words "or Secretary of State."—[ Sir E. Geddes.]

The proposed Amendment to the title which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Col. A. Murray) follows one which was not adopted at an earlier stage.

Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

Finance Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Clause 1—(Continuation Of Customs Duties Imposed Under 5 And 6 Geo 5 C 89)

The following Duties of Customs, imposed by Part I. of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, continue to be charged, levied, and paid until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty, that is to say:

Duty.		Section of Act.
Increased duty on tea	…	1
Additional duties on dried fruit	…	8
Additional duty on motor spirit	…	10(1)
New import duties	…	12

On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. I have, together with the hon. and gallant Member and another colleague, put an Amendment on the Paper which is intended to raise the whole question of Preference. I observe that hon. Members opposite have also an Amendment down to exclude from the Bill the Import Duties imposed in 1915. What I want to ask is whether we should be in order on the first Amendment in discussing the subject of Preference, and as to what your ruling is in regard to these Amendments on which we shall raise the point of Preference, and generally the question of Protection?

On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. The Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend opposite and myself is really part of an Amendment which is continued further down on the Paper, and which comes immediately after the one moved by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Benn). I submit to you that the two Amendments of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself are in substance to be taken together, as they deal with making provisional and brief the imposition of certain taxes, and generally, therefore, in the same sense as does the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend with the wider subject?

I think that is correct. My own view is that the first Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir B. Adkins) carries with it the third Amendment also which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that they raise a different issue—simply the question of the continuance of the Import Duties beyond 30th September. But this will not prejudice the other subject raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn)—that is the general question of Preference. In regard to this wider question, there are three points at which the subject can be raised in full or in part. The first is on Clause 1, where there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to leave out the words "subject as hereinafter provided" ["Clause 1. The following duties of Customs.…shall, subject as hereinafter provided, continue to be charged"]. This, however, will only give him a limited opportunity of referring to the particular duties set out in that Clause. The second point is on Clause 3, where he has a similar Amendment that would give a more limited opportunity still. I suggest for his consideration that the first Amendment, which also stands in his name on Clause 7, would be the most convenient opportunity for dealing with the whole question. It can then be fully explored by the Committee. If this view commends itself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think it will probably meet the convenience of the whole Committee.

Will the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) in Clause 1, to leave out

Duty.		Section of Act.
New Import Duties	…	12

be in order after we have disposed of the Amendments of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Yes, it would be in order; but, again, it is possibly covered by the first Amendment, and it is probably hardly worth while moving it for the short additional period involved.

I beg to move, after the word "Customs" ["Duties of Customs imposed"], to insert the words

"except the new Import Duties."

Perhaps you will allow me to say, in view of the point of order, that this Amendment is intended to be taken together with an Amendment standing further on the Paper, and the effect of these two taken together would be that what are described as new Import Duties, which, under the Bill as it stands, are to be charged, levied, and paid until the 1st day of August next year would only continue to be charged, levied, and paid until the 30th of September of this year. There may be some reason connected with financial administration why in the Bill as it stands—in that part to which my Amendment is directed—there should be a duty so far ahead as August, 1920; but if there are administrative reasons for that, which one may doubt, there are considerations arising upon so prolonged a period which are quite of as great importance as administration. These duties were first of all imposed in the War by my right hon. Friend Mr. McKenna when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were submitted to the House and approved as war measures. They showed as strikingly as anything that was done during hostilities—how entirely differently, what I may call the perspective of consideration dictates the action both of the Government and of the House in time of war from the perspective which ought to guide us in times of peace. Incidentally, these duties were and are of a protective character. They do not arise on those departments of fiscal policy which were covered by a certain famous letter of the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal. Everybody knows how difficult it is, when once a tax is levied, to get it taken off, and surely it is right and proper for the Committee to consider what are the indirect effects and what are the contingent results of having a duty like this kept on the Statute Book a day longer than absolutely necessary.

Members of the Committee, I think, will agree that the mere signing of the Treaty of Peace with the greatest and most important of our enemies does not of itself bring about normal conditions, and does not of itself bring us at one stride from a state of war to a state of peace. For all that, however, it marks a very long stage on the path from hostilities to a peaceful condition, and I think it is surely the duty of the Government, in dealing with a war tax of this kind, to see that the date put to it is not the latest that can be contrived in the annual Budget, but the earliest which is in any way possible. So long as it is known to be a war tax, so long as it is realised that you cannot take off a war tax the moment a treaty of peace is signed, there is, of course, something to be said for it. But if it be prolonged a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of the War, then the aspects of it that arise in time of peace become the most prominent aspects, and the objections that are felt to taxes of this kind, not only in this House, but throughout the country, by very large sections of the public, become, not only valid objections in theory, but serious objections in practice.

6.0 P.M.

My appeal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that in this Bill, which carries out the arrangements for the current year, he should do nothing to give countenance to the notion that he is laying the foundation or continuing the imposition of those things which might be made the foundation for some fiscal system—that he should avoid the very appearance of evil by getting rid of the war taxes at the earliest possible moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "'Evil,' or 'change'?"] My hon. and gallant Friend below me suggests the word "change" instead of "evil." I used the word "evil" on purpose, because I am trying to represent how this would strike very large sections of the country who would consider a change of this kind to be evil, as I am quite prepared to use the current word "change," but for the purpose I had in mind I used the word which I thought best suited the occasion; therefore my argument is that it is known that any permanent change is one which must arouse much controversy, and is considered evil by large sections of the public. It is, therefore, surely of great consequence that the appearance of this should be avoided in the provisions which are made for the financial year. I realise that there may be practical financial considerations, apart entirely from controversy, which may prevent this tax being taken off at the present time. That may be the defence and explanation of my right hon. Friend for continuing it at all. But in view of the fact that we have now got peace with Germany, in view of the fact that by the peace negotiations those things which follow are far more advanced to-day even than they were when my right hon. Friend brought in his Budget, I ask him to say that the war conditions, the special conditions which have a bearing upon fiscal controversy and which have a bearing upon normal conditions—that these considerations are amply met when this imposition is continued to 30th September and to 30th September only. May I recall to the Committee what I think is the most important utterance in a celebrated letter issued before the General Election last December by the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal. I have quoted it once this Session, and I venture to repeat it. I am not asking the House to decide matters of old and new controversy, but it has to be borne in mind, if we are to be just to the Government and its proposals, and preserve the greatest amount of unity in regard to these proposals which are after all war measures. The sentence I quote is from a very famous manifesto:

"Until the country has returned to normal industrial conditions, it would be premature to prescribe a fiscal policy intended for permanence."

That being the governing consideration, I ask my right hon. Friend to avoid having anything in this Bill which looks like establishing a fiscal change intended for permanence. I know there wore other utterances which do not point quite so clearly in the same direction, but I ask at the beginning of this discussion and in reference to these duties which I have suggested are duties which have a special colour and effect and character when considered as permanent duties, and which were only brought in and adopted for special reasons connected with the War that they should now be brought to an end, so that the House and country may recognise their war character and their shortness of life as war measures, their duration of life being determined by the end of the war period. To have those duties in this Bill not only for the current financial year but beyond that into the autumn of next year is surely to make them appear to anyone as being largely-permanent and as being intended to pass into longer periods. Against that I respectfully protest, and as a supporter of the Government I ask my right hon. Friend to remove from these proposals a feature which is so liable to be misunderstood, which is to open to legitimate criticism, and so certain to give an impression which I think and believe would be false. For these reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remove this blemish.

I beg to second the Amendment. I agree with what has fallen from the last speaker as to the effect the Bill has had upon those of us who are adherents of the policy of free trade in the present form of the Bill. It has given us the impression that the extension of these protective duties which have, as the Committee will recollect, been applied not only to motor cars, watches, and other insignificant articles, but it is to be taken that the continuation of these taxes represents a policy. Therefore, I am desirous that there should be a time fixed, and that a very short time, for the termination of those taxes. The reason I adduce for shortening the time is that I object to the taxes altogether. By the end of September we shall have come to the end of the summer, and as far as motor cars are concerned their use in winter is diminished, and perhaps that is a suitable time for making this change. Another reason for having a shorter period for these taxes is that it is very essential we should remove anything which is a restriction on the development of our export trade. What this country wants more than anything else is not restriction or tariffs, but the removal of restrictions and tariffs, so that our exports may be accelerated and increased.

We have heard a great deal about the very serious effect of an adverse exchange upon this country, and almost the only way to rectify any adverse exchange is to increase our production and exports, and these taxes seem to me to interfere with our ability to increase our exports. The continuance of these duties also tends not to increase work, but to reduce work for our people. Therefore it is very important that we should aim at increasing cur export trade, and increasing work. We are only handicapping ourselves, in my judgment, by this policy being continued any longer than can be helped. When the Burget was framed the Peace Treaty had not been signed, and therefore, it may fairly be said that these were war proposals made when this country was still at war. Like the last speaker, I have supported the Government in anything they thought necessary in order to win the War and to conclude a satisfactory peace, but now that the War has been won and Peace has been signed the position is changing, and it is only right and proper for those of us who view these taxes with aversion to desire that they should be limited to the shortest possible time. The longer we keep these taxes on the more difficulty there is in ending them. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that it is more difficult, the longer they are on, to take them off, because interests grow up under the taxes, and some one will afterwards say that they are going to suffer by their removal. For these reasons it is very desirable that these taxes should be removed at the earliest possible date. We suggest the 30th September, which, we think, would be adequate to give the Government time to give the necessary notices and make arrangements. It cannot be said that by fixing this period there is any desire on the part of the Mover or Seconder of this Amendment to unduly hamper the Government in any way, and that is why we put forward a reasonable date at which these taxes should be removed.

I should be very sorry if I were found to be a rock of offence in any way to my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. I do not want to deal with controversies which may arise hereafter, and for which I think the moment has not yet come. I think my hon. Friends will accept my statement that when I proposed to continue these duties for another year I had no idea, and certainly no desire, to raise any kind of fiscal controversy. I recognise in proposing Preference, which we have to discuss later, a ground for controversy, and we have to settle that in the course of this Bill. In regard to the continuation of the duties now under discussion, I had no idea of raising any kind of controversy, and I do not think this ought to be made the occasion. I found these duties in existence created under conditions of war, and conditions which continue to prevail, even though fighting in the Western Front has ceased. I propose to continue them provisionally for a year, without desiring thereby to commit myself or any one else to any theory or practice of fiscal or trade policy in the future.

In the first place I continue them because in the course of the year they may be expected to yield a revenue of nearly £2,000,000. In the second place I continue them because of the special circumstances which caused Mr. McKenna to propose them during the War. If that had been the only consideration, Mr. McKenna would hardly have thought it necessary to have included cinema films or clocks or watches, and motor cars. Apart from the duties which it is now proposed to continue, but in conjunction with them, Mr. McKenna proposed other duties, including straw hats. The first consideration is revenue, and the second consideration is exchange. Both in connection with exchange and revenue these are articles of luxury and superfluity. We can well afford to tax them apart from the fiscal consequences of the tax. There is no reason in the articles themselves why they should not pay this tax. The objection of my right hon. Friend would probably be removed altogether if I had proposed an excise equivalent to the Customs Duty, and so have eliminated any sort of protection which the Customs Duty may contain. They are not unsuitable articles for taxation. Revenue is required.

The state of our exchange must give cause for serious thought to anyone who has to consider it. It is essential that we should import large quantities of commodities which are necessary for our existence, either as food or raw material, and when exchanges are adverse it. is very undesirable that any part of the money we may need for essentials should be devoted to expenditure on non-essential luxuries. That was one of the arguments which influenced Mr. McKenna when he proposed these taxes during the War, and it continues with equal force to-day. If there is any period which I should think ought not to be chosen for instituting the changes which my hon. Friend proposes, it would be the autumn, when the pressure on the Exchequer is likely to be greatest.

I have now answered the question why I continue these duties. I am asked why I continue these duties until August of next year. I take that period because it is the ordinary Budget date, and it is the end of the financial year which enables the House to deal with the case afresh before the tax expires. I have followed the ordinary normal practice which has been found to be for the convenience of the House and for the public revenue. I ought perhaps to add a word in response to the appeal made by my hon. Friend behind me (Sir R. Adkins). I do not pretend that at present my hon. friend and I see eye to eye on all these questions. I hold that some changes in our fiscal system and in our trade policy arc necessary, and that the War has proved that necessity. I do not say that they need be or that they will be the changes which I and many others advocated before the War, but I do believe that changes are necessary and my hon. Friend must not expect me, and would not expect me, to conceal that fact, nor shall I gain anything by doing so. But I do not ask the Committee to prejudge that question now. The time has not come. You cannot decide your fiscal or trade policy on the narrow issue of two or three duties of this kind. They will not settle your policy; your policy will settle them. When you have decided what your policy is to be and how you are going to treat the future trade of the country, then the fiscal measures embodied in the Budget will have to conform to the policy upon which you have decided. My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir A. Williamson) therefore need be under no apprehension that they are committed to a particular policy by continuing these duties in the ordinary course for another year.

We may find, when we come to deal with wide questions of principle and of trade policy, that there are large differences amongst us. I hope that we shall not. I hope, when that time conies, that, viewing the matter, not in the light of the controversies which prevailed before the War, not reading up our old speeches or the old speeches of our opponents, but viewing the circumstances in the light of our experience during the War and the condition of the world after the War, we shall, by the usual process of give-and-take, and reasonable concession which is necessary if men are to agree in business, public or private, find ourselves sufficiently agreed to make our continued co-operation possible. At any rate, I can assure my hon. Friends that I will not plead the support that they are good enough to give me on this occasion as any reason why they should support any particular trade or fiscal policy which the Government may put forward in the autumn or next year. I ask for their support for the continuation of these taxes, not as part of a general trade policy, but because of the financial necessities of the country at the present time, because of the undesirability of encouraging the import of articles of superfluity and of luxury which we do not really require at a time when all our resources may be needed and will be needed for the things which are of first consequence to us, and because, in the last place, I think such a small issue as this is not one by which we can determine the future policy of the country. When we have decided that future policy these duties will, naturally, by re-enactment or abolition or qualification, be made to conform to that policy.

The point that has been raised by my hon. Friend (Sir R. Adkins) in this Amendment is really whether this is the moment when we have to decide whether this country is going to be a Free Trade country or a Protectionist country. That is the point at issue, and my hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Adkins) raised it very succinctly by saying that, although we realised during the War that certain restrictions were necessary, now that we are through the War a reasonable date should be fixed after which these restrictions should be withdrawn. That is a view perfectly consistent with support of these taxes during the War, and we were all prepared to give that support for the purpose for which they were proposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is bent upon persuading my hon. Friend and Liberal Free Traders generally that this is not the moment to decide whether we are going to a Free Trade or a Protectionist country, and in defending these taxes he uses almost the very words that were used in the Debate when they were imposed in 1915, whereby the Government were pledged on no account to use them for the purpose of giving a preference or doing any of the other things which were obnoxious to a large section of their sup- porters. The Leader of the House said that they would never be kept on after the War. Mr. McKenna, who proposed them, gave the exact reasons why they were proposed and explained that they would not prejudice in any way the fiscal controversy. The right hon. Gentleman, in proposing to continue them for another year, uses the same words—I am making no charge of any breach of faith—which it has been found necessary to repudiate, no doubt for good reasons, in this Budget.

I submit that we have to decide now whether we are going to be free traders or protectionists. Protection may be a good thing for the country, but it is no good being a little of both. We have to decide which policy is going to be adopted. These taxes were imposed as war restrictions for certain definite purposes. I do not think that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer would argue that the War will be going on on 20th August of next year, so that in any case, whatever date may be right or wrong, the date proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the termination of the duties is far beyond the date by which the War will have terminated. I submit also that the reasons which Mr. McKenna gave for imposing these duties have all, except one, ceased to exist. In the first place, there is the reason of revenue. That, of course, does continue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he has a revenue of £2,000,000 from these taxes which he cannot afford to forego. I would remind him that in the next Clause, or the Clause after, he is giving away £3,500,000 largely to shareholders of tea companies and other people in this country, so that the argument that he has no money to spare does not perhaps weigh with us as much as it otherwise might. He goes on to say that the taxes were imposed in order to reduce people's expenditure on luxuries. Does the right hon. Gentleman really imagine that by putting a tax on American motor cars he has reduced the expenditure of the people in this country on motor cars?

That is not what I said.

I understand the argument to be that one of the objects of the tax was to discourage expenditure on unnecessary luxuries or useless things. The only result of this duty has been to keep up the price of motor cars in this country, and people are spending more money on motor cars than if motor cars were freely imported from abroad. The other argument of Mr. McKenna that shipping tonnage was not sufficient to enable these things to be imported has been admirably dealt with by my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Williamson). No such reason continues to exist. The only other reason which the right hon. Gentleman urged was that it was necessary by means of a tariff to correct the foreign exchanges. I am well aware how difficult and complicated is this matter of foreign exchanges, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that whereas the foreign exchange is adverse in the case of some countries it is favourable in the case of others. He however is proposing to restrict imports from all alike. Therefore, if the argument is good in one case it must be bad in another. I should have thought that the right way to correct the exchange was to stimulate the flow of exports from this country in order that the prosperity of the country might be restored.

There are two reasons why these taxes proposed in this Budget are totally different in character from the taxes when they were proposed by Mr. McKenna in 1915. Although there was no Excise Duty put on to balance them, they were in fact only revenue taxes then because everybody's machinery was used in war manufactures, and it was not possible to produce motor cars in this country. Therefore, a tax on imported motor cars was not really a tax of a protective character but of a revenue character only. The tax now for the first time assumes a protective character. That is one reason why I say it is the parting of the ways for Free Traders and Protectionists. There is another aspect of the case. This tax is being given a preferential aspect, and industries are being encouraged—the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies (Lieut.-Colonel Amery) was very eloquent on this, subject some months ago—in the Colonies under the protection of the preference which this Budget is going to give. An hon. Gentleman says "hear, hear." The Under-Secretary, for example, said that manufacturers of motor cars in the United States would set up works in Canada, and it would be an excellent thing because it would mean employment in Canada. Does not the hon. Gentleman who supports that view understand, if what the Under-Secretary said is right, then what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says about being able to remove the tax when we desire is fallacious, because, if you encourage a man to set up an industry in Canada by giving him a preference in this market, you cannot, when he has laid out his money, come along and say that the preference is to cease. The hon. Gentleman therefore takes the view that this tax and this preference should be permanent. If that is the case, the matter is perfectly clear. It is clear as noonday that we have now to decide whether we are to be Free Traders or Protectionists.

With regard to the merits of the taxes as the basis of Protection, I can add nothing with advantage to what the Leader of the House has said. They are fantastic as the basis of any system of Protection. The taxes in themselves are very bad. A man with money will buy a motor car, whatever it costs, and the men who are hit are the doctors, the commercial travellers, and the business men. We know that commercial vehicles are exempt, but, at the same time, parts may be used for building up commercial cars. By interfering with the price of motor cars you are, therefore, putting another obstacle in the way of the restoration of the trade of this country after the War. Even cinema films, which are supposed to be articles of luxury, are the basis of employment of many people in the entertainment industry, and I suppose that the employment of those people is as dear to the hon. Gentleman as the employment of any other class of people. I saw the other day in a newspaper that the Port of Liverpool was having a big film made to advertise the port. People who know something about American ways and the methods of the American commercial travellers know how they will come into an office and put on the table a little cinema which will show the method of production of an article, its cost, and its utility. It is impossible, indeed, to forecast to what extent this may be carried on, and it will be much better to leave man to develop commerce in the way he is most capable of doing. With regard to musical instruments. I have a copy of a letter sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by people who make musical instruments, pointing out that, as a consequence of this tariff, they have lost to the Americans thousands of pounds worth of trade in neutral markets. I gather that the tax on the gut used for strings has had the effect of depriving us of our trade in neutral markets, thereby putting out of employment our own men in this country.

To sum up the points, I would say that the tariff, even from a protectionist point of view, is fantastic. As regards the reasons for which the duties were imposed, they have ceased to exist. As regards the duties themselves, they impede trade. As regards the decision which he have to make to-day, it is really a decision whether we are to be free traders or protectionists. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is only a little duty. But it is policy which determines the duty, and not the duty the policy. He also warned us on another subject, and here, in spite of his warning, I will quote a speech of the Prime Minister, in which he said that Protection was as a quicksand, and when one got his foot into it, the more he straggled the deeper he sank. The right hon. Gentleman went on to describe the man in Victor Hugo's book who got into such a position, where the more he struggled the deeper he sank, and he sank until he vanished. I ask hon. Gentlemen who have consistently supported the Government throughout the War, as I have done, now to shake themselves free from the beginning of a policy which, if permitted to continue, will turn us into a protectionist country.

In opposing the Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that nothing in the world was farther from his mind than any desire to affect the permanent fiscal policy of this country when he retained these duties. Of course we all absolutely accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. But these particular duties do raise the fiscal question in a way which none of the other duties will raise it, because, after all, so far as the other taxes are concerned, apart from the question of Preference which will rise hereafter they were Free Trade taxes. These taxes are quite different, and here you have the imposing of a full-blooded Protection in all its integrity. You have the full taxes against foreign countries reduced against the Colonies, and no taxes at all against British manufactures. Therefore, this tax stands in quite a different position from any other tax, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has no intention of raising the fiscal question on these taxes, yet it is raised. It is impossible to escape from the fact that the greater part of his arguments was directed to minimising the effect of these taxes. But let it be observed he gave no undertaking that next year he proposed to take them off, and really the whole thing boils down to this, that his real reason for retaining them is connected with the question of the exchange. Every member of the Committee knows that that is a very important question indeed; but it does seem unfair to the Committee and unfair to free traders everywhere to raise this whole question simply on the small point of exchange, when, as everybody knows, the effect of these particular duties on these particular articles is the very smallest in the world, so far as the question of exchange is concerned. Therefore, I am exceedingly sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to accept the Amendment.

I should like to join in the request to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this Amendment Recently we were told by the President of the Board of Trade that in or about the autumn the trade system of the country is to be revived, that a certain magic box will be opened and that there will be unfolded to our view the secret of what it contains, and what is to be the trade policy of this country. If that is to be so, surely it is desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be free from any further liability to continue these duties beyond that date. I am also sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not make clear to the House what his object is in continuing the duties. Had it to do with freights? Was it calculated to reduce the importation of luxurious and un-necessary articles? He did emphasise the latter point, but it was not quite clear whether he was actuated by that or by the question of the exchange. In the event of his action being due to a desire to prevent the importation of unnecessary luxuries, let us look for a moment at what the duties are imposed upon. Take the watch industry. It will be found that what we import are mostly the metal watches of a low grade used by boys and working men. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in taxing these articles, the purchasers of this class of goods, if they only go to the import docks, will see articles in carved ivory, of the value of £300 or £400, coming in untaxed. It is only the cheap watches which the boy and the workman use that arc taxed. The workman's clock, too, is taxed, and that is a very necessary article for him, but at the same time champagne and one hundred and one other articles of luxury are not subject to a like impost. I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Ex chequer has ever realised the serious effect these taxes have had on our overseas trade. These articles have been imported from foreign countries and have been re-exported along with many other articles of our own manufacture, and, as we have not been able of late to supply the articles on which these duties have been imposed, the trade in them has been shifted, and neutral countries are dealing direct with our Colonies and other places where formerly we did the trade. These trades are now lost to us, and this will have a very serious effect on the resumption of our normal export trade. Although these duties may be small in themselves, the effect of the duty is far-reaching, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has entirely overlooked that point. I hope, therefore, he will consider the advisability of carrying on the duties only till September next, and thus give the House a further opportunity of looking into the matter.

I was not in the House when the Debate opened, and very much regret that I did not hear the whole of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Amendment before the Committee is, as I understand it, a somewhat limiting one, and I understand also that the desire of the Chair is to keep the Debate on this occasion within the rather strict limits of that Amendment. It is on that basis I propose to address the few remarks I have to offer. The Amendment before us proposes that these duties shall be limited until the end of September this year, as distinguished from the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they shall be continued until the 1st day of August, 1920, which would be the normal period for which taxes of this kind would be continued. Therefore the issue between the Amendment and the Government proposal is a perfectly clear one. It is: Are these taxes to be continued as a normal part of the Budget? As far as we can understand, any Chancellor of the Exchequer who may be in office for the year 1920, and who holds the same views as my right hon. Friend would then be able to reimpose or to develop them. My hon. and learned Friend proposes that they shall simply be carried on till September next, when as far as we can gather, from what representatives of the Government have said from time to time, on that magic date, a famou6 box is to be opened—it is a time, as I am reminded, when Parliament will not be sitting—and we shall know what treasures will be then unfolded for the benefit of the trading community of this country.

The idea of the Amendment, as I take it, is to continue the directly temporary character with which these taxes were invested when they were imposed, and that they shall then come up, along with the other restrictions on trade, and with other imposts for revenue purposes or otherwise, which are to be disclosed at that time. That I understand to be the issue. As far as I can gather, from what I heard of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he turned round to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Ryland Adkins) and to my right hon. Friend who sits beside me (Sir A. Williamson) and suggested to them—I hope I am not paraphrasing his words unfairly—''You have nothing to worry about, it will be all right. I am not asking you to do anything which will imperil your Free Trade convictions. You come along with me as far as 20th August, and then we will see where we are, and you will be quite free to take whatever course you like, without being compromised by what you do, and how you vote to-day." A more dangerous invitation was never issued to free traders—never. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is perfectly right for him to do it. Nobody can say that he has not been perfectly frank. It has always been one of his most characteristic charms that he never disguised what he was. We know what he means, and all honour to him for showing it. It would be a very good thing if we were a little more frank all round. My right hon. Friend hopes, quite naturally, that if he can only induce my right hon. and hon. Friends to regard him and his colleagues as quite helpless, and if he can only get them to go along the road just a little bit, and get over this stile, the rest of the way will be easy for him. I will not dwell on the fate of a certain young lady who used to ride on a certain animal. We know it was a very pleasant invitation, but that the result was disastrous to the rider. I say to my hon. Friends that if they accept this invitation, they are done. There is no doubt about it that this tax will become an integral part of the fiscal machinery of this country, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be compromised in regard to them. I prefer to take my stand and vote against these taxes, not in September, but now, because I and my hon. Friends say with me that the reason and occasion for them have gone. Let me endeavour to recapitulate what the reasons for them were. To begin with, they were sumptuary reasons. Motor cars, clocks, watches, films, and musical instruments were not required in the War, and it was said, "Let us put such a tax on them so that they will not be dealt with in this country." Looking back now. Perhaps it would have been better to have prohibited them, but there are the reasons which were quite clearly laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. So emphatically was that position, demonstrated from time to time that the Leader of the House said:

"Duties of this kind would never be continued under any circumstances when the War was over—I mean Duties on this scale, and I think that if there is any real objection, it is-because the people who object have not as strong a faith as they ought to have in the value of their own theories."

Nothing could be clearer. When the War is over these taxes must go and then free traders and tariff reformers would be open to fight out on the field of Parliament their idea of what was or was not good for the fiscal system of this country. If anything was clearly understood at that time it was that these imposts were for the period of the War only. Here we are on the 8th July, and the War, so far as this purpose is concerned, is clearly over.

We have not paid for it yet.

I do not know what contribution to the millions required we shall have from the duties on watches, clocks, films and motor cars. I remember the honoured father of the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying in a Debate that a change in the fiscal policy of this country could not be made by fiddling things of this kind, but on a broad and general scale. That being the case, the War being over, what is left to us? Is the sumptuary character of the tax left? So far as that is concerned, if you are going to put it on that basis, I frankly admit that if you want to carry on that system there is a great deal to be said, because so far as economy is concerned the sumptuary nature, such as it is, of these taxes is as important as ever before. But the War reason, which was the reason for prohibiting these things, has gone, and you have to start all over again. I have not heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer emphasise that. I do not know that he puts it forward at all. He simply said, and quite rightly from his point of view, "Let us go on with them, and if you object to them in 1920, then is your chance, and I will then hear what you have to say." My right hon. Friend (Sir A. Williamson) says, "No, we will talk about them in September." Any reasons which might exist for talking to the right hon. Gentleman in September for not going further on the road, so far as we are concerned, exist now. Our view is that the halfway house is better than nothing, because it does emphasise, if this Amendment is accepted, the purely temporary character or the ad hoc nature of these taxes. If it is accepted, it is better than nothing. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will quite understand when I say that I prefer not to trust him. I hope hon. Members will have no dubiety as to what the real issue is. It is, are the taxes to be maintained for a few months or for a year as being of a purely ad hoc character; or are they to be carried on into the permanent fiscal system of this country? I hope that now we shall make our stand on this matter. It is a little beginning, but it is the only way you can get these things started. If we allow the thing to be begun now, it is like the start of a quarrel from a very small word or the beginning of the letting out of water, as the proverbs have it. It will be extraordinarily difficult for all those who have taken the Free Trade stand in previous Parliaments, if we let this tax go on—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite frankly wishes us to—to retrace our steps. I urge Free Traders in this Committee to carry in their minds the fact that we are making a start which will be very difficult to reverse. We all know what will happen on the next Budget. Suppose, for the sake of argument—I do not say it is probable—that on that occasion there is a Free Trade Government and the question of these taxes comes up. It would be very difficult at once to reverse the engine. My hon. Friends know it would be very difficult. Let us carry these things clearly in our minds, and in any vote we have to give upon this Amend- ment, and others that follow it, let us fully realise what the consequence of our action will be.

Although I had not the advantage of hearing the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, or the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wish to associate myself entirely with the observations which have just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). I agree with him absolutely that the present is the time for these taxes to be removed. When the opportunity occurred, I voted in that sense on the last occasion when the matter was before the House. Although that was not carried, I nevertheless support heartily the proposal that a date should now be fixed on which these taxes should cease to operate. I have little hope of converting—indeed, I have no desire to attempt to convert—the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my own way of thinking on this particular matter, but I wish to remind him of some things he said on the last occasion, and also to review, with as much courtesy as I am capable of, the invitation which I understand ho has conveyed to certain members of the Committee, to wit, the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, to go upon what has been described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles as a joy-ride which ended in disaster for one party to that enterprise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke on the last occasion of the necessity of continuing the taxes in consequence of the War expenditure. Although I quite recognise that the War is not yet paid for, there is much more in the removal of these taxes than that. The amount they have yielded in the last year is inconsiderable. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to note this fact—I am not sure whether he is aware of it—that although the sum was very small last year ho entertained hopes that for this next year it would be a larger sum. If he desires to limit the importation of motor cars and these other articles by taxation, is he not aware that at the present time there is a Department of Import Restrictions who have put considerable restrictions upon the importation of cars and parts of motor cars into this country? Therefore, I do not see how he hopes to get a larger sum than he has obtained in the past. If there are any benefits to be derived from limiting the import of the cars, the Import Restrictions Department have taken sufficiently drastic action to secure anything he may desire in that direction.

7.0 P.M.

Regarding this tax as containing a very strong element of Protection, I urge him and the Leader of the House to assent to what is a very natural feeling on the part of those who hold Free Trade principles, but who are prepared to support, with certain reservations on this matter, as some of us have done, the Coalition Government with regard to a Preference to the Colonies, with regard to preventing, if it can be prevented, the deliberate dumping of articles which are proved to have been sold at a cost below the cost of manufacture in their own country in order to destroy industry in this country—if that can be proved, everyone would try to prevent it—and also with regard to those industries which are proved to be key industries, and which are absolutely essential to the life and protection of this country. Motor cars, cinematograph films, and musical-boxes do not come into those categories. Therefore, there is no ground for assuming that to vote for these taxes is to keep any bargain which anyone has made, or that to vote against them is to break any bargain anyone has made. I took particular pains at the election to make it quite clear that I reserved my opinions on this matter of the fiscal policy and Free Trade, and that I remained and intended to remain a Free Trader. There may be some who made definite arrangements to support the Government on their fiscal policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that these taxes did not in any way represent the fiscal policy of the Government. He also told us that they would be ridiculous taxes to be taken as part of the fiscal policy. They were simply being retained as a continuance of temporary war taxes put on at a time when there was very urgent reasons for so doing. Therefore, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of those of us who are anxious to help him in the necessary finance of this country, and to support him on the general lines of his policy, to consider the date of 30th September as one way of providing a certain amount of financial support converging the war period. By 30th September—that is, three months after the signing of Peace—there can be no reason for continuing taxes put on solely as war taxes. I would therefore urge him to regard this date as one which he can properly accept as giving an opportunity to those who wish to support his Budget as a whole, and at the same time to make it perfectly clear that this is in no sense a part of the permanent fiscal policy of the country, and that those who cannot support a protective policy are free to exercise their judgment in this matter, and take this date as the one on which these duties shall cease to operate. I would ask him to take this course, believing that in doing so he will, as he has said, not be doing anything which will seriously damage the finances of the country, and will at any rate be keeping the pledges that have been given that as soon as possible after the ending of the War these taxes shall be removed as taxes which have been put on for purely temporary purposes.

I would ask the House to contrast the tone of the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this afternoon with that of the speech which he made in introducing the Budget about two months ago, and of another speech which he made publicly about the same time. I cannot help contrasting them in my own mind, and the contrast of those speeches would determine me, if I had any doubt, to vote against these duties to-day. This afternoon the Chancellor has told us that this is really only a proposal for continuing a war measure for twelve months, because some of the reasons which led to the taxes being put on are still in existence; and that nobody will be committed to the principle of Protection at all by voting for them, but everyone will be absolutely free a year hence. That is a very specious argument to address to Free Traders, but I would ask them to remember the very different tone which he took two months or so ago, when he introduced his Budget and made a public speech on the whole fiscal question. Then he uttered, as it were, a paean of triumph at the coming of the new fiscal system', and declared his delight to have lived to see the day. I for one cannot forget that, and as a Free Trader I feel that I am bound to express my feelings by my vote on this occasion and that I cannot now accept the explanation, a little belated, that we are not supposed to be committed to any matter of principle by this vote. I am one of those who are by no means anxious to vote against the Government during the period of reconstruction. Coming to this House absolutely unpledged and free, I nevertheless have occasionally voted with the Government, and I have been blamed by my friends, perhaps, for so doing. But I am bound to say that, on this matter, it seems to me absolutely clear that, whatever thoughts the Chancellor may have now, after, perhaps, some admonition from his Friends whose support he usually gets, the thoughts which he had when he introduced the Budget were made absolutely clear by the speeches which he delivered at that time, and, therefore, I, for one, am bound to decline his invitation to support him this afternoon.

I think we are entitled to examine more carefully the reasons for retaining these Import Duties in the Budget They cannot be reimposed for the purpose of Revenue. Perhaps I might deal with the interruption which the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherham made while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles was speaking. He reminded the House that the War was not yet paid for. If the object of these Import Duties is to raise Revenue, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer should put an Excise Duty on the same kind of articles when made in this country. If that is not done, we are surely entitled to say that these Import Duties are not put on for the purpose of revenue. What were the reasons given by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer when the duties were first imposed in 1915? They were partly with regard to shipping—that no longer is it valid reason; and partly to keep out luxuries—at a time, mind, when motor cars were not being made in this country, when all the motor car manufacturers were devoting their attention to war work for Army purposes. That applies to nearly all the articles for which the Import Duties were then put on. Again, if it is intended to put on these taxes for the purpose of keeping down the spending of money on luxuries, the Chancellor should equally put an Excise Duty on all motor cars, watches, and clocks that are made in this country. I think we are entitled, if he does not do that—and he has not done it—to brush aside the suggestion that the duties are put on for the purpose of restricting expenditure on luxuries. With regard to exchange, if he hopes that the revenue from this source will increase, clearly the numbers of foreign motor cars, watches, and clocks are going to increase, and the exchange is not going to be assisted in any way. If he wants to do it in order to assist our exchange with America, he should do it by prohibition and not by means of duties. We see, in the House, in the Coalition party, two sets of people. One set, apparently, might be induced to vote for this, but are saying that, because they made a certain bargain, they must pull their weight in the boat, and should say, "Thus far and no farther." The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment limited the time to the 30th September; but the other section reject altogether the ne plus ultra doctrine, and are looking forward to a far greater policy of which these duties are the small beginning. I venture to put it to any tariff reformer in the House to-day that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to accept the Amendment, or if by the vote of the House it were accepted, they would be bitterly disappointed—not because of any loss of revenue, not because they thought that it affected the exchange, but because they would feel that the few yards they consider they have gained in the attack on the Free Trade citadel are going to be lost. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to regard the continuance of these duties as a deliberate beginning of a definite Tariff Reform policy. At the present time the thing that is raising resentment among all classes in the country is high prices, and Import Duties, by restricting the supply of goods, by preventing supply coming up to demand, enables those who have goods to sell to keep up prices. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an accomplice with regard to this wholesale robbery of all classes that is going on at the present time, because, by means of the Excess Profits Duty, he shares to the extent of 40 per cent. in the swag. By keeping on these Import Duties, and any others that may subsequently be imposed, he is adding to the shortage of goods and enabling high prices to be maintained. It is a policy of enriching the few at the expense of the many, and I hope the House will reject it.

I desire to support the Amendment and to call the attention of the House to the fact that we have had for the last twelve or fourteen years statements which would lead any reasonable man to believe that it was the essence of Parliamentary strategy to get you part way on the road; for, once part way on the road, it would be extremely difficult to turn back. I am not so unsophisticated as to believe that these things are here by accident, without design, that they are merely temporary and have no intention whatever of changing the past fiscal policy of this country. This is raising the whole issue of Protection versus Free Trade, and as a convinced Free Trader I shall support the Amendment or any other proposal which makes in the direction of absolute freedom of commerce, as against restriction in the shape of import or other duties. It may be true that the magical box of which I hear does contain some marvellous secret that will put this country on the straight path to progress and to commercial supremacy. I am not so hidebound a Free Trader as to believe that Free Trade in itself will attain our object. I simply believe that Free Trade as a fiscal system is a better system than Protection. But neither Free Trade nor Protection alone will solve our difficulties, and I am afraid that this tinkering will not help towards a real solution of the problem of the future of our country. What are we going to gain in any way by restricting trade? Surely, no one holds at the present day that restrictive duties which may keep out of the country things that are made in other countries will be without effect on the things we send out of the country. We are not merely an importing people; we are an exporting people; and we are, for our size, the greatest exporting nation in the world. These duties which are now proposed are not calculated to help our exports in any possible way. Rather are they calculated to restrict them, and the experience we have had—and this to my mind is the clearest proof as to whether the policy which the Government is now adopting is a safe one—the experience we have had of artificial protection during the War is the most conclusive argument of all as to whether Protection is or is not good for the country. Ask any man who has a business in which formerly he has used goods from foreign countries, what the result of artificial protection has been. Glasses were formerly lid.; now they are 1s. 3d. Is it because they cost 1s. 3d. to manufacture, or because the home maker has had his chance of bleeding the public? These are the things we have to look at in deciding whether the one policy or the other is the better. We are going, as a Labour party, to vote consistently for a Free Trade policy through, and through—not, as I have said, because we believe that Free Trade in itself is responsible for the commercial supremacy of the country, but because we believe that Free Trade is the truest and best fiscal policy, and that with Free Trade combined with initiative there is a better chance for the country to attain the supremacy it previously had, and which I doubt very much whether it has lost at the present day.

I should not have risen in this Debate if it had not been that the question of supporting Free Trade or Protection had arisen. We have never had Free Trade in this country. We have had a lot of tries at it. but I am always very interested when I hear my Friends of the Labour party condemning Protection There are no stronger protectionists on. God's earth than the Labour party them-serves, and they do quite rightly. I shall support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not on the question of Free Trade and Protection, but very largely on account of the motor industry. The motor builders have handed their works over to the Government for war purposes. To allow any nation to come in until our motor works have got back to their old position would be absolutely unfair to them. It is not a question of Protection, but of fair play. If the motor industry has to get back to the position when the War broke out, American motor cars ought to be kept out until business has time to reconstruct itself. I am speaking neither of Free Trade nor Protection, but of fair play to the industry.

The last speaker has really given away his own point of view. He has opened the box. I do not propose to engage in the old controversies of Protection and Free Trade. I wish to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a business man, to consider the Amendment favourably, because I cannot conceive, if he wishes Protection to be the permanent fiscal policy of this country, that he would wish to continue these duties. They seem to me to be open to the greatest possible attack. I was a Member of the House when Mr. McKenna proposed these duties. They were then very violently attacked by some colleagues of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I am not greatly mistaken, my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Mond) was one of those who led the attack on them, and, looking back, I cannot help thinking that Mr. McKenna would have been better advised had he not endeavoured to keep out these articles by means of taxation, but had adopted a policy of prohibition. That would have been a perfectly simple and wise step to take in the interests of the exchange, and in his endeavour to prevent motor cars and articles of luxury coming in from abroad. But as I understand it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer now bases his support of these taxes upon the argument that he wishes to restrict the import of motor cars, etc., from America. He does not want us to send money abroad. If that be so, and if that is the basis of his argument, let him drop these taxes and rely upon the powers of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade has absolute power to restrict these articles from coming in.

There seems to be an orgy of extravagance. People do not realise that the country is in a very much poorer state than it was before the War. I have been credibly informed that actually the owners of Rolls-Royce motor cars have been offered between £4,000 and £5,000 for their machines. That is to my mind monstrous extravagance. It would be far better in the interests of the Chancellor if he put an Excise Duty on the sale of such cars as that. He would get more revenue. I am speaking purely from the point of view of checking luxurious expenditure, and we ought to endeavour to check luxurious expenditure. The Government and the wealthier classes ought to show that there is some desire for thrift. The wealthier classes, those who have profiteered during the War, are not showing a good example of thrift to those who are represented by the Labour party. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a business man, which will be the most good to the country, the importation of a Ford motor car or the sale of a Rolls-Royce machine at 4,500 guineas or something like that? A Ford motor car, at any rate, can be made to fulfil a very useful purpose. A Rolls-Royce motor of 4,000 to 5,000 guineas is simply an article of luxury. I am trying to persuade the right hon. Gentleman from the point of view of luxury taxes. As I understand it, this proposal in the Bill is pressed because the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to prevent extravagant expenditure. The Ford motor car is a useful implement. The Rolls-Royce is purely a luxury. Let me put another point which I hope will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. If he continues these duties he must give a Preference upon them. After you have given a preference for some little time the Colonies may find themselves aggrieved if it is not continued, and therefore the duties must be continued. If he wishes to restrict the import of motor cars, let him do so through the Board of Trade. I feel quite certain that if he continues the duties it will rightly be held up in the country as being an endeavour to protect the motor industry at the expense of the other consumers in the country.

I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking neither of Protection nor of Free Trade, but of fair play.

I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us a definite statement as to the Import Duties, which have been so very severely criticised. I should like it to be clearly understood that I am very far from being desirous of making any criticism or complaint of the Government. But it appears to me that, in view of the fact that the Government's permanent fiscal policy must be unfolded at no very distant date, and as a good deal of mystery surrounds its exact construction, the best possible policy would be to give us a clear promise that these Import Duties, which absolutely reek and stink of the old-fashioned Protection in its crudest shape, should be cleared out of the way, in order that the new policy may be brought in at a time when the ground is cleared for a fresh consideration of all these fiscal questions. When I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on that ground to promise us a definite conclusion of these Import Duties I am sure there are other Members who will sympathise with my point of view when we sit through a discussion which every moment tends more and more to partake of the old-fashioned Debates of pre-war days. I earnestly hope in the new conditions of industry, labour, wages, and every relevant question which affects us to-day, we shall not have a repetition of the old speeches, no doubt conscientiously enough delivered under the old conditions but which are entirely out of place at present in the new world in which we are living. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Kelley) was just reviving every old-fashioned argument. I am not speaking in attack upon Protectionists or Free Traders, and the less we refer to those exact terms the better we shall get on. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that the War was not paid for, a truth which we can all accept, and which is certainly not of a partisan nature, but it appears to me that on that ground these Import Duties cannot be defended either here or in the country. Whatever we may do in the House, it is perfectly plain that the country is taking a new view of fiscal policy, and I do not mind saying, as a believer in the freest possible trade which we can enjoy, that I accept the Preference proposals of the Government because I think if our overseas Possessions express any desire to enter into such arrangements with us we should show the blackest of black ingratitude if we were not prepared to meet them in a fair and friendly spirit. As for these duties on which this Amendment bears, I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way. in order that the pitch for the new permanent fiscal policy of the Government may not be queered, to remove these things in order that we may come to the consideration of the big questions in the near future from a fresh standpoint altogether.

This is one of the most curious Debates I have ever listened to. An hon. Member opposite says he supports these taxes because he thinks they are Protectionist.

No.

Then the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert) says anything more ridiculous than to suggest that this can be part of a policy of Protection is inconceivable. But he opposes them. In my view he is perfectly right. That these duties are not part of a policy of Protection is really manifest. I am entirely unconvinced as to the wisdom of a regular system of Protection in this country. I personally think a case for that has not been made out. But to suggest that these taxes, imposed by Mr. McKenna and now retained on the ground that the reasons for their imposition hold good, can be the foundation of a policy of Protection really seems to me fiscalitis run mad. Let us really look at the thing from a reasonable point of view. These taxes, as I understand them, are imposed partly no doubt for revenue—not to produce and they did not and do not produce a very large sum—but mainly with a view to discourage importation. Assuming that that was a good ground, the ground remains as strong as it ever was. There is no doubt that from the peculiar position of this country it is just as desirable at this minute to discourage importation as it ever was. Therefore Mr. McKenna's ground remains absolutely unassailable.

I agree most fully with the view as to the desirability of economy, but this question of imports does not really touch the question of spending money on luxuries. The point is that at the present moment every article we import means a further drain on our exchange, and, therefore, unless there is some really good reason for the importation it is better that the importation should not take place. The argument about luxury is perfectly sound, but that is quite a different matter. I strongly adhere to the argument as to the urgent necessity of economy. It seems to me astonishing when we look at the kind of way people are living, and we consider what is the real financial state of things at the present time. T believe—I said so some weeks ago in the House of Commons—that we are on the verge, in Europe generally, not so much in this country, of a financial disaster of incredible magnitude. We may get through without it or we may not. All I can say is that anyone who at this moment wastes money or squanders money, whether it be the Government or private individuals, is doing a very serious injury to the welfare of this country. But that particular aspect does not seem to me to be affected one way or another by this tax. It may be true that it would be a good thing to discourage the purchase of Rolls-Royce motor cars at £4,500, or whatever the price may be. If, having to pay £4,500 for a motor car, does not discourage the purchaser it will require a very severe fiscal measure to discourage him. But that does not really affect this question of imports.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, "Why not use the Board of Trade machinery for restricting imports." I do not wish to see that machinery employed more than is absolutely necessary. It has been used, and is being used no doubt, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is at least as objectionable on other grounds as the Import Duty may be. It leads to complications and difficulties in trade, it means more or less a system of licences, it re-establishes the fetters on trade, and the control of trade which are so serious as to greatly outweigh, in my judgment, any advantage you may get from the operation of that control. I confess that if you are to have any restriction on imports it appears to me to be a more businesslike plan to do what Mr. McKenna did, and put on an Import Duty. To be solemnly told in the House of Commons by the Leader of the Opposition that I am going to imperil my Free Trade orthodoxy by continuing to support the duties imposed by Mr. McKenna on four or five articles of luxury, so long as the financial members of the Government assure me that the condition of affairs is similar, or the same as it was when the duties were imposed, and to suggest that that has any bearing whatever upon the Free Trade controversy is really, if I may say so with respect, an insult to my intelligence. I shall certainly support the Government in this matter.

I hope to be able to mention an argument which perhaps will not be an insult to the right hon. Gentleman's intelligence. I suggest that there is a difference between the bearing of these proposals now and when Mr. McKenna proposed them. At that time there was for all intents and purposes no home manufacture of these articles going on, and therefore the duties did not in any sort of way give any help to any British industry. Now, as we have been told quite clearly, one hon. Member supports the duty because it will help the motor industry to re-establish itself. Of course, the industry quite naturally and legitimately is wanting to settle down again, and it is exactly from that point of view that I support the Amendment limiting the date to which these duties shall be continued without proper consideration by this House. To put it in a nutshell, your restricted import of to-day becomes your vested interest of to-morrow. If these duties are allowed to go on for some months, we shall find it almost impossible to get rid of them, because the argument will then be used which is not used now, that under the shelter of these duties you have set up vested interests, and that people have been employed who otherwise would not be employed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Quite so. In a little corner of industry you will have put people into employment who otherwise would not be employed. Of course, anyone who studies economics at all knows that by restricting the general freedom of exchange you diminish the whole volume of trade. That is absolutely axiomatic. The argument will be used in regard to these particular people who have been protected that under the shelter of this duty they have been able to give special employment at special rates of wages. I notice that these manufacturers are always very careful when they are gaining temporarily from these prohibitions to pay very good wages so that they may get the workers on their side. If the thing continues beyond the limit of the number of months contained in the Amendment, undoubtedly we shall have the argument brought up in this House that those particular protected industries have been given a vested interest in the matter. I was very glad to hear the outspoken speech of an hon. Member belonging to the Labour party, who understood as he and his colleagues always did in our old controversies, that restriction of the freedom of commerce is always a handicap to general employment.

Another point is that of the exchange question. As I understand the matter, our exchange is only bad, or it may be bad with countries on the other side of the Atlantic. It is not bad with European countries. If that is so, surely the importation of cheap lever clocks and so on, say, from Switzerland does no harm whatever to our exchange. I think it is a fact that with Switzerland our exchange is not bad, but if our exchange with Switzerland is bad then my argument on that point does not hold good in regard to Switzerland. If our exchange is infinitely worse with the United States of America than with any other country, and if it is true that, on the whole, it is satisfactory with European countries, and only really bad with American countries, it seems to me that in order to emphasise and justify that side of his argument, for which there may be something to be said, it ought to be possible only to put on duties against particular goods coming from the United States of America. I should like that question gone into.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that I should impose duties with the direct object of discriminating against America and America only?

That is the direction in which all the fiscal operations of my right hon. Friend seem to me to tend. It seems to me that the whole basis of the protectionist system is in that direction.

That is the course you recommend.

On your theory, certainly. On the theory that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted that sort of thing is a legitimate operation, a sort of regular protectionist tariff, one scale of duties against your Dominions, one against neutrals, another against your ex-enemies, and so on. It means discriminating between goods coming from the Dominions and goods coming from foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman is well committed to the system of discrimination, and it seems to me to be part of the theory upon which he has embarked to enable him to discriminate on this question of exchange with regard to countries against which our exchange is really bad. Of course, I and my colleagues stand for no discrimination at all in goods coming in. We believe that the more goods that come into this country the more goods we shall be able to send out of the country, and the more general employment and prosperity there will be here. Once you have justified tariffs on the ground of exchange, it seems to me to be a perfectly logical state to discriminate against countries with regard to that particular question of exchange. I would like to have reasons from the Government why this policy is not decided before we come to a Division. In general I support the Amendment on the ground that the longer the present system of duties remain the more certain we are to have the argument that vested interests have been set up and special people have been put into special employment in special corners of industry whose unemployment it will be absolutely impossible to risk by sweeping away the duties. I believe that is the edge of the precipice which leads to a general system of tariffs in this country.

As I understand it, these duties will go on until August, 1920. The Amendment now before the House says that they shall be terminated by 30th September, 1919. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept some sort of compromise in view of the very strong feeling on this question?

I want to preserve the right of. the House to consider these duties on the next Budget, if it has not considered and dealt with them in the interval, which is possible. I took the ordinary Budget date to which to continue the duties. If right hon. and hon. Mem- bers would feel relieved by my taking an earlier date and so making a distinction between these duties and the other duties in the Budget I am quite ready to do it. If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied by my saying 1st May I will meet him on that ground. I hope, whether that is acceptable or not, that in any case we may come to a decision upon this particular issue now.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said I should like to know exactly how we stand. When the Budget statement was first made, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies made a very interesting speech in which he declared that these duties on manufactures were giving a preference to the Colonies. He added that we might think that it was a very small matter, but Canada was prepared to become a, very big manufacturing country, and this preference on motor cars which we were going to give to Canada was going to be a very valuable thing indeed. I think he said that Canada would become a hot rival with our own manufacturers of motor cars in our own market. If the right hon. Gentleman is only going to continue these duties until next May, what is going to be the position of the Colonies to whom so many hopes have been held out and whose manufacturers have been told that under the shelter of this preference they were going to do well? How are they going to stand when the day comes for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the duties. This point ought to be cleared up before we come to any decision on the offer made by the right hon. Gentleman.

The hon. and gallant Member has no intention and no desire to arrive at any basis of agreement, and in that case I invite the hon. Member to vote against us, and let us have a decision on that basis, if the hon. Member does not wish for conciliation.

I am seeking information.

The hon. and gallant Member does not wish for conciliation; he wishes to make agreement between different sections of supporters of the Government impossible, if he can. I am anxious that the supporters of the Government should agree if possible. With that view, I have responded to the invitation of my right hon. Friend opposite, and am willing to alter the date, and so make a difference between these duties and the other Duties in the Budget. I think that that is an offer which does meet the desire of my right hon. Friend, and I hope of the Mover of the Amendment. It will distinguish those Duties from the others, and mark the fact that they are provisional.

I appreciate very much what my right hon. Friend has done, and I have no doubt of his bonâ fides. I am in this position. I am in the hands of the Committee. If it be the wish of the Committee that this alteration of the date should take place as marking the differentiation which lies behind this Motion, and which has been behind every speech made in support of it, then, of course, I will be happy to accept it; but if it is not the case, one would naturally vote for one's own Motion.

Question put, "That the words 'except the new Import Duties' be there inserted."

Division No. 62.]	AYES.	[7.50 p.m.
Adair, Rear-Admiral	Cautley, Henry Strother	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)	Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Chadwick, R. Burton	Glyn, Major R.
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)	Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.	Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)	Green, A. (Derby)
Armitage, Robert	Cheyne, Sir William Watson	Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W.	Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill	Gregory, Holman
Atkey, A. R.	Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender	Greig, Colonel James William
Austin, Sir H.	Coats, Sir Stuart	Gretton, Colonel John
Baird, John Lawrence	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Griggs, Sir Peter
Baldwin, Stanley	Colfox, Major W. P.	Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.	Guinness, Lt-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Hacking, Captain D. H.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Hailwood, A.
Barnston, Major Harry	Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)	Hallas, E.
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Courthope, Major George Loyd	Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)	Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)	Hanson, Sir Charles
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, T. J.	Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)	Haslam, Lewis
Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-	Davidson, Major-Gen Sir John H.	Henderson, Major V. L.
Bigland, Alfred	Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)	Hennessy, Major G.
Birchall, Major J. D.	Davies, T. (Cirencester)	Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Bird, Alfred	Dawes, J. A.	Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Blades, Sir George R.	Dennis, J. W.	Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Blair, Major Reginald	Dixon, Captain H.	Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Blane, T. A.	Dockrell, Sir M.	Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Boles, Lieut.-Col, D. F.	Donald, T.	Hood, Joseph
Borwick, Major G. O.	Duncannon, Viscount	Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Brackenbury, Col. H. L.	Du Pre, Colonel W. B.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Breese, Major C. E.	Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)	Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)	Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Brittain, Sir Harry E.	Eyres-Monsell, Commander	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.	Falcon, Captain M.	Horne, Edgar (Guildford)
Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)	Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray	Howard, Major S. G.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast)	Farquharson, Major A. C.	Hume-Williams, Sir Wm, Ellis
Butcher, Sir J. G.	Fell, Sir Arthur	Hurd, P. A.
Campbell, J. G. D.	FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.	Inskip, T. W. H.
Campion, Col. W. R.	Forestier-Walker, L.	Jephcott, A. R.
Carr, W. T.	Foxcroft, Captain C.	Jesson, C.
Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)	Ganzoni, Captain F. C.	Jodrell, N. P.

The "Ayes" have it.

We challenged a Division on the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Not until sifter the Chairman had declared that the "Ayes" have it.

The first Amendment which marks these out from the others is one which I am sure commends itself to my hon. and gallant Friend as much as to me. This difference of opinion as to whether it is right to accept the 1st of May next year instead of the 30th of September this year does not arise on this.

I beg to move, after the word "twenty" ["twenty, that is to say"], to insert the words

"and as regards the new Import Duties until the first day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty."

Question put,

"That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 75.

Johnson, L. S.	Mosley, Oswald	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert	Stanler, Capt. Sir Beville
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)	Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)	Murray, John (Leeds, W.)	Stanton, Charles Butt
Joynson-Hicks, William	Nall, Major Joseph	Steel, Major S. Strang
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)	Nelson, R. F. W. R.	Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Kellaway, Frederick George	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)	Strauss, Edward Anthony
King, Commander Douglas	Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)	Sutherland, Sir William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Nield, Sir Herbert	Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Knight, Capt. E. A.	Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.	Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Knights, Captain H.	Oman, C. W. C.	Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	O'Neill, Capt Hon. Robert W. H.	Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.	Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)	Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)	Parry, Major Thomas Henry	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)	Pearce, Sir William	Tickler, Thomas George
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)	Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)	Townley, Maximilan G.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton	Perkins, Walter Frank	Tryon, Major George Clement
Lloyd, George Butler	Perring, William George	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Pilditch, Sir Philip	Waddington, R.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)	Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles	Walker, Colonel William Hall
Lorden, John William	Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray	Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)
Lort-Williams, J.	Pratt, John William	Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Loseby, Captain C. E.	Prescott, Major W. H.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)	Pulley, Charles Thornton	Weston, Colonel John W.
Lynn, R. J.	Purchase, H. G.	White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
M'Guffiin, Samuel	Raeburn, Sir William	Whitla, Sir William
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)	Ramsden, G. T.	Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)	Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Macquisten, F. A.	Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.	Williams Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Maddocks, Henry	Rawlinson. John Frederick Peel	Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Magnus, Sir Philip	Reid, D. D.	Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)	Remer, J. B.	Wolmer, Viscount
Marks, Sir George Croydon	Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)
Marriott, John Arthur R.	Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)
Mason, Robert	Roundell, Lieutenant-Colonel R. F.	Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.	Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund	Worsfold, T. Cato
Mitchell, William Lane-	Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Moles, Thomas	Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)	Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Molson, Major John Elsdale	Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)	Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz	Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.	Younger, Sir George
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.	Seager, Sir William
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Seddon, J. A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.
Morison. T. B. (Inverness)	Shaw, Captain W. T, (Forfar)	Talbot and Captain F. Guest.
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)

NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke	Hancock, John George	Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William	Hartshorn, V.	Shaw, Tom (Preston)
Arnold, Sydney	Hayward, Major Evan	Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Holmes, J. S.	Sitch, C. H.
Bell, James (Ormskirk)	Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)	Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)	Johnstone, J.	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Jones, J. (Silvertown)	Spencer, George A.
Bramsden, Sir T.	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Briant, F.	Kiley, James Daniel	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Broad, Thomas Tucker	Lunn, William	Tootill, Robert
Bromfield, W.	Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)	Wallace, J.
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)	Walsh, S. (Ince, Lanes.)
Casey, T. W.	Mallalieu, Frederick William	Waterson, A. E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)	White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)	Morgan, Major D. Watts	Wignall, James
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)	Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)
Edge, Captain William	Neal, Arthur	Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)
Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)	Newbould, A. E.	Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)
Entwistle, Major C. F.	O'Grady, James	Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Galbraith, Samuel	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)
Gange, E. S.	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Glanville, Harold James	Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh)	Richardson, R. (Moughton)	Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)
Grundy, T. W.	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)	Royce, William Stapleton	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G.
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Sexton, James	Thorne and Mr. Hogge

8.0 P.M.

On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what is the effect of the decision which the Committee has just come to on two Amendments which stand on the Paper? The first is to leave out the increased duty on tea, and the second is leave out the new Import Duty. Clause 1, as it now stands, reads as follows:

"The following Duties of Customs, except the new Import Duties imposed by part one of the Finance (2) Act, 1915, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, continue to be charged, levied. and paid until the 1st day of August, 1920, and as regard the new Import Duties until the 1st day of May,1920. That is to say"—

and then it goes on to say

"increased duty on tea, Section 1 of the Act."

May I ask whether the decision of the Committee affects the Amendment standing in the name of several hon. Members, as regards the increased duty on tea, and if it does not affect that, does it affect the leaving out of line 24, which refers to the new Import Duty? I do not press for any explanation unless you see fit to give it, but I am in some doubt on the point.

The Committee has just decided that as regards the new Import Duties they are to continue until the first day of May, 1920; it is quite a positive decision. Therefore, it would be obviously impossible to have an Amendment to say that they shall not continue beyond 30th August, which is the effect of leaving out line 24. So far, I think it is quite clear.

No, Sir, with all respect. Is it not within the power of the Committee to leave out any one of these items? I do not know whether you are going to allow debate on the increased duty on tea. Some Members are in difficulty as to what they have decided in the last Division.

I think the point is perfectly clear. The Committee have inserted an Amendment in the Bill, that as regards the new Import Duties they shall continue until 1st May, 1920. It is perfectly plain that you cannot propose to have another Division which would be contradictory. The same thing does not apply to the question of tea. We have not taken a specific decision on that, and, therefore, I propose to call on the hon. Member in whose name the Amendment stands.

May I suggest that not only is that open, but I take it that the date to which the proposed duty on tea is to continue still remains the date, August, 1920?

Yes; that is so.

I beg to move, to leave out the words

"Increased duty on tea…1."

The effect of this is to abolish altogether the duty on tea, and, as one who has opposed this duty for many years, I am very glad to have the opportunity of moving the Amendment. In my opinion, the Tea Duty is a thoroughly bad tax.

The hon. Member must not introduce Amendments with the wrong speech. This is not abolishing the duty, but increasing the Tea Duty.

With respect, I contend that it is, as a matter of fact, abolishing the Tea Duty altogether. If, however, you rule otherwise, I will confine my remarks to the lesser issue. This line in the Clause really has relation to the Finance Act of 1915, and I think that, as a matter of fact, the effect of this Amendment is to abolish the Tea Duty altogether. At any rate, that is what I want to do. It violates two of the main canons of taxation. All taxation should be equitable and economically sound. This Tea Duty is neither. It is inequitable in its incidence, because, as everyone knows, indirect taxation of this kind presses much more heavily upon the poorer classes than upon the richer classes; and not only so, but the Tea Duty is inequitable as between poor and poor, inasmuch as the amount of a man's contribution depends not upon ability to pay, but upon the size of his family, and that is no criterion at all of ability to pay. Generally speaking, the larger a man's family the less is he able to bear taxation, the less margin has he for that purpose. Under this Tea Duty we arrive at the result that those least able to pay have, owing to the number of their family, to pay the most. Surely that is utterly wrong, unjust, and indefensible. The duty is economically unsound, because it presses with peculiar severity upon those who are near, or below, the margin of subsistence. The truth is that tea is a necessity. It is an academic, armchair view to argue that tea is a luxury. I need not labour that point, because it was admitted in a previous Debate this Session by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who agreed that tea was a necessity. Certainly for the poorer classes it is a necessity, because there is nothing cheaper they can drink. I should like to quote some words which were used by the present Prime Minister. Needless to say they were spoken by him some time ago, before he became corrupted by association with his present colleagues. He was talking about a duty of this kind, and he said this:

"One thing I am sure will be accepted by every Member of this House, and that is that we ought at any rate to avoid taxes on the neces- saries of life. I referred some time ago in the course of discussion in this House, to the old age pensions officer's reports. There was one thing in those reports which struck me very forcibly, and that was they all reported that the poorer the people they had to deal with, the more was their food confined to bread and tea, and of the price of that tea, which is of course of the poorest quality, half went to the tax-gatherer. That is always the worst of indirect taxation on the people. The poorer they are the more heavily they are taxed. Tea and sugar are necessaries of life, and I should think that the rich man who would wish to spare his own pocket at the expense of the bare pockets -of the poor, is a very shabby rich man indeed."

This Tea Duty, much higher now than then, has enormously increased the price of tea. It is a food duty, and in many cases is reducing the miserable pittance of those who already have not got enough to live on. That is a point which has been put to the Treasury again and again in the last few years. No real reply has been forthcoming, and as a fact no real reply is possible. All that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary can say is that the State must have the money. Let us look at that reply. As has already been pointed out to-day, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to institute his own pet preference duty he was not so concerned about money. He sacrificed £3,000,000 without a qualm. Look at the finance of the Tea Duty. A rough calculation shows that this duty is taking out of the pockets of the poorer classes about £11,000,000 a year. That means a very great deal to these poor people, but it does not mean much to the Exchequer in these days: £11,000,000 is, in point of fact, only about 1 per cent. of the total revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to raise this year. I say it would be much more in accordance with the wise principles of taxation, much fairer, and would cause much less hardship—that it would cause no real hardship at all to get this money, not by taxing the food of the poor, but by putting an extra 2d. on the Income Tax of the wealthier classes and by slight changes in the Super-tax. It is a great mistake to suppose, as many do, that the rises which have taken place in wages are, in anything like all cases, commensurate with the rise in the cost of living. It will be found that, despite increased wages, and so forth, large numbers of the poorer classes are worse off to-day than they were before the War.

First and foremost, there are the old age pensioners, who are much worse off. Then there are many industrial workers, particularly in the textile, building, and printing trades, and there are many agricultural labourers, many Post Office employés and municipal employés, hundreds of thousands of clerks and shop assistants, lodging-house keepers, and hundreds of thousands of widows and spinsters, and people living on very small fixed incomes, while there are the families of many of our soldiers who are still in the Army, because in a large number of instances the separation allowances do not equal the wages previously earned, and certainly not the wages which would be earned to-day. Again, but by no means least in importance, there arc the families of men who have been disabled in the War and who have been pensioned, in many cases with an inadequate pension, and have come home after fighting for their country and found as their reward not only that in many instances their pension is inadequate, but also that the food which they require for themselves and their families is to be very heavily taxed. Owing to the great rise which has taken place in the cost of living, many of these people have been driven near or below the level of subsistence, and the Tea Duty is inflicting a great hardship on them. It trenches on the margin of bare necessities and tends to reduce the efficiency of the workers, and it does that at this critical time, when it is important in the national interest that the physical efficiency of the workers should be maintained at the highest possible point. How can the Government expect this increased output for which they are constantly asking if they decrease the industrial efficiency of the workers by heavy taxes upon food? You cannot have it both ways, and it would be much sounder policy to abolish all the taxes on food. It would pay in the end in increased output owing to the increased industrial efficiency.

There is another vital objection to taxes of this kind, and in this respect clearly an indirect tax like the Tea Duty is in a very different category from a direct tax like the Income Tax. In the case of the Income Tax, when income falls below a certain point the taxation is reduced, and when it gets down to a minimum of £130 a year the taxation ceases altogether. In my view that is a most wise and sound procedure, and in accordance with the principles of sound taxation, just as I think the Income Tax limit of £130 should be raised, but this provision is not true at all of the Tea Duty. The Tea Duty goes on all the time; it is always there. A man's income may fall well below the subsistence level, he may have a very large family, but it does not matter—the Tea Duty goes on, and it falls alike upon the duke and the old age pensioner. Under the Income Tax, in the case of those with smaller incomes, there are abatements in respect of wife and children so as to give some relief to men of moderate means who have large families. But in the case of the Tea Duty there is no such provision, and, as I have said before, the larger the family the more the man has to pay. The whole tax is wrong, and it surely does not require very much imagination to realise what a duty of this kind means, especially combined with the other food duties, to the householder of the poor when every penny has to be considered and is of account. What does it mean? It means that in many cases an insufficient margin for buying nourishing food for the children is still further reduced. I do not think that any amount of argument or any plea from the Treasury Bench can reply to that. It is no use saying, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that he must have money. I say that you may get your money too dear if you are going against sound principles and imposing a burden on the poorer classes, which is having an injurious effect on their health and efficiency. In my view the cumulative objections to the Tea Duty are sufficient and final, and I move this Amendment, and hope it will be largely supported in the Lobby, and I am sure that those who vote for it will be acting in accordance with sound fiscal policy, and in the best interests of the State.

I beg to second the Amendment. The increased taxes on tea are going to hit the working classes and the poorer classes particularly hard, and they are also going to hit the small-salaried class, people living on pensions, and as the result of other taxes which are being imposed or kept on in this Budget I fear there will be a continuation of the present high prices of all necessities of life. I am afraid we are hampering trade in the interests of certain small classes of manufacturers, and we are going by that means to keep up the price of living. In fact, the supporters of Protection, who have been supporters of Protection for years, say quite plainly that this is the time to introduce Protection because, they say, the people are used to high prices. As things are, I am afraid we are in for a period of high prices for some time to come. That being the case, these people are particularly hard hit by this increased tax, and I do hope the Amendment will be very seriously considered, especially as we have so many other means of raising money at the present time which are not touched. The rich are let off comparatively lightly in this Budget, and when we consider what has happened in the last four or five years, many of us in this House consider that the rich are not sufficiently made to pay their share in this Budget and are let off comparatively lightly in comparison with the losses of all sorts, both financial and other-wise, which the great mass of the people who are on the poverty line have suffered. That being the case, it seems to me a particularly unfortunate tax, this increased Tea Duty, and I beg that the Committee will support this Amendment, and that we shall get a modification of the tax.

The party to which I belong take an objection to any form of indirect taxation that bears upon the prime necessities of life, and tea has undoubtedly become one of the prime necessities in the life of the poorer classes of this country. I am very pleased indeed to have the privilege of supporting the Amendment. It is perfectly true that the families differ very materially. You may have a family of eight or nine where there is only one bread winner, and the income may be confined absolutely to the income of one man, but the purchase of tea in that family will far outweigh the purchase of the family where there happens to be two or three in the family. Therefore it must follow that the taxation which is levied upon that family is far outweighing the taxation which is levied upon a family of two or three, even though the incomes-may be equal. It must further follow, therefore, that the incidence of the tax is an unjust one. It is unjust because lit pays no regard whatever to income or to the ability to pay it. Probably that is the most real objection that can be urged against this impost. The Mover of the Amendment says that, whether it be a duke or whether it be a pensioner, they have to pay alike. That is perfectly correct. It weighs most heavily upon those who are poor because this is not an ad valorem tax. If the poor people purchase a quarter of a pound of tea of the poorest character, they have to pay the same tax as the rich have to pay for the best possible tea, and everybody knows, especially the housewife, who understands the value of tea, that if you buy the poorer class of tea the benefit derived from it is not nearly so great as from the highest class of tea. There may be an old age pensioner or two, old age pensioners who have no other means of subsistence than the pension they derive from the State. In all it may amount to about 15s. a week, and out of that pittance, with which they have to provide nourishment for themselves, we have here a tax levied which, of necessity, deprives them of the sustenance they certainly ought to have, and for that reason we have no alternative but to oppose the imposition of a tax of this character.

I know it is often said by those who defend the Government that there must be an equal sacrifice in relation to these taxes, whether they are rich people or whether they are poor people. In that theory there is a mistaken belief that the only contribution that me labouring classes make is the contribution they make to the Exchequer. When we examine the source of all revenue, of all wealth, of all taxes, it is derived from the labour of the people of this country, either by hand or by brain, and the people upon whom we levy this impost are the people who are creating the wealth whence you derive your profits and dividends to pay the taxes which are levied direct upon the people of this country. Therefore, this is not the only tax which is levied upon the people of this class. I think the statistics which have been supplied by the Government in relation to revenue and to taxation reveal some very startling facts. As a matter of fact, I think it reveals the fact, that, taking the people who are exempt from direct taxation owing to abatement, and coupling that with those who are having to pay tax, there are about 5,346,000 who are actually paying direct Income Tax. Taking five people as the basis of family life, that would account for about 26,500,000 of the population of this land, and therefore there must be from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 people in this country at the present time whose income is far less than the £130 level, which has been allowed as an income which should not bear any direct taxation. Yet the Government propose to extract from those people £1,800,000. It has been truly and very wisely stated by the Mover of this Amendment that this is entrenching upon the physical necessities of these people, and they are the people who, to a very large extent, must attend to our mills, our furnaces, our factories, and our mines. If you have 25,000,000 people and the income of the breadwinner of the family is less than £130 a year, it must necessarily follow that you are depriving these families of some of the prime necessities of life.

For that reason, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should pause before he attempts to place this imposition upon a class of people who, from a financial point of view, cannot sustain it. I think one of the canons of taxation is that you should have some regard to the ability of people to pay. Are these 25,000,000 people, 5,000,000 the heads of families, in a position to bear, without affecting the general standard of living, this impost? I think it is the most insidious form in which you can levy taxation upon a people. You are hitting them, and they really do not know what is hitting them. It is a dishonest way of deriving taxation from the people. The only honest way is to tax people in a way that they know they are being taxed. Poor people in purchasing a quarter of a pound of tea at the present time do not know how much tax they bear, and it is because of that that the Government continue this impost on the people. It loaves us with no course open but relentlessly to oppose the continuation of this tax or any other tax of this nature which is levied upon the prime necessities of the people. We believe in taxation. We believe in taxation when a man is left with an income which will sustain himself and family in a standard of comfort and decency. But if there is to be a tax, let it be a direct and not an indirect tax, and a tax according to one's ability to pay, but do not continue to tax the poorer portion of the inhabitants of this country in the manner we are taxing them at the present time. It is a standing disgrace to a civilised people to tax necessities which are required to sustain the people from day to day. I support the Amendment.

I hesitate for a moment in rising lest any hon. Members wish to enforce the points that have been placed before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Arnold) and those who have followed him. Of course, those of us who have the pleasure of the acquaintance of the hon. Member for Penistone are not surprised at the onslaught he has made against one out of the number of indirect taxes that is still levied on the British public. He has been for many years a consistent and convinced advocate of direct taxation and direct taxation alone. Nothing that I or anyone else is likely to say will reconcile him to this particular impost, or to any other imposition of indirect taxation. But I may remind the House—I quite admit what my hon. Friend has said that there is much to be said on the subject—that this is part of the struggle that has gone on for many years between direct and indirect taxation. It is a matter of common knowledge to all of those who are interested in the finances of this country that the whole position of taxation within the last generation has been changed. Whereas many years ago the bulk of taxation was indirect, we have passed through various stages till the two kinds of taxation balanced each other, until we have come to the present day. Indirect taxation is now comparatively a small fraction of the whole amount levied, and, taking a short term of years, is a constantly lessening factor. I am sure that that natural process of evolution must give my hon. Friend opposite great satisfaction.

This Tea Tax is one that has been levied in this country for a very large number of years. It has been levied hitherto indiscriminately by either of the great parties who have alternately governed this country, whether Liberals or Conservatives. It may be that the Labour party, when they come into power, may sweep the whole Tea Tax away. But my right hon. Friend is not in a position to do that yet. One or two hon. Members have spoken of this tax as though this year it were an increased tax—a fresh imposition. That is not the case. This year we merely continue the rate which has been in force for the last four years. I do not think that anyone could fairly argue—unless he holds very strong views on the injustice of indirect taxes—that the time has yet come when we can sweep away any item in our Budget which brings in as much revenue as the Tea Duty does, especially having regard to the fact that in this financial year the taxation, high as it is and widespread, is inadequate to meet the requirements of the current year.

Why did you halve the Excess Profits Tax?

I do not think I should be in order if I answered that question now. It is one I am perfectly prepared to meet when the time comes. One point, a small but perfectly good and true one, was raised by my hon. Friend, not only in regard to indirect taxation, but in regard to the other taxes levied. That is that the larger the family the greater the hardship of incidence. It is the recognition of that very fact that has made successive Governments during the War add year after year to the abatements that have been made from Income Tax, recognising, even as during Mr. McKenna's holding of the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is desirable to spread the net of taxation as far and as wide as possible; and it was, and is, the determination of the Government to give what ease they felt-could be given to the poorest of the taxpayers. I quite agree again with some of the remarks that fell from the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire, that whoever proposes a tax ought to consider the ability of the person to pay. That is not always an easy thing to calculate in the imposition of taxes; but no Government to-day, from whatever side of the House it is drawn, can be forgetful of that basic principle. One of the reasons that has led to the formation of this very important Royal Commission on Income Tax is that desire to devise some method by which that large and growing tax, a tax which this country will have to rely on more and more, year by year, shall be made more easy in its incidence, and more fitting to the resources of the taxpayer.

It is quite impossible, with regard to this tax, for my right hon. Friend to give up that which has been in existence at its present rate for the last four years, and which brings in so large an amount. He has been charged twice during this Debate with having surrendered a certain amount of taxation, when he claimed he wanted all the taxes he could get, for the purpose of giving preference to the Dominions within the Empire. I am quite certain, however, that in the matter of the Tea Duty he was guided, not only by his desire to cultivate Imperial trade, by his desire to meet the often-expressed wishes of our Dominions in this matter, but he was also moved by the desire to do what he could to secure some reduction, as he believes this preference will lead to, in the cost of the prime necessities of life. I cannot ex- pect that anything I have said will satisfy those who have spoken to this Amendment, because I know how strongly they feel. I know what their views are. But I feel convinced, having regard to the revenue which is to be raised this year, to the genuine attempt my right hon. Friend has made to spread taxation throughout the country, and to the amount that he is taking from the richer classes, that the House as a whole will feel that the continuation, under present circumstances, of this tax for the next year is not too great a hardship for the country to bear.

My hon. Friend who has just sat down has suggested that nothing he has said in reply would cause those of us opposed to this tax to reconsider our decision. He has said a great deal in reply which reinforces our decision to vote against the imposition of this tax. My hon. Friend has made a speech which the Government he represents will find some considerable difficulty in explaining away, because if the only remedies which he has suggested are the remedies which occurred to the Government for dealing with the inability of the poor to pay taxation, then I wonder whether really the Government understand the situation in which they are, and whether they think public opinion can be satisfied by throwing to them the kind of suggestion ho has detailed as a palliative for the absolute need there exists for cheapening the necessities of life to our poor people. Take, for example, the fact that my hon. Friend defends this tax on the ground that for four years during the War it has been imposed, and therefore, he says, it is the right thing to keep on imposing it. That is to say, the Tea Duty has become an ancient tax, and it has gathered round it the hoary traditions of antiquity. Therefore my hon. Friend represents a wholly antique party, and he suggests that the most valid reason for continuing this tax is on account of its antiquity.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Arnold) said in his interruption, in which he took away one of the best points of my speech, what about the excess profits? That is a young tax, which grew into maturity very quickly, and which produced millions of pounds for every £100,000 the Tea Tax produces. Nobody drinks excess profits. It is money they have got in their pockets after they have met all claims and liabilities, which can be used for State purposes, and which does not need to be applied to any of the necessaries of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone pointed out, in this same Budget in which because for four years the Tea Duty has been imposed they are now going to maintain it, he proposes, as representing the class of people who are represented by excess profits payers, to reduce by 50 per cent. the tax upon excess profits and to maintain the tax upon tea. Really I used to have a very great respect for the logic of my hon. Friend, whose period of service at the Treasury has been marked by all the characteristics which I think the House agrees ought to characterise a Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. Over and over again he has expatiated upon the true principles that ought to dominate the Treasury, even when men holding higher positions in the Government have thrown them over, and that makes me all the more sorry to castigate my hon. and gallant Friend for a desertion of what is reasonable.

I am not a gallant Member.

At any rate so far as the hon. Member's conduct towards hon. Members is concerned it is always there. My hon. Friend must himself find it preposterous to advance an argument of that kind against the arguments which have been used by the hon. Member for Penistone. I should like the hon. Gentleman to go down into a district where the poorest in the land depend upon tea as a stimulant and a beverage. After all what does the drinking of tea mean? Great discussions have taken place here about the powers of the Liquor Control Board, and I have seen a great many people agitated about the beer supply, or rather the absence of the supply of beer. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that so far as the great mass of the people of this country are concerned tea is their natural beverage, and it often means their only beverage at breakfast, dinner, and tea. It is the one beverage they drink from morning to night, and without lea the average household would frequently be the most cheerless household in the country.

It is no use blinking the fact that tea is an essential beverage to millions of people in this country who have not the advantages that a few thousand people have of selecting their own drinks. I would almost like my hon. Friend to reconsider his decision, because I should not like it to go down in the OFFICIAL REPORT as his final decision on this question that because the Tea Duty has been imposed for four years it cannot now be taken off, and he cannot think of taking it off. When the hon. Member's life is written, as all the lives of the Coalition Government will ultimately be written, I should not like it to be said that he surrendered 50 per cent. of the Excess Profits Tax to people in the same social position as himself, and kept the Tea Duty on the poor. You may read all the advertisements about the Victory Loan in Trafalgar Square, but despite all the advertisements and inducements this Government can out of their wide and extensie imagination print, all these people do not subscribe a single penny to the so-called Victory Loan.

Take my hon. Friend's second argument. He attempted to deal with the point that the larger the family the more severe the incidence of this tax. Of course, that is true. My hon. Friend is well aware of the ordinary canons of taxation, and he desires to meet that argument, and he is perfectly honest in his desire to meet it. But mark how he meets it. His reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone was that the Government gave relief in the Income Tax. His reply is that you meet the difficulty of the incidence of taxation on a large family by saying: "Oh, yes; look what a kind, benevolent, fatherly Government we are! We are giving these poor people relief from the Income Tax." Honestly, does my hon. Friend wish that to stand on record as his reply to that argument?

My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the average family in the working classes is larger than the family in your so-called upper classes, and that as you ascend the social ladder families decrease in number. My hon. Friend also knows that the higher you go up the social ladder the less tea they drink, because there is less necessity to drink it. They have a much wider selection than those at the lower end of the ladder. After all, I know that my hon. Friend has a very soft corner in his heart for children. Over and over again the families at the lower end of the ladder and the children of the working classes are brought up on tea when they ought to be entitled to milk. One of the great difficulties of this Government during the last few weeks has been the creation of a new Ministry of Health. Already the Ministry of Health has introduced schemes by which the milk supply of this country will be better, and by which we hope our growing generation will be brought up in a much more healthy and hygienic way. These poor children at present are brought up on tea. Let my hon. Friend go down to any district in East London, to Whitechapel, if he wants to be on familiar ground, or to Lime house, where his Prime Minister used to make speeches, and let him go into some of the houses and find ten children.

I wonder if my hon. Friend has noticed an advertisement published by an enterprising newspaper. I saw it myself all over the place: "Are you the mother of ten?" That was the question. I did not know what it meant until for the first time in my life I bought a copy of the newspaper. I found that the newspaper was giving a prize to all the mothers of ten in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend may be interested in the fact that up to last Sunday, which was the day on which I bought a copy of the newspaper, there were 35,000 mothers in London, and the vicinity of London, who had claimed the prize on the ground that they had ten children. That is an extraordinary fact. These mothers have to bring up their children largely on tea. My hon. Friend says that we give them relief in Income Tax. I took down his exact words, because I did not want to do him an injustice. It is quite true that at the present moment we have a Commission that is going to deal with the incidence of the Income Tax. If my hon. Friend will look at the Amendment Paper he will see that both the party with which I am associated and the party with which I work on these benches, the Labour party, have Amendments down to bring a great number of these people out of the Income Tax altogether. There is an Amendment on the Paper to increase the exemption limit from £130 to £250, on which it will be found that both the Labour party and the party with which I am associated will go into the Lobby together, because of the increased prices. Does my right hon. Friend really want us to take that as his answer, or is that the brief with which he has been supplied by the officials? Let my hon. Friend put the official view on one side. The Conservative party claims to have done more for the workers than either the party with which I am associated or the newer party which sits on these benches. If we pretend that we have done anything, the other side at once says that we have never even touched the fringe of the problem. It was great Conservatives from Shaftesbury downwards. Lord Shaftesbury revolutionised the factories; my hon. Friend is revolutionising the Tea Tax by a Commission on the Income Tax. That is the position to which we have got, and if that is all that my hon. Friend has to say in reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone with regard to the Tea Duty, then all I can say is that I wish it were possible for all of us who are here to go through the Lobby three or four times, because we deserve that privilege when so weak and inadequate an argument has been adduced by my hon. Friend.

9.0 P.M

The hon. Member who has just resumed his seat has stated that he has great respect for the logic of my hon. Friend (Mr. Baldwin). I am afraid that I cannot pay him a similar compliment. He has described the party to which I belong as an antique party. I am afraid that the arguments which he has brought forward this evening are also antique. I can see him placarding the walls of this country with the words "Your tea is to cost you more," and arguments of a similar nature.

Is it not true?

No; I do not think it is. He has told us, among other statements which are incorrect, that the Excess Profits Duty is a new tax. He absolutely overlooks other young taxes which are in existence and which are being paid by the taxpayers of this country. I presume he would denounce them with all the antique arguments which he has used this evening. I would remind the hon. Member that there is a bread subsidy which is putting money into the pockets of the very people to whom he has referred.

And of which you are in favour.

I am supporting it, but I would point out that money has been paid gratuitously to the very people who are complaining about their tea. I would also point out that by the out-of-work donation many millions are being paid out in the same way.

By the Government.

Exactly. How can people complain that their tea is going to cost them more when more than the amount that the Government are receiving by the Tea Duty is being paid out to them? I do not know what the hon. Member is driving at. If he is arguing that tea is going to cost more, surely he should come forward at the same time and tell the House that bread is costing less. If we are to accept the hon. Member's statement, there is to be a tax on milk. I do not know anything in the Budget which proposes anything so preposterous and absurd. He has told us about children having to be fed on milk. Every Member in the House knows that children ought to be fed on milk, and one of the things that the Government are trying to do is to improve the health of the country. I am surprised that an old and established Member should have the audacity to come here and suggest that it is the practice of the Coalition Government to make it more difficult and more costly for children to get milk.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I am enjoying his speech, but I never said that the Coalition made it difficult to get milk. So far as I am personally concerned, the more milk the Coalition gets the better. I pointed out that children wanted milk, and that they were getting tea. If you take the tax off tea and make it cheap, and give an adequate supply of milk, they will get milk. I am hoping that some time the hon. Member will appreciate that fact.

The Question before the Committee is the subject of the Tea Duty, and we must not allow these illustrations to take us away from the Amendment under consideration.

I could not help referring to the illustration, in view of what the hon. Gentleman said in this Debate. I Chink the ideal which he is seeking to secure would be more easily attained if people were compelled to pay more for their tea, because then they would drink more milk. I think the hon. Member's illustrations are quite outside the Motion under consideration. I do not know whether his story about "mothers of ten" can be said to apply to all. Does he suggest that in this Budget we are taxing mothers of ten? I cannot find anything of the kind in the Budget; indeed. I think exactly the contrary is the case, and I would like to say definitely that I deprecate in the strongest possible way the speech to which we have just listened.

The discussion which has taken place shows the hypocrisy of the old political parties more than anything else I know of. As long as I can remember—and it is some little time now—the point of the free breakfast table, as it was called, has been one of the most important planks in the platform of the party of progress—a party which I have supported many times. But it was simply an election pledge, because that party has been in power more than once since then, and still this tax goes on. It seems to me that the Liberal party believe that when the Tories are in power the Tea Duty ought to be withdrawn, and I have no doubt that the Tory party, when the Liberals arc in power, hold very much the view that it is the duty of the Liberals to remove this tax from the breakfast table. It shows up the hypocrisy of the old party system more than anything else I know of. It is safe to say that for a number of years this tax has not been defended or even discussed on the ground whether it is right or wrong, just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable. It has not been discussed, indeed, from that point of view to-night, and even the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government did not attempt to defend it as a matter of right, while the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Remer) simply spoke about bread and about the unemployment donation which has been paid. That is his argument in favour of continuing the tax. Now this tax is either right or wrong, and we here ought to discuss it on that basis, and that basis only.

Is it right or wrong that the tax should be kept on? I am going to say it is wrong. I believe it is absolutely wrong from tap to bottom to enforce a tax on the very poorest of the poor. Our basis ought to be, first, that people should be allowed to live, and then taxation should begin from a reasonable standard of living. If there is no defence for this from the standpoint of right, then it is a tax that ought to go. It is a tax we, as Members of the House of Commons, ought to be ashamed to discuss unless it can be defended on the ground of right. For many years it has not been defended on that ground. It has been defended on the ground of expediency. One point made to-night was that we want revenue. That is an old cry. Another point was that the duty had been in force so long that it could not now be taken off. That is no argument at all. The tax is either right or wrong. I do not want to go into the question whether it affects the poor more than the rich. That has already been sufficiently discussed, but I would like to make this one point, that for every pound of tea a rich family purcases, for an equal number of poor people at least half a dozen pounds are required. It is not a question of the breakfast table. That is an old cry. As a matter of fact, tea is on the table of the poor morning, noon, and night. It as questionable whether tea is a food, but, at any rate, it appears on the table of the poor sufficiently often to justify us in treating it from that standpoint. I have supported this Amendment because I believe it is an unjust tax, and I believe also that hon. Members who go into the Lobby in support of the Tea Duty will do it from the most selfish standpoint imaginable. No one can support it because he believes it it right, just and fair. That ought to be our standard of dealing with this matter, and I repeat I am supporting the Amendment because I believe the duty is unkind, unjust and unfair to the poor people of this country.

I am afraid that the House is being led by some of the speakers away from the point really at issue. I must assume from the speeches made on the other side of the House that what is meant is to abolish the Tea Duty altogether, although I gather from the Amendment that it is to get rid only of the part of the duty which was imposed in 1915.

The Amendment which I moved seeks to abolish the Tea Duty altogether.

Very well, I accept that. I share, with a great deal of sympathy, the views of hon. Members on the other side who are anxious to have a free breakfast table. We have been told by one hon. Member that in supporting the Government he has no idea of inflicting an injustice on anyone. I am going into the Lobby for the Government against this Amendment. I do so with a clear conscience, because I realise we need revenue, and I do not see how the Government can forego the whole of the Tea Duty. I went into the Lobby against the Government on the point of giving up between ,000,000 and £3,000,000 sterling in way of preference over these Tea Duties. I largely agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the giving up of the Excess Profits Duty. I do not see in the present emergency, and in view of the enormous expenditure which has been incurred on the War, how the Government would be justified in the slightest degree in accepting this Amendment and abolishing the whole of the Tea Duty. They have to face the fact that an enormous sum of money has been spent on the War, and, in my opinion, all classes of the community are called upon to bear their share of the cost of that War, and to shoulder their part of the responsibility of carrying it on in order to maintain the liberties of the nation. All classes of the people should, therefore, bear their fair share of the burden, and I believe that this proposal to abolish the Tea Duty would be a wrong step, in view of the terrible burdens that have to be borne by this country. The Government, to my mind, would not be justified in giving up this source of revenue at the present time.

I think we are justified in continuing this discussion a little time yet, if only because of the two or three important aspects of the question to which the Financial Secretary referred to in his speech. First, I would refer to the points in the speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer). He has completely misapprehended the realities of the situation which he tried to use as arguments against those of us on this side who are taking part in this Debate. It is not the fact that the poorer people are getting bread cheaper than they did before the War. Indeed, they are paying about twice as much for it, notwithstanding the very substantial subsidy of money provided by the Government. The fact that the Government has had to subsidise bread and to pay out these enormous sums in unemployment benefit is the best reason that can be adduced in support of this Amendment. What does that subsidy reveal? It reveals the fact that there are many thousands of families unable to pay the ordinary market price for bread and unable to live unless they receive subsidies from the Government in the shape of unemployment benefit. There is no force whatever in the argument of my hon. Friend opposite, who draws attention to the fact that relief is being given to tea consumers in the rebates that are allowed in the case of Income Tax, for the fact is that most of the families in this country are not well enough off to pay Income Tax at all, consequently they do not get the same relief which has been adduced as an argument justifying the continuance of this tax. The proof of the low level of subsistence at which so many of our families are kept is in the support which the Government has had to give to these poor families in. the shape of the bread subsidy and the unemployment pay. That is the reason why we say that at the moment when people are expecting properly and naturally to have the cost of living cheapened, even this extreme course might be taken by the Government to make the common articles of the daily table cheaper by means of taking from them the very heavy burden of taxation they now bear. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury reminded us that this is an old tax and that we are only continuing what has been long in existence. That is true, with this very material difference, that the tax now is very much heavier than was intended when it was first imposed, and very much heavier than it was only a year or two ago.

That is true of every tax.

Quite so. The tax on tea is now 1s. per pound. The ordinary housewife may not know that if she purcases a quarter of a pound of tea—the poverty of the people is illustrated in the enormous numbers of quarters of pounds bought separately—she is paying 3d. to the Revenue. The tax of 1s. per pound might be defended by the Government as a necessary war tax, but the conditions to which people may agree—not cheerfully, but with some feeling of submissiveness—during the course of the War, cannot fairly be continued after the War is over, especially at a time when the Government is reducing its Revenue by giving very substantial relief to and by making more secure, the larger incomes of persons earning very large profits out of trade and business in this country. If the Financial Secretary could not see his way to accept the whole of this Amendment, we ought to have had some more hopeful statement and more reassuring announcement than he has been able to give us. Could not the tax have been lessened by one-half, or could there not have been some substantial reduction in this inordinately heavy charge imposed by the Government on every pound of tea purchased by the masses of the poor people? It is common knowledge in all parts of the Committee that the problem of the cost of living is the cause of a very considerable part of the unrest and uneasiness which pervade the minds of the masses of the people, and the Government, conscious of this uneasiness, are taking what steps they can to protect the consumers against profiteering and to make food and other articles of daily necessity cheaper than they are. Here is a fine opportunity for the Govern-

Division No. 63.]	AYES.	[9.23 p.m.
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.	Eyres-Monsell, Commander	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray	Lorden, John William
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Fell, Sir Arthur	Lort-Williams, J.
Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.	Forestier-Walker, L.	Loseby, Captain C. E.
Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.	Foxcroft, Captain C.	Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)
Atkey, A. R.	France, Gerald Ashburner	Lynn, R. J.
Baird, John Lawrence	Fraser, Major Sir Keith	M'Guffin, Samuel
Baldwin, Stanley	Gange, E. S.	M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Ganzoni, Captain F. C.	Macquisten, F. A.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)	Maddocks, Henry
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Magnus, Sir Philip
Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)	Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John	Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Gray, Major E.	Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Benn, Sir Arthur S (Plymouth)	Greame, Major P. Lloyd-	Mason, Robert
Bennett, T. J.	Green, A. (Derby)	Mitchell, William Lane-
Betterton, H B.	Green, J. F. (Leicester)	Moles, Thomas
Bigland, Alfred	Gregory, Holman	Molson, Major John Elsdale
Birchall, Major J. D.	Greig, Colonel James William	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Blane, T. A.	Gretton, Colonel John	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.
Borwick, Major G. O.	Hacking, Captain D. H.	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.	Hailwood, A.	Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
Brackenbury, Col. H. L.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)	Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Breese, Major C. E.	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hanson, Sir Charles	Nall, Major Joseph
Brittain, Sir Harry E.	Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)	Neal, Arthur
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)	Haslam, Lewis	Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.	Henderson, Major V. L.	Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Burdon, Colonel Rowland	Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)	Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Burn, T. H. (Belfast)	Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Campbell, J. G. D.	Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.	Oman, C. W. C.
Campion, Col. W. R.	Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)	O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.
Carr, W. T.	Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.	Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)
Carter, R. A. D (Manchester)	Hood, Joseph	Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Cayzer, Major H. R.	Hope, Harry (Stirling)	Pearce, Sir William
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Perkins, Walter Frank
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)	Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)	Perring, William George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hope, John Deans (Berwick)	Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Pratt, John William
Child. Brig-General Sir Hill	Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)	Prescott, Major W. H.
Clough, R.	Horne, Edgar (Guildford)	Pulley, Charles Thornton
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis	Purchase, H. G.
Colfox, Major W. P.	Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)	Raeburn, Sir William
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)	Hurd, P. A.	Ramsden, G. T.
Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)	Jodrell, N. P.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Cowan, D M. (Scottish Univ.)	Johnson, L. S.	Raper, A. Baldwin
Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)	Johnstone, J.	Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)	Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)	Remer, J. B.
Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry	Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)	Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)
Curzon, Commander Viscount	Joynson-Hicks, William	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lanes.)
Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)	King, Commander Douglas	Rodger, A. K.
Davies, T (Cirencester)	Knights, Captain H.	Roundell, Lieutenant-Colonel R. F.
Dawes, J. A.	Lane-Fox, Major G. R.	Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)
Dixon, Captain H.	Law, A. J. (Rochdale)	Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Dockrell, Sir M	Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)	Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.	Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)	Seager, Sir William
Elliot, Capt W. E. (Lanark)	Lister, Sir R. Ashton	Seddon, J. A.
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)	Lloyd, George Butler	Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

ment to set an example. They are neglecting it. They are continuing in the days of peace imposts which were submitted to as necessary war measures. Therefore most of us on this side of the Committee will feel obliged, in view of the terms of the answer, to press this Amendment to a Division, and must regard the reply given as wholly unsatisfactory.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 55.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)	Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)	Thomas-Stanford, Charles	Wilson-Fox, Henry
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander	Townley, Maximilan G.	Wolmer, Viscount
Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville	Turton, Edmund Russborough	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)	Waddington, R.	Woolcock, W. J. U.
Steel, Major S. Strang	Walker, Colonel William Hall	Worsfold, T. Cato
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.	Whitla, Sir William	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Strauss, Edward Anthony	Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson	Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Sturrock, J. Leng-	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward	Younger, Sir George
Sutherland, Sir William	Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)	Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)	Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)	Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William	Hancock, John George	Shaw, Tom (Preston)
Arnold, Sydney	Hartshorn, V.	Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Bell, James (Ormskirk)	Hayward, Major Evan	Sitch, C. H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Holmes, J. S.	Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Bramsden, Sir T.	Jones, J. (Silvertown)	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Briant, F.	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander	Spencer, George A.
Bromfield, W.	Kiley, James Daniel	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Lunn, William	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Casey, T. W.	Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)	Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Morgan, Major D. Watts	Tootill, Robert
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)	Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)
Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)	Newbould, A. E.	Waterson, A. E.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)	O'Grady, James	White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)
Entwistle, Major C. F.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wignall, James
Galbraith, Samuel	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)
Glanville, Harold James	Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh)	Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Grundy, T. W.	Royce, William Stapleton	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)	Sexton, James	Hogge and Mr. T. Wilson
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, to leave out the words "New Import Duties," is covered by a previous decision of the Committee.

All that we settled by that decision was, as far as I understand, a question of date. Does that apply to all the various Import Duties? Does it preclude those of us who want to raise certain questions on the various duties from raising those questions? It seems to me that those of us who had points which we desired to raise on the content of the duties are excluded from raising them by the decision on the question of date. I am wondering whether that is quite fair to every member of the Committee.

The decision on the second Amendment, which the Committee accepted, was positive, namely, that the Import Duties should continue until the date which it was decided to insert in the Bill, namely, 1st May, 1920. Quite clearly, to move to leave out the Import Duties now would be contrary to that decision.

I recognise that, but I rather think it is unfair, because the Chair usually does protect the private Member to a certain word on certain Amendments. This original Amendment was on a ques- tion of date pure and simple, and the discussion arose entirely on the question of date, Those of us who had arguments, which I think we are entitled to use, for or against the various duties, were ruled out from discussing those, because the Chair—and I do not dispute the decision—selected an Amendment which dealt with the question of date. Those of us who were prepared to put forward arguments for or against the retention of certain Import Duties were excluded when once the Committee came to a decision on the date. Because the Committee came to that decision we are not, and cannot be, allowed, if you maintain your ruling, to discuss those various points. I think that is rather unfair. I should like to ask whether we can raise those points at all on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," or whether we should be excluded there on the question of date?

The Committee clearly had an opportunity of coming to that decision. If it had negatived the second Amendment the question would have remained open. The decision is the Committee's and not mine. The next two Amendments on the Paper should come in the form of new Clauses.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Remer) in reference to the Tea Duty. Some of us, like myself, did not vote for the total excision of the duty because we did not feel prepared to cut it out entirely, but we should have liked to have an opportunity to vote for a reduced duty, because in my judgment it is a particularly oppressive tax, which bears hardest on those who are least able to bear it. It is quite obvious to those who study the budgets of poor people that a tax on tea exacts the same amount of money from a man with a tiny income as it does from a man with a big income. The amount of tea consumed is, of course, the same in both cases. In fact the duty on tea has all the oppressive features of a poll tax, and when the hon. Gentleman says he did not understand what my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) meant when he spoke about the mother of ten, I think I can make it clear. The point is, of course, that a large family means increased consumption of tea, and therefore an increased burden. I cannot put the hardship of the excessive Tea Duty better than it was put by the Prime Minister himself. He said, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer:

"The other day, watching the revenue, I observed a fall in sugar and tea. I was amazed. Trade was prospering, pauperism has declined, every wind was favourable. I chanced to meet Lord Devonport and mentioned this fact. He told me that sugar had gone up and tea had gone up the smallest matter of farthings. Then I understood. A fractional rise in such things as sugar and tea instantly causes—it is really a remarkable barometer—a sensible decline in consumption—a decline, mark you, of hundreds of thousands of pounds. There is Free Trade for you in a tea cup. Let the cost of a thing go up by a farthing and millions of people do without it and take less of it. and the Revenue suffers by hundreds of thousands of pounds."

That is the Prime Minister's tribute to the oppressive character of a poll tax of this description.

I want now to come to a very important question, namely, the position in which the Committee finds itself as the result of a compact rushed through, as we think—certainly we had no time to understand the value of it—apparently by arrangement between some Members calling themselves Liberals, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have time now to examine this bargain, and I must take the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman very sincerely upon what he has extracted, because, owing to this bargain made across the floor of the House in a hurry by people who call themselves Free Traders, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who admits that he is a Protectionist, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got everything that he intended to get by the continuance of the duties. We have fixed now that this duty on manufactures is to go on till 1st May next. Of course, the original Amendment, on which we understood that hon. Members calling themselves Liberals were prepared to vote, was one which fixes the date for removing most of the objections to these duties, because it was impossible to get the machinery of government going. Then at the last moment this deal is made, it is put from the Chair and divided upon, and the whole position is swept away. Let us look at the first result. I do not know whether we ought to call the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes) Pandora. Perhaps it would be better to call him Madame Humbert, but although Madame Humbert's credit lasted a long time, the experiment which she so successfully carried on had not any permanent success. But when the box comes to be opened the right hon. Gentleman will say, of course, "There is the box. It is open now. The secret is out. But, of course, it is subject to this reservation, that the House itself has decided that we are to have a protective tariff in respect of certain articles till 1st May next." So that to that extent we have decided for ourselves what the contents of the box are to be and how far they can be changed by the will of the House or the Committee. The second point is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was defending these duties, explained that it was impossible to let them go because of the revenue. Then when it comes to an argument with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) the revenue consideration goes by the Board and the right hon. Gentleman calmly cuts out two profitable months in order to get the deal effectively.

We are bound to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will answer definitely some questions which we have put in the course of this Debate and which are never answered except in the Division Lobby. I have seen minorities in this House during the course of a considerable experience, but I do not think any minority has ever had less answer given to the arguments which it has put forward in perfectly good faith. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman these questions. He has taken the argument used by Mr. McKenna when he introduced these duties with a view to showing that the same arguments persist, and the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) made a speech on the same lines, although on Friday—perhaps he was hoping to-day to make amends for Friday—his argument was that there was a great deal too much talk about the War spirit. You must get on to the Peace spirit. To-day he says, "Those who talk about the War being over are living in a fool's paradise. The conditions still exist and the conditions appropriate to war should be continued." The only point the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on this matter was the revenue. He said, "I must have the money." Take the matter of exchanges. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) said, "You must interfere with the exchanges by means of these Impart Duties." What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not told us is this. I gave him a small case—there must be many such—in which his import restrictions were checking the flow of exports. There was the case of the musical instrument maker, but of course that deals with a single case. The matter appears too small, but that is illustrative. There was the case of a man who found there was a duty on the raw material of his export and he was therefore losing the export trade, which was to America, in favour of some one else. Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer by imposing this tariff preventing everything which naturally does correct the exchanges, namely, that the exchange being adverse there should be a stimulation of export and the balance of trade should be restored. The exchange varies as between different countries. It is adverse between us and some countries, while in other cases it is the reverse; but his restrictions apply equally to all countries. How can you produce one effect with America and the same effect with other countries in the world? That is the point on which I shall be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give us the advantage of his experience.

To sum up this Clause and the achievements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the achievements of those free traders who have committed us to this course, let me say that we are committed for the first time to a protective tariff. A tariff is now assumed under peace conditions of a character which it has never possessed in time of war. In time of war we imposed a prohibitive tariff on the importation of motor cars. At that time we did not manufacture a motor car here, because the motor-car factories were being used for making munitions of war. Now we are imposing a tariff on the import of motor oars in order to encourage the motor-car industry in this country.

Hear, hear!

Exactly, and I give my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) credit for it. He is an out-and-out tariff reformer. What we complain about is the fraud of those Members who make a pretence that it is a Free Trade deal. The hon. Gentlemen opposite are honest enough to recognise that it is a Tariff Reform deal. Is it any wonder that the people outside regard the whole thing as a fraud and regard the Coalition Government with suspicion? [Laughter.] Hon. Members are amused. The people outside do regard it with suspicion. If the people outside do not regard the Coalition Government with suspicion what accounts for the presence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)?

No one knows.

Hull knew, anyhow. The electors of Hull understood, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself when he goes before his own electors will get to know himself.

It was not hanging the Kaiser, anyhow.

The first result of this deal is that this country is definitely committed to a protective tariff. The second result is that they are committed to a policy of tying the Colonies to this country by means of a monetary consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes. I think the late Mr. Cecil Rhodes said that if you want the Colonies to stick to this country you must make it worth their while. That is not the view we take. When I say "we" I am speaking for the very small band to which I have the honour to belong. I suppose I can use the word "we" in a personal sense. There is nothing improper in that. These tariffs are to continue until 1st May. Supposing then the flourishing motor industries which the Under-Secretary for the Colonies spoke about have grown up in Canada, and supposing Canada is a big competitor with our works in the Midlands, in the manufacture of motor cars, what possibility will there be for this House to say on 1st May, "We revoke the arrangement"? They would say, "You encouraged us to start industries and now you take away the protection at the very moment that the industry is beginning to flourish." The hon. Gentlemen who made this deal and accepted this Amendment have made the Chancellor of the Exchequer a present of everything that he desired to accomplish. They have riveted Protection on this country, they have made inevitable the start of a Preference to the Colonies which it will be impossible for us to abolish in the future.

I have a slight fear that it may be an indiscretion on my part to intervene in the discussion which the hon. and gallant Member has just opened I am not quite clear what object he was pursuing. It must have been obvious to all of us that he was very angry, and I think less so with me than with others I could mention. He complained that I did not answer the questions he put to me. That is not through want of will, but want of intelligence. I failed to understand. I did my best, but I confess I failed to understand. I will try again. He said I was inconsistent, and of my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil), who has more sympathy with his fiscal views than I have, he could find nothing better to say than that he was wholly inconsistent. When it came to the President of the Board of Trade he could do nothing better than compare him to a French swindler. I suppose that is Parliamentary. The language in which it was couched was passed by the Chair, but it is not quite the courtesy we are accustomed to between Members in this House. But whatever be his complaint about members of the Government or members of the Unionist party, obviously his principal invective was directed against those whom he described as "hon. Gentlemen calling themselves Liberals." In other words, the great bulk of the Liberal party in this House and in this country. When a man is discontented with all the world, it would be presumptuous for me to suggest that I can satisfy him. At least I will try to answer his questions. I had a little difficulty in taking down his questions. If next time he speaks he would be good enough to get his questions quite clear in his own mind before he rises, he would facilitate my task in replying. I have done my best. The first question he put is, whether I am not preventing the working of the causes which naturally rectify an adverse exchange by reason of continuing the new duties on imports contained in this Clause of the Bill. What are the causes that naturally rectify an adverse exchange? They are a decrease of imports and an increase of exports. Very well. How can a duty on imports decrease exports and increase imports?

The right hon. Gentleman has treated lightly what I asked in good faith. The point was this: lie is putting a duty on something which is the raw material of some of our exports.

On what?

On the constituent parts of musical instruments. That was the case I gave, and there must be many others.

The right hon. Gentleman really has a mind like an elephant's trunk; nothing is too large for it, and nothing is too small. I thought he was trying to argue a big principle, but he is trying meticulously to make small points. It is quite obvious that a duty which restricts, and in so far as it does restrict, the purchase of unnecessary articles of luxury at a time when neutral exchanges or when exchanges generally are adverse to us, not only does not hinder the recovery of the exchange, but, in so far as it is effective, promotes it. That is one of the reasons why I ask the House to continue these duties. Then the hon. Member says that all exchanges are not equally adverse, and that some of them are even favourable to us at this moment; and he invites me to say why, therefore, I do not distinguish between the exchange that is favourable to us and the countries where the exchange is adverse. I think I have put that correctly.

Not quite.

Will you state it?

The question I asked was, Can the device which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted to keep an ex- change in one sense in one country operate in the other sense in respect of other countries?

I do not answer that, because I have a difficulty in understanding the working of the hon. and gallant Member's mind. I never pretended that the operation of this was going to be different in one case from another. Of course, the effect of the duty is a deterrent on imports, whether from countries where the exchange is favourable or countries where it is adverse. The matter which concerns us most is the use of our resources in the countries where the exchange is adverse and where our power to purchase certain necessaries is vital. If I can secure a larger portion of the available resources for necessity, then I have done a good work for the country, and it is the purest pedantry to pretend that that is an improper thing to do in the circumstances of the day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman put a third question, but there I have been even more unfortunate. The first one I got correctly, the second nearly correctly, and the third I failed to get at all. I simply could not understand it. If he will repeat it I will do my best to answer it, but the truth of the matter is that the hon. Member is not really concerned with these details at all.

The third question was: The Under-Secretary for the Colonies painted a glowing picture of industries growing up in the Colonies as a result of Preference. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do on the 1st of May, if my hon. Friends are free to abolish the Preference which he proposes to give?

10.0 P.M.

That is a question which I have answered several times in the course of these discussions, and I will answer it again. But if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who complains that I do not answer his questions would be good enough to listen to me he may save time and trouble to himself, to me and to the Committee. It is of the essence of Preference as we understand it that each country of the Empire should impose those duties which, for its own purpose, it thinks desirable. None of us claim the right to dictate the tariff of any other of His Majesty's self-governed Dominions. What we ask is—this is the general practice outside the United Kingdom up to this time and now is to be the practice of the United Kingdom: that is the change—that where, for its own purposes, one of the self-governing Dominions of the Crown, be it the United Kingdom or one of the Dominions over the seas, imposes a duty it should also grant a Preference.

This is developing into a Debate on the question which will come up for discussion on Clause 7. I was asked for a ruling, and it was suggested that we should keep these questions separate, and on the first Amendment to Clause 7, I propose to give the widest possible latitude on the whole question of Preference.

I am much obliged. I am sure that that would be for the convenience of the Committee and that my hon. and gallant Friend will not think me discourteous if I leave the subject here and do not attempt to answer that point until we come to discuss it. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman complains of is the decision which was taken just before dinner. It was on an offer made openly before the Committee, which was accepted by the great majority. That is what the hon. Member never objects to. The hon. Gentleman who sits with too few comrades to be comfortable, and passes through the Lobby where there are not enough people to keep the draughts off, thought that he had got real opportunity of inducing a great number of supporters of the Government to go with him and defeat the Government. He failed, and it is because he failed that he asks the Committee to reject this Clause.

A most important matter which has been touched on by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), that is the question of exchanges. It is of the most importance at the present moment. In addition to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Noble Lord we had a digression on this subject from the President of the Board of Trade a few days ago. The argument as far as I can follow it is that our exchange is bad at the present moment, and that at any cost imports must be restricted. As my right hon. Friend knows, our gallant ally France is in a much worse state as regards exchanges than this country. I would ask hon. Members to listen carefully, as this is a matter of vital importance to the whole Empire. The question of arranging our exchanges by restriction on trade affects our national life and our relations with all countries, and the whole question is one of the utmost importance to us at the present moment. There is a movement on foot in France, which has been carried out temporarily there as a war measure as it is in this country in a lesser degree, to prevent any articles whatever being imported except the lowest grade of raw materials, such things as jute and flax, which are not in any way manufactured. They are trying to keep everything else out of France at the present moment, the argument being that it is of vital importance to improve the exchange as otherwise there will be a financial crash. The argument comes not so much from the buyers as from the manufacturers from Prance. This is the thing to be noticed particularly. Prices are extremely high in France, higher than even in this country. The unrest is correspondingly greater. IE this policy is persisted in in France of preventing any imports—which I do not suggest has yet been imposed here, though it may be in the locked box of the President of the Board of Trade—discontent is likely to grow because the French worker cannot make ends meet. He has a greater difficulty in making ends meet than the worker has in this country. Acute observers are most apprehensive of the result. There you have an extreme case, but apparently the same argument is going to be used with all the force with which it can be used by so distinguished a statesman as the President of the Board of Trade, and he has examined it as carefully as he possibly can.

Let me give the other side. Which countries have lower exchanges than the French? Germany. Which country has been more closely blockaded than Germany? In which country have there been fewer imports? I should like an answer to this point by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why is it that in Germany, where there have been no imports, thanks to the Allied Navies, the exchange is so low, and why, if we impose an artificial blockade on this country—that is what the prevention of imports is—should not our exchange go still lower? As a matter of fact, the question is much more complicated than that. The reason for the lowness of exchange in Germany is the loss of national credit due to defeat, internal unrest, disorganisation, and the stoppage of all the wheels of industry. The reason why I suspect this new panacea is that I believe sincerely that the reason for our low exchanges is not that there have been too many imports and too few exports, but that normal industry has not been restored. We have recently had some very moving appeals for the War Loan, beautifully drawn out in all the papers by well known artists, and the gist of the underlying idea is that we are to subscribe to the War Loan and get the wheels of industry going. That will bring down exchange in the country. More important still is the freeing of the channels of trade. The restriction of imports, I believe, will have exactly the opposite effect to that suggested. In the early days of March of last year I was required hurriedly to join a ship at a distance. I went overland through Spain, and in Madrid had to exchange some money. For English money I ought to have got 27 pesetas. I was told at the main hotel, "I am very sorry, we cannot give you anything like that. You can only have so many pesetas." I inquired the reason. The reply was, "We have just got the news of the set-back on the Western Front," That was the first I had heard of the great set-back to our Army, and that was the excuse for raising the exchange. The incident has nothing to do, I admit with imports or exports, but it is an example showing how the delicate machinery of credit was upset by international uncertainty. Therefore, while I do not reject entirely the reason put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do say that the question wants most careful examination and must not be accepted as a catchword for introducing Tariff Reform into this country. It is a most dangerous argument to use. It is the most vital question to Europe now. I hope my point is clear, and understood by the mighty, and I hope we shall have a few more words of explanation.

I am afraid the Debate is tending to go into wider circles, on a Motion "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.''

I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his adventures into Spain, or the oscillations of value which he found attaching to his own personal property. Although I did not hear all the calculated invective of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain, W. Benn), I heard enough to know that his light and vivacious manner had led him further into the paths of fiction than be generally goes, and his description of the Amendment which was accepted by the House an hour or two ago illustrates how easily Members of his gifts can excel in caricature. The Amendment the hon. and gallant Member described as having riveted the system of Protection on this country, and used various other epithets more suited to a graver style of speaker, and yet not without importance when coming from him. Those of us who care more about the realities of things than even those oratorical successors which my hon. and gallant Friend cultivates, will no doubt remember that that Amendment, registered by a large majority in this House—in which was a very large number of Members of fiscal predispositions not shared by the hon. and gallant Member and myself—is of considerable consequence. It marks out as quite exceptional among all the proposals of the Budget these so-called Import Duties, and by marking them out as exceptional shows that this House does not give them the same quasi-permanent character which may attach, or be argued to attach, to other proposals not so limited. It limits their operation By the period of three months. It gives notice to persons in this country and elsewhere of their temporary and exceptional character, and if there are persons so encouraged by my hon. and gallant Friend's unrestrained rhetoric as to sink money in concerns because they think we are to have perpetual preference in elaborate detail, it will be a warning to such persons, if they exist outside the hon. Member's imagination.

I quoted the Undersecretary for the Colonies.

When the phrases of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies are passed through the alembic of the hon. and gallant Member's mind they lose in authority what they gain in charm. If any persons are so unwise as to build upon my hon. and gallant Friend's prophecies anything into which they put large amounts of capital they will be the objects of my hon. and gallant Friend's unrestrained sympathy in a year or two when they see what a mistake they have made. Therefore it is because this Amendment, whether liked or disliked, does so mark out these taxes as to prevent their being used as a precedent, to make it more difficult to perpetuate them, more easy to bring them to an end, and because in accord with the very honourable and clear statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer their peculiar character is marked off in this definite way, it is well indeed that anyone who not only professes himself to be a. Liberal and a Free Trader, but who has been both in all kinds of political weather, is glad that that Amendment is passed, and if we care for something even more than for maintaining to the greatest degree the unity of this House and this country in a period which, though no longer one of active combatant fighting, is still essentially a war period, we may be all the more glad that we have helped that unity by passing that Amendment.

I might suggest to the Committee that while personal pleasantries are very attractive, they Jo not conduce to the progress of business.

I had one or two words to address to my hon. and learned Friend, but in view of what you have said I will just content myself with one remark, of sympathy, may I say, to my hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues. They have a very difficult position, and I am much reminded of a character in "Bishop Blougram's Apology," which perhaps my hon. and learned Friend may well know, in which the learned bishop put this point, "That he did not know really whom he ought to sympathise with, those who led a life of doubt diversified by faith, or those who led a life of faith diversified by doubt."

Does my right hon. Friend belong to the former class?

I do not belong to either class.

These questions had better be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

I beg your permission to say, Sir, that the bishop came to the conclusion that conviction and enthusiasm were the best things. I am grateful to you for allowing me to say as much as that, and now I will say one or two words on the Clause as amended. What has happened is this, that as my hon. and learned Friend has truly said, there is a differentiation made between the position of the other Import Duties and these duties, and they are, as he said, now of a quasi-permanent character. I do not know what quasi means in this respect—

I did not happen to say they were of a quasi-permanent character. I said the permanence of their character was lessened by the Amendment.

No doubt there will be other occasions for my hon. and learned Friend to make these rather fine distinctions, which the Chairman suggested we should defer to another and perhaps more appropriate occasion. Really what has happened is this. The Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend was an Amendment which everybody in the House understood, and which those of us who are unshaken Free Traders knew exactly where we were when we were prepared to vote for it and to support him. The result of that, if it had been adopted, was that before the next Budget, before the conclusion of the current financial year, these duties would come to an end, and the whole ground would be perfectly clear when the new Budget proposals came before Parliament. What has happened? These duties are carried into the next financial year. It is only a month it is true, but they are there. That is the real difficulty. It requires a certain amount of Parliamentary agility to follow the results of changes, and perhaps we ought to have got up a little more quickly and pointed that out to the Committee, but that vote undoubtedly was taken with a great deal of doubt and hesitation in the minds of a great number of Members of this House. I think that is perfectly clear. Whether my hon. and learned Friend intended it or not, he has left that issue in a very muddled condition. It would have been very much better for him to have refused the wile, or stratagem, or the happy thought—I

Division No. 64.]	AYES.	[10.25 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.	Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Borwick, Major G. O.	Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender
Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.	Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.	Clough, R.
Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.	Brackenbury, Col. H. L.	Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Atkey, A. R.	Breese, Major C. E.	Coats, Sir Stuart
Austin, Sir H.	Bridgeman, William Clive	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Baird, John Lawrence	Brittain, Sir Harry E.	Colfox, Major W. P.
Baldwin, Stanley	Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)	Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Balfour, Gorge (Hampstead)	Bruton, Sir J.	Conway, Sir W. Martin
Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)	Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.	Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.	Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)	Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)	Campbell, J. G. D.	Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry
Barnston, Major Harry	Campion, Col. W. R.	Curzon, Commander Viscount
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Carr, W. T.	Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)	Davies. T. (Cirencester)
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Cautley, Henry Strother	Dawes, J. A.
Bennett, T. J.	Cayzer, Major H. R.	Dennis, J. W.
Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Dixon, Captain H.
Betterton, H. B.	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)	Dockrell, Sir M
Bigland, Alfred	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)	Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Birchall. Major J. D.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)	Eyres-Monsell, Com.
Blane, T. A.	Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)	Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

do not know what it was—which moved my hon. Friend to make that suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which he with alacrity accepted. That is the position in which we find ourselves. I congratulate the Tariff Reformers. I am always willing to admit when there has been a victory for those with whom I am engaged in honourable and fair conflict. I congratulate them. They have made the first step—and it is the first step that counts—a most important step, and unless the country by a sweeping—well, a very definite—majority shall otherwise decide, is for a very long time—I agree, an irrevocable step on the long and, I believe, most injurious road to Tariff Reform. That is the position which I, so far as I could, wished to make clear to-night.

I hope the Committee will come to a decision on this Clause. We really are only continuing the discussion which has gone on for a very long time. I think we have thrashed it out; and I believe it would meet the desire of every hon. Member if, when we resume to-morrow, we can examine what I may call the great Preference Debate, for which, obviously, Members are thirsting. If the Committee will now come to a decision on this Clause, there is very little left up to Clause 7, and as soon as we reach Clause 7 I propose to adjourn the proceedings until to-morrow, in order that we may begin that subject on a new day.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 55.

Fell, Sir Arthur	Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)	Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.	Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)	Remer, J. B.
Forestier-Walker, L.	Lister, Sir R. Ashton	Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Foxcroft, Captain C.	Lloyd, George Butler	Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)	Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)	Lort-Williams, J.	Rodger, A. K.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Loseby, Captain C. E.	Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John	Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)	Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Greame, Major P. Lloyd	Lynn, R. J.	Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Green, A. (Derby)	M'Curdy, Charles Albert	Seddon, J. A.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Gregory, Holman	M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Greig, Colonel James William	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James J.	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Gretton, Colonel John	Macquisten, F. A.	Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)	Maddocks, Henry	Steel, Major S. Strang
Hacking, Captain D. H.	Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-	Strauss, Edward Anthony
Hailwood, A.	Marriott, John Arthur R.	Surtees, Brig,-General H. C.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Mason, Robert	Sutherland, Sir William
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)	Mitchell, William Lane-	Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hancock, John George	Moles, Thomas	Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)	Molson, Major John Elsdale	Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)
Haslam, Lewis	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz	Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Henderson, Major V. L.	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Townley, Maximillian G.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Morison, T. B. (Inverness)	Tryon, Major George Clement
Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)	Morrison, H. (Salisbury)	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.	Mosley, Oswald	Waddington, R.
Hood, Joseph	Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)	Walker, Colonel William Hall
Hope, Harry (Stirling)	Murray, William (Dumfries)	Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Nall, Major Joseph	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)	Neal, Arthur	Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)	Nelson, R. F. W. R.	Weston, Colonel John W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)	Whitla, Sir William
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)	Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)	Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson
Howard, Major S. G.	Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)	Oman, C. W. C.	Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Hurd, P. A.	O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.	Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)
Jesson, C.	Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)	Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)
Jodrell, N. P.	Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)	Wilson-Fox, Henry
Johnson, L. S.	Perkins, Walter Frank	Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)	Perring, William George	Woolcock, W. J. U.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)	Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles	Worsfold, T. Cato
Joynson-Hicks, William	Pratt, John William	Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Kellaway, Frederick George	Pulley, Charles Thornton	Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
King, Commander Douglas	Purchase, H. G.	Younger, Sir George
Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement	Raeburn, Sir William
Knights, Captain H.	Ramsden, G. T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah	F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)	Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke	Holmes, J. S.	Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William	Johnstone, J.	Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Arnold, Sydney	Jones, J. (Silvertown)	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Bell, James (Ormskirk)	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander	Spencer, George A.
Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)	Kiley, James Daniel	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Lunn, William	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Briant, F.	Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)
Bromfield, W.	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)	Tootill, Robert
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Morgan, Major D. Watts	Wallace, J.
Casey, T. W.	Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)	Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Newbould, A. E.	Waterson, A. E.
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	O'Grady, James	White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)
Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wignall, James
Entwistle, Major C. F.	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)
France, Gerald Ashburner	Richardson, R. (Houghton)	Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)
Gange, E. S.	Royce, William Stapleton	Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)
Grundy, T. W.	Sexton, James
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Hartshorn, V.	Shaw, Tom (Preston)	T. Wilson and Mr. Hogge.
Hayward, Major Evan

CLAUSES 2 ( Continuation of Increased Medicine Duties), 3 ( Increase in Spirit Duties) and 4 ( Increased Customs Duties on Beer) ordered to stand part of the Bill,

Clause 5—(Increased Excise Duty On Beer)

In lieu of the duty of excise payable in respect of beer brewed in Great Britain or

Ireland there shall, as from the first day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be charged, levied and paid—

	£	S.	d.
For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees the duty of	3	10	0

and in lieu of the drawback of excise payable in respect of beer exported from Great Britain or Ireland, as merchandise or for use as ship's stores, there shall be allowed and paid in respect of beer on which it is shown that the increased Excise Duty charged by this Act has been paid a drawback calculated according to the original gravity thereof (that is to say):

	£	s.	d.
For every thirty-six gallons of beer of an original gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees the drawback of	3	10	3

and so, as to both duty and drawback, in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

This Clause raises the whole question of the duty on beer. The Government propose the very large increase of £1 per standard barrel. Before the War the duty was 7s. 5d. per barrel, with an additional Licence Duty of 8s. During the War the duty has been successively raised from 20s. to 50s. per standard barrel, and the Government now propose that it shall stand this year at 70s. per standard barrel. I do not know whether it is quite realised what this means. I think it was the President of the Board of Trade (Sir A. Geddes) who the other day, in a speech made outside this House, said that the Government were collecting under the Resolution which the House is confirming by this Clause approximately £250,000 per day by the taxation of beer. As a brewer, I am not complaining of the taxation levied upon beer. It is for the public to decide whether it is right. My view is that an increase was to be expected, and the brewing trade is not surprised that a very large contribution towards the cost of the War and the clearing up of the War is demanded from it and from the public who drink beer. In this matter, the brewing trade is very largely the collector of taxes for the Government, and they collect a vast sum exceedingly cheaply. This matter has been involved with a great number of regulations which have been issued by the Government during the War, and which have been changed from time to time. Owing to the shortage of cereals and other materials in this country during a certain period of the War, brewing was cut down by order of the Minister of Food to one-third the quantity which took place before the restrictions in the year 1915–16, which is called the standard year, and the quantity has been gradually Increased as materials have become avail- able. The Government have been always reluctant to release additional quantities of material for the production of beer, although well aware of the urgent public demand, and the great dissatisfaction which the regulations and the restrictions upon brewing have caused to the general public. It has been only public pressure, sometimes with threats of something more drastic outside, that has induced the Government very reluctantly, and in some cases with bad grace, to give way. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think I am in any way associating him personally with remarks of this kind. They are entirely impersonal. I am dealing only with the policy of the Government.

The Government has, by this increased taxation of £1 per barrel, practically increased the cost of beer, by preventing the reduction of 1d. a pint which the brewer would have had otherwise to make in order to satisfy the public. Although it has been announced that the restrictions on quantity are to be removed, the Government have retained the restrictions on the quality of the beer which is allowed to be brewed, and there is still the greatest dissatisfaction in the country among beer drinkers as to the weak, washy, and unsatisfactory beer which the Government still prescribes and the brewing of which it still enforces. It is true that an increase in gravity of 1 degree in the classes of beer shown in the scale of prices in the Orders of the Ministry of Food has been announced, and the average gravity is to be increased by 4 degrees in the same way; but that is only playing with the subject after all. It is a slight improvement, but if, so far as the workers are concerned, the Government consider they have settled the question, or that people are going to be satisfied by this reluctant and long-delayed concession to public opinion, from my experience of the brewing trade I warn them that they will be disillusioned. The public are not going to be satisfied. Working people and other beer drinkers are entitled to have the quality of beer which they want without any restrictions whatsoever, and they will ultimately demand it and force it from the Government if it is not given to them spontaneously, as it ought to be now. There are grievances in the brewing trade itself owing to this contiuance of the restrictions. It forces the brewer to continue unnecessarily the damage to the reputation of the article which he turns out. He cannot produce the standard article with which his name has been for many years associated. He has sacrificed his reputation willingly enough during the War, but it ought to be returned to him at the earliest moment now that the War is over. This grievance is a very wide one. It is a great grievance among the London brewers, who had a great reputation for their stout, which owing to these restrictions they can only produce now in very small quantities. They are not able to restore the reputation which has been associated with the London brewing trade for so many years. These questions are all associated with this taxation, because it is linked up with the Orders of the Ministry of Food. These grievances are really urgent and definite matters of public importance. The Government are deluding themselves if they think the public are going to be satisfied with this question as it stands now. They will demand not only all the beer they want, but beer of a quality for which they are ready to pay. I maintain that the public ought to have what they want. There is no reason for continuing these childish restrictions any longer now that the War has come to an end. After the next harvest, when materials will be abundant, there will not be a shadow of excuse for trying to force the public to drink beer of a quality they do not like, of which they continue to complain and which they will insist will have to be altered before the winter comes upon us. I am not here to oppose this increase of taxation. I leave that to others. There is one aspect of the increased taxes on beer which should be borne in mind. So far as beer is heavily taxed, that heavy taxation leads the public to resort to spirits and other forms of stimulants which are not the national habit, and which, in the opinion of many competent authorities are less wholesome and desirable as drinks. Beer is the old English beverage. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"] I do not associate beer with Scotland, which, perhaps, is more famous for another form of drink. If the Scottish nation demanded more beer they might derive more benefit from it than from the immature spirits which are allowed to some extent to be brewed under the preceding Clause which has been passed by the Committee. I do not propose to carry this subject further, but this Clause should not be agreed to by the Committee without very careful consideration of the public policy which is involved and without full appreciation of the great dissatisfaction which still exists outside, which may easily become boiling discontent with the quality of the beer forced upon the people by the Government.

I would point out to the Committee that there is nothing in this Clause, or indeed in this Bill, dealing with the quantity of beer brewed or with the gravity of the beer. Those are matters that come within the province of the Food Controller and not that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are concerned here mainly with the question of taxation.

What you, Sir, say is perfectly true. There is nothing in the Bill referring to those two points, but the justification for the whole of this charge rests upon the quantity of beer which should be allowed to be produced, and that is the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for increasing the duty by 20s. a barrel. It is impossible to dissociate the two things. We are entitled to take into consideration the reason for imposing a charge, although that reason may not be mentioned in the Bill.

I think in this sense, as far as the cumulative burden on the brewer goes and therefore affecting the justice of the tax, that is certainly correct But I do not want the Debate to run into a matter which it may be for the Food Controller to answer.

I think the Food Controller would find it difficult to answer. I want to say a word about the Treasury calculations and their effect. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attempted to meet the difficulty in the right way. If I could have had my say in the matter I should have said rectify the Treasury calculation and take it out not in money but in quality, in a way that would have got rid of the difficulty. By increasing the gravity the complaints of quality would have been lessened and at the same time he would have got a bit of additional revenue. He would have got rid of a great deal of objection to the very thin beer produced in the last year or two, a beer, which has caused a great deal of the unrest from which we have been suffering in this country. I can speak from two points of view—as a brewer who knows something about brewing and as the political organiser of the Unionist party who gets numbers of letters every morning from all parts on the subject of the unrest caused by the poor beer. These satisfy me that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the advice I should have liked to have given him—to put the whole charge on the quality—it would have been better. I am not sure of the correctness of the Treasury calculation. They, I believe, took the values as they then were. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that two or three days after the announcement about the extra quantity of beer to be brewed the price of the only barley that was available went up 15s. a quarter? The Treasury seemed to think that the values are unalterable, like the laws of the Medes and Persians. They forgot that they might go up any day. The new burden which will be placed on some beers only adds to the seriousness of the position. I should like to support what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend as to his objection to the restriction of gravity which severely handicaps a certain class of brewers. The new standard will not handicap me in anyway, but I should like to put this question to my right hon. Friend: He restricts the gravity on Messrs. Bass' and Messrs. Guinness' beer and some London beers—special articles for which people are prepared to pay and which they ought to get, bat he puts no restriction on the alcoholic strength of champagne, port, sherry, or claret He only puts on the article produced in this country a restriction of alcoholic strength. How can he justify that? I am certain he cannot. He has justified a good many things to-night. He has knocked the bottom out of a good many arguments against some of his taxation, but he cannot answer that question, and I should like to hear him try. Why a rich man who is prepared to pay for his port, sherry, or champagne can get what he likes, and why one who is not so rich, and probably drank wine before but cannot afford it now, cannot get a glass of Bass or Guinness, I cannot understand. It is a most inconsistent and impossible restriction, and there ought to be no restriction at all. The Government says, quite rightly, it is very desirable to encourage the drinking of light beers. They make it perfectly certain that light beers will be drunk by the ordinary man by fixing the price of those beers at 5d. and 6d. The ordinary working man is not going to pay 9d. and 10d. for a higher class of beer. They are bound to buy these beers, and they obtain their object by the fact that they fix the prices of gravities, which are very light, and do not compare in any degree with the beers which were produced before the War. It is no light matter to have a tax increased from 7s. 9d. to 70s. a barrel. The brewer has to finance the whole of that money, to collect the duty, and guarantee the payment, and if he makes a loss or a bad debt or anything of that kind, it is a very serious matter indeed. Take an ordinary small brewery which used to turn out perhaps 100,000 barrels before the War. It has to-day to find £350,000 a year for the Government instead of £40,000, and to take the whole risk of collecting and paying it. My right hon. Friend took no notice of that. His predecessor gave them a little extra credit. I do not ask for that. It is not desirable that they should have it, but he never even acknowledged the fact that he was going to get a very large sum of money.

11.0 P.M.

My two hon. Friends who have spoken have made interesting speeches. My hon. Friend who opened the discussion took no exception to the tax we are placing on beer, and I do not think my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) took any serious exception to it. He only mentioned that when the tax was last raised extended credit was given to the brewer, and that I had not given still further extended credit on this occasion, but he himself did not think it would have been proper for mo to do so. Therefore as far as the actual proposal embodied in the Clause is concerned there is no attack and no criticism except that my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) thinks, unlike my hon. Friend opposite, that the Treasury rather overrated the amount of the additional tax which it levied. It is true there has been an increase in the price of barley since, but not such an increase as measured per standard barrel as at all vitiates the calculations on which the tax was imposed. The result of the Budget statement was not a fall in brewery shares. I carry it no farther. The discussion has really turned much more on the question of gravity. That is not settled by this Clause. I do not know that I ought to dismiss it now, and if I say a few words upon it it is in order that I may not appear discourteous to my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) has admitted that he can brew beer which is palatable and satisfactory to his customers and not unfavourable to himself. His exact words were that he was not incommoded by the average gravity now fixed. If he is not incommoded that means that he can brew beer which is palatable to his customers on that average gravity. If all the brewers of the country only wanted to brew beers of moderate gravity there would be no washy beer. The real difficulty is that certain brewers have a special trade which is dependent upon high gravity, and in order to bring their average down to the average permitted by the Government they must brew what they are fond of speaking of as "Government wash." They brew that in order that they may brew other beer at a very high gravity. I quite admit that the average gravity does not work out and cannot work out fairly and equally as between all the trade. I sympathise with those who have a special trade—the Burton trade, the London trade, Guinness' trade are most affected. I sympathise with them. But if you want to reduce the high gravity of pre-war beers, which can be done without rendering them unpalatable, then you must have some check, and I am afraid such check cannot work without inequality as between trader and trader. Nothing has been more remarkable than the success of the brewers in conforming to the necessities imposed by war, and producing palatable beers at depths of gravity at which they would have thought to be impossible.

What about wines?

I regret that my hon. Friend descended to that argument, which I am quite certain, in another connection, he would have been the first to refute. It is very unfair and misleading It has been the object of Government ever since I have known anything of Government policy, no matter what the Government was, to tax alcohol of every kind to as high a point as possible without interfering with the revenue. There are particular reasons why we should not interfere with the Wine Duties at this time. Any interference with the Wine Duties would strike our Allies more than anyone else.

I never for a moment suggested interfering with the duties. What I said was that you restrict the brewing of beer here, and I knew you could not restrict the importation of the other.

The two things are not comparable. Following the hon. Member's argument, he says why is the rich man's champagne allowed to be imported and the poor man's beer is limited here?

No, the rich man's beer.

The workman's beer.

I expressly said those people who probably now could not drink wine, but were prepared to drink a better class of beer but could not get it.

My hon. Friend's argument was in two stages His first stage was, why is no limit put on the gravity of the rich man's champagne, while a limit is put on the gravity of the workman's beer. In the second stage of his argument he pointed out that the workman could not afford to buy the higher class beer, ho could not afford to pay 8d., 9d., or 10d., and it is not the workman who is injured by the lower gavity of the beer.

I never said that.

In that case I fail to follow my hon. Friend's argument, and I carry it no further. You cannot deal with wines and beers by the same test of gravity. It is absurd. I would be very glad to see more raised from wine as well as from beer and spirits, if it were not, in the first place, that any increase in wine duties would be viewed with great regret, and some resentment by our Allies, whose products would be chiefly hit, and in the second place, I feel that an increase in the wine duties would give rise to a troublesome controversy, and I am not satisfied that by raising the duty I should get substantially any more money. It is not that we desire to spare the rich man's champagne—which is not always drunk by the rich man—that we do not increase the wine duties, but for reasons which are peculiar to those duties.

Up to now we have had expressions of opinion from speakers about a drink which very often they do not consume. I am going to speak as one deeply interested in the subject, as an ordinary consumer of beer, and one who must condole with the hon. Gentlemen who introduced this subject, because evidently they have suffered very considerably by the efforts of the Government to restrict the consumption of beer, considering the fact that during the past three years the brewing industry of this country has never been so successful financially as during that period. Possibly their appetite grows by what it feeds on. The Government have increased taxation, and the man who drinks beer is the principal sufferer. He has had to drink dirty water and pay exorbitant prices for it, and the brewer stands up in this House trying to make the public outside believe that he is the victim while the real victims are the customers, the people who have had to drink dirty water and pay big prices for it. Special traders have been mentioned. These firms have done better than they have ever done before financially. What right have they to grumble about taxation? It is the people who have paid the taxes who have the right to grumble, not the people who have been the tax collectors and have been making a profit out of the deal. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has been so gentle with these gentlemen? The working people are discontented because the State has entered into a kind of unholy alliance with the trade to rob the public, and in this particular instance there has been an alliance against the people who happen to drink beer. What has been the consequence? That if you go into an ordinary public-house—owned generally by a brewer—it has been almost a condescension on the part of those behind the counter to serve you with a glass of beer, and in some cases you have had to pay sixpence for the loan of a glass; and if you were not careful in the way you spoke to those behind the counter you went without your beer and you went without your sixpence also. You were told, moreover, that if you did not like any kind of stuff at exorbitant prices you could clear out. There has been no trade where there has been more profiteering. Even men who have occupied licensed houses have had to pay more in taxation on barrels for the right to get supplies. Those of us who represent the workers are not going to play the brewers' game. We are not going to attend this funeral; it is not ours, it is the other people's. All I wish for the class I represent is that we shall have an opportunity of enjoying some of the results that hon. Members have complained so much about. An hon. Member opposite said he had telegrams from all over the country about the discontent that exists. Is it not a fact that public-houses have been kept closed deliberately when they have had plenty of supplies? Is it not a fact that in the industrial areas—the East End of London is the place I have in mind at the moment—there has been an arrangement between the various people concerned not to open their houses even though they may have had supplies?

That is the Liquor Control Board.

No. The hours of opening have been fixed, and they have not opened when they could. They have never had such a time as during the period that the Control Board has been in existence. I believe in neither of them. The Board has been the best thing that the publicans and the trade have had to help them in. robbing the public. As an ordinary workmen's representative I want to say that the sooner we get rid of all these various interests that control the people the better. We want a substitute. We have found you both out. We want real public control of the liquor traffic.

I would remind the hon. Member that it is taxation we are considering, not the general control of the liquor trade.

Taxation simply means transferring to the public all the responsibility. Our views are that the public shall own the trade and get the results of the trade, and we shall not have to tax the public to get those results.

I should like to draw attention to the fact that since the Budget was originally introduced the Ministry of Food have given permission for an increase in the barrelage of beer. Consequently, there must be an increased revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from beer. I do not in any way wish to deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any increased revenue he may get. but in these circumstances I think there is an unfair taxation on those who drink beer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has budgeted for a certain amount from beer, but it is obvious that if the trade is permitted to brew an increased quantity of beer and the tax is per barrel, there must be an increased revenue from beer. if double the quantity of beer is brewed in the next twelve months the Chancellor could halve the tax per barrel and still have the same revenue. If the tax remains as it is the beer drinker will be taxed higher than the Chancellor intended when he introduced his Budget.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6—(Increase In Duty On Private Brewers Licences)

(1) In lieu of the existing duties upon licences to be taken out annually by brewers of beer other than brewers for sale there shall, on and after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be charged, levied and paid the following duties of excise (that is to say):

	£	s.	d.
If the beer brewed by the brewer is chargeable with duty	0	4	0
If the beer brewed by the brewer is not chargeable with duty, then—
(a) where the brewer is the occupier of a house of an annual value exceeding ten pounds, but not exceeding fifteen pounds	2	10	0
(b) where the brewer is the occupier of a house of an annual value of ten pounds or less	1	5	0

(2) If the annual value of the house occupied by a brewer of beer other than a brewer for sale does not exceed ten pounds, duty shall not be charged on beer brewed by him, and if the annual value of the house occupied by him exceeds ten pounds and does not exceed fifteen pounds, duty shall not be charged upon beer brewed by him provided that he brews solely for his own domestic use.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words

"Provided that a bonâ fide labourer who occupies a house of an annual value not exceeding fifteen pounds and brews for his own domestic use a quantity of malt not exceeding eight bushels in any one year shall be exempt from duty and licence."

This Clause takes away the privilege which used to be held by rural labourers, in the Eastern counties for instance, of brewing beer free of duty. It started a long time ago, when the malt duty was abolished, I believe, by the Revenue Act of 1880. It was then provided that a man occupying a house not exceeding £10 a year should not be charged any duty on the beer brewed but should pay a licence of 6s. It was not only the labouring man who could brew, but the farmer could brew for consumption by his own workers. In the Revenue Act of 1881 the annual value of the premises on which the brewing could take place was extended to £15, but in a house valued at between £10 and £15 he could not brew beer for other than his own use. The licence was reduced by the Act of 1885, and by a later Act it was entirely swept away in all cottages under £8 annual value. I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can accept this Amendment, because here we are not asking anything like what they had the right to do before the Budget, namely, to brew an unlimited quantity. It would be unreasonable to ask to be allowed to brew an unlimited quantity, but I think it is only fair that I should ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of allowing them to brew a limited quantity. I am not wedded to the quantity of eight bushels, and if the Chancellor thinks that is too much I am willing to consider a lower amount, but I ask that he will favourably consider allowing these men in the Eastern counties, who from time immemorial have been accustomed to brew beer for their own domestic use, especially at harvest time, to continue to do so to a limited amount. We are told they can get the beer from the public houses, but men who go to work early in the fields, as I have gone myself, and go a long way from the village, and want to take some beer with them to consume with their breakfast after doing a hard morning's work in the harvest field, can only do so by going overnight and getting Government beer from the public house. I think every man who drinks beer knows very well what stuff that will be in the morning. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for the man who requires beer for his breakfast or during the morning to get it from the public-house. These men are engaged in laborious work for long hours in the harvest, and I think they are entitled to brew for themselves a little good beer. We hear a great deal in this House about a "wash," and we have seen it a great deal more in agricultural districts, and it is not very good stuff for men to do hard work upon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be granting to these men nothing more than their right if he would allow them to brew a limited quantity. I can assure him there will be a great deal of unrest, and more than at the present moment, in the agricultural districts if this is refused, and they are called upon, as they will be under Clause 6, to pay £2 10s. if occupying a house of an annual value exceeding £10 but not exceeding £15, and £1 5s. where the annual value of the house is £10 or less. When they find this out, especially those men who went from the land into the Army to France and other places to fight, and come home to find that their right to brew beer has been taken away and that this duty has been put upon them, they will ask, "Where is that better England which we were promised when we returned? Where is that better life in our villages which we were promised by every Member of Parliament before the last Election, if we are not to be allowed to have a little home-brewed wholesome beer when we go to our work in the harvest field?" I am sure the Government will make it very difficult for agricultural Members, especially in the Eastern counties, to face these men with a clear conscience unless they have done their duty to preserve what these men have a right to expect to be preserved, and I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment either in this or a modified form, because the loss in revenue will be so insignificant compared with the unrest and bitterness that he will create by refusing the Amendment.

I could not accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. In the first place, I think it would be very difficult. There is no definition of a bonâ fide labourer, and if you could define or distinguish him I do not see why a bonâ fide labourer is to be treated differently from a person living in a house of the same value, and presumably in much the same circumstances as a bonâ fide labourer.

One works, and the other does not.

Would my hon. Friend call a schoolmaster a bonâ fide labourer? All I say is a bonâ fide labourer conveys no clear idea, and if it means a particular class of worker, and not another class of worker living under the same circumstances and in the same sort of house, then I think this distinction would be unjust. As to the object of the Clause. The duty on home-brewed beer was 6s. 3d. per barrel, subsequently reduced to 4s., and has, I think, remained at that rate ever since.

It was swept away altogether by the Act of 1910.

That was on houses under £8. The duty per barrel is no longer 6s. 3d. but 70s. If you make no change in the rates allowed for homebrewed beer you simply give an enormous extension of advantage to the homebrewed beer at the double expense of the Revenue and of the brewer whose product would be taxed. The proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend would really relieve people who had to pay the duty in pre-war times. While the duty on beer brewed by the brewer has gone up you would relieve the people who had to pay for a small licence before the War. There is another reason for not accepting the Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend has put his figure far too high. The proposal to exempt on the conditions named would mean this: Eight bushels of malt are estimated to produce about four standard barrels of beer, and the duty on that would be £14. The amount which the person brewing his own beer not liable to beer duty is required by the Clause, as it stands, to pay, is 25s. if the house does not exceed £10 annual value, and 50s. if the house exceeds £10, and does not exceed £15. I do not think I can accept the proposal to allow the private brewer to brew that which, if he bought from a brewer, would pay a duty of £14, to brew for himself beer which would pay no duty at all, and therefore contributes nothing to the Revenue. However, I will consider the matter of the very small brewer, and I will endeavour between now and the Report stage to give some relief to the small man in a house not exceeding £8 who went scot free before. I will undertake not to let him go scot free, but to charge him something less than the 25s. that his Clause covers. I hope my hon. Friend will be content with that undertaking.

The right hon. Gentleman seems anxious to meet my point, and sees that there is something in it. Under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Housing Of The Working Classes (Ireland) Expenses

Resolution reported,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the Housing of the Working Classes and the Acquisition of Small Dwellings in Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred by any Government Department—
(a) when acting in the place of local authorities in preparing and carrying out schemes under such Act;
(b) in recouping losses incurred by local authorities; and
(c) in contributing to costs incurred by public utility societies and housing trusts and other persons."

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

I rise to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland if he can give the House any information as to the nature of the agreement that has been come to by the various groups of Irish Members. I have raised this question once or twice in Committee on the Irish Housing Bill. There seems to have been some series of negotiations going on between the Attorney-General, the Chief Secretary, and the Irish Members. The English Members on that Committee have not been in any way cognisant of those negotiations or parties to them in any way, and they have been kept entirely in the dark as to what is going on. I do not think that is quite fair to the English Members. I think we should have had an opportunity of attending those conferences and of hearing what has taken place. I believe that some of my hon. Friends agree with me that we have not been quite frankly treated in this matter. I do not want to raise any very great complaint, because I always like to see the various sections of the Irish nation united and friendly, in concert and acting together, but when it is a question of getting terms from the British Treasury one has to be a little bit wide-awake, and we like to have full information as to what is going on. Can the Attorney-General give us some information on this point? I understand that various outside agencies have been conferring, and whether they were the representatives of municipal corporations or not I do not know. Perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us what those negotiations have been, and what has been the result, and that will save a great deal of trouble. If a bargain has been made, then the English members of the Committee might just as well stay at home.

Can the Attorney-General inform the House what has finally been decided by the Government as to their estimate of the expenditure involved in this Resolution? The White Paper really gave no information at all. We are without information as to the expenditure that the Resolution is authorising. It comes under two heads—the capital expenditure and the annual expenditure anticipated. I have no doubt that the Government in submitting any estimate will put in a figure which will cover any charges likely to be involved. Of course, the House does not want the minimum, but a sum which will not be exceeded. The matter is of some importance, and the White Paper really gives us no information.

Perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken upon their newly-born zeal for and interest in Irish questions. They are both English Members, and I cannot remember that either of them has found himself unreasonably excited over the financial provisions of the English Bill, but I am glad to see that the spirit of economy is now permeating the ranks both of the Coalition Unionists and the Coalition Liberals. They are to-night constituting themselves the watchdogs of the Treasury. I can assure them that it is quite unnecessary. Our experience in dealing with the Treasury, spread over a great number of years, has convinced us that no truer word was ever spoken than when the late Colonel Sanderson said that the Treasury never wiped a tear from Ireland's eye without making Ireland pay for the pocket-handkerchief. That was true then, and it is still true. We have had to bring pressure on the Treasury to give us fair treatment on this question. At first they put up a scheme which was an insult to the Irish people. They offered us financial terms which were not in any way comparable with the terms allowed for England or Scotland.

What about Wales?

Wales has got a Prime Minister in charge of the finances and has no reason to complain. Many of the population of Wales have got Government jobs, and those who have not have got knighthoods and baronetcies.

They deserve it, every bit!

No; I do not grudge them it at all. We have had to exert pressure to secure that the terms to be given to Ireland should be at least comparable with the terms given to England, Scotland, and Wales, and I am very happy to say that my hon. Friends from Belfast have made common cause with us. The hon. Member who spoke first (Colonel P. Williams) seems to be afraid that when it is a question of getting something out of the Treasury unanimity between the two sections of Irish Members is very easily obtained. That may be so, but English Members also can be unanimous. I notice that when any question of taxation is on the interests affected coalesce, and Yorkshire is not immune any more than any other part of the country. If my hon. Friend imagines that we shall get anything out of the Treasury to which we are not entitled, he is living in a fool's paradise, and does not know the Treasury. I hope that hon. Members who do not know the Treasury will try to get to know something about it. Personally, I am afraid that I do not know what the Treasury is.

I am not complaining about the bargain at all. I am complaining that I have not had an, opportunity of getting that information which the hon. Member suggests that I should possess.

I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. He is a member of the Standing Committee, and if he had only attended the meetings and deputations he would have heard all about it.

I was not invited to the deputations.

If he had come I am sure he would have given us assistance in getting what we wanted. The reason the hon. Gentleman has not heard in Committee what has taken place is that it is due to our Parliamentary procedure. We cannot discuss the Financial Clauses in Committee upstairs until this Financial Resolution has been passed on the floor of the House. When we get the Resolution through to-night, no doubt we will hear to-morrow a most eloquent statement from the Chief Secretary—as eloquent as a Scotsman can be on Irish matters—explaining how little he knows about Ireland and this scheme. If my hon. Friend could persuade the Attorney-General for Ireland to give us an Irish speech on the subject, he would have a much more intelligent idea of what the scheme is. I could tell him all about it now, but I do not think he would understand it. It is a very complicated proposition. I would like my hon. Friend to grasp the fact that the Treasury is a most mysterious institution. He need not blame us for the wonderful ways of the Treasury. I am not quite sure myself what the Treasury is. I have been there sometimes. It is a mysterious entity to be found in Whitehall. It consists of a second division clerk in a back room, who calls himself the Treasury. It does not mean the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We are discussing the Treasury to-night, but there is no representative of the Treasury here. They know nothing about it. This second division clerk, who has not a seat in the House, settles the financial terms to be given to Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England, including Yorkshire. I cannot give any more specific explanation than that. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the Woodvale Division (Mr. Lynn) can enlighten us more on the subject. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that neither he nor I will get anything out of the Treasury to which we are not abundantly entitled. If they can chisel both of us, they will do it.

Hon. Members opposite evidently want to bring in another great Irish question. They blame us when we cannot unite to bring forward a scheme, and when we do unite they also blame us. This is not a political question at all, but a purely business transaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that hon. Members opposite appreciate that fact. It is purely a housing question. The Treasury are not being asked to be exceptionally generous to us. Any money they are going to give us they will get back, with interest. I hope that hon. Members will allow this Resolution to be passed without any further discussion.

I regret very much indeed that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) should imagine for one moment there is any intention of excluding him or his colleagues from any of the proceedings in connection with this Bill. Perhaps it will be sufficient for me to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was asked by a number of Irish Members to receive a deputation, and he did so. It was quite open to every member of the Standing Committee to attend, and, indeed, they would have been extremely welcome at the conference. Hon. Members representing English constituencies do not take so keen an interest in the Bill as hon. Members representing Irish constituencies, who also have the advantage of being egged on by representative men from their respective constituencies. Accordingly the Chief Secretary for Ireland met in conference representatives of the leading cities and towns in Ireland and the Irish Members as well. As already pointed out by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh), there could be no discussion in Committee on the financial Clauses of the Bill until the House had dealt with the financial Resolution now before it. I may say, as regards the question put by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, that the propositions put forward by the Chief Secretary included in the first place a contribution of £1 for every £1 of rent collected by the local authorities. After a great deal of pressure, the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to raise the amount of the contribution to 25s., because figures were submitted to him, not merely by experts representing the Local Government Board, but also by persons for various cities and towns in Ireland, showing that it was absolutely impossible—and tenders were produced to prove it—having regard to the rate of wages in Ireland, to carry out any scheme on the basis of £1 contribution for every £1 of rent collected.

Then the statement that the contribution is to be raised to 27s. 6d. is not correct?

There are certain very large districts in Ireland where it is quite possible to work the scheme out on the basis of a 25s. contribution, but. it was suggested by the Chief Secretary that power should be given in exceptional cases—in the cases of very poor districts—for the Local Government Board to increase the contribution to 27s. 6d. But generally speaking, the contribution will be 25s. The basis of the English proposal is very different, and the object of making the payment in Ireland correspond to the amount collected is to ensure that all local authorities will do everything in their power to collect the rent. If they do not collect it they will get no contribution whatever from the Treasury. That is the basis of the Irish scheme. With reference to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), it is difficult to give an accurate idea of the ultimate cost. I quite agree that the information given in the White Paper is vague, but you must bear in mind the difficulties the Irish Government are up against. We cannot say that any particular locality will do anything under the Housing Bill, if we are to judge by many indications, and all we can do is to fix a maximum sum for a maximum number of houses. The number suggested is 50,000, and the annual contribution, based on the number suggested in the first years, comes to about £625,000. But that will be distributed by the new arrangement to the extent of 25 per cent. It will be a considerable time before the houses can be erected. We hope hon. Members will give us every assistance in regard to this Bill, because we feel it will be of very great assistance in conducing to the general peace of the country. We hope, therefore, that the Financial Resolution will be passed.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock. Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine minutes before Twelve o'clock.

Volume 117: debated on Tuesday 8 July 1919

House Of Commons

Private Business

Oral Answers To Questions

Ukraine (Pogeoms Against Jews)

British Representatives Abroad

South Russia

Prague

Poland (Special Mission)

Yugo-Slav Kingdom

Finland

United States

Trade And Commerce

British Interests In China (Newspaper Subsidy)

Esthonia

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

New Pension Conditions

Full-Time Engagements

Mother's Allowance

Armies Of Occupation

Newspaper Censorship

War Gratuity

Royal Abmy Medical Corps

Mesopotamia

Sickness Among Troops

War Decorations

Army Canteen Profits

Restoration Of Army Rank

Warrant And Non-Commissioned Officers

Voluntary Army (Propaganda)

Demobilisation

Order Of Release (Memorandum)

Army Paymasters (Acting)

Army Motor Lorries

Oil Discovery, Derbyshire (Royalties)

County Court Judges (Salaries)

Liquor Trade (State Purchase)

Cruelty To Animals Act, 1876

Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill

Diplomatic And Consular Services

India

Dispatch Of Troops (Hot Season)

Karachi (Rest Camp)

Burial Of British Soldiers

Non-Commissioned Officers (Promotion)

Overpayments By Officers

Russia

Russian Legion

Concentration Camp, Muding Island, Archangel

Expeditionary Force Canteen

Field Glasses

Peace Celebrations

Travelling Warrants

Concentration Camp, Boulogne

Food Supplies

Malt (Home-Brewed Ale)

Beer (Additional Duty)

Liquor Restrictions

Convictions For Profiteering

Income Tax

Victory And War Loans

National Shipyards

Death Duties

Royal Army Ordnance Corps (Eastern Drafts)

Army Pay Office

Canteen Funds (Distribution)

Police (Pensions And Conditions Of Service)

British Maritime Supremacy

Liverpool (Congestion In Port)

Compulsory Grain Freights

Land Tenure (Scotland)

Smallholders (Scotland)

Victory Loan

Statement By Mr Chamberlain

Lancashire Cotton Dispute

Standing Committees (Chairmen's Panel)

Private Bills

Group A

Group C