Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 184: debated on Tuesday 9 June 1925

House of Commons

Tuesday, June 9, 1925

The House—after the Adjournment on 28th May for the Whitsuntide Recess— met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Private Business

Bideford Harbour Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

New Shoreham Harbour Bill,

Newport Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Middlesex County Council Bill,

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

Southern Railway Bill [ Lords ],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [ Lords ] (by Order),

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill [ Lords ] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fuel Oil Imported

asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate coal equivalent of the fuel oil imported in 1924; and of the fuel oil exported as ships' bunkers during the same year?

Approximately 385 million gallons of fuel oil were imported into the United Kingdom in 1924, and about 250 million gallons were shipped for the use of steamers engaged in the foreign trade. With regard to coal equivalents, I would refer to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 24th March.

Safeguarding of Industries

Applications for Protection

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and can he state how many have been approved by his Department?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the silk industry has applied for protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the steel industry has applied for protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

I would refer hon. Members to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) and others on the 17th March, of which I am sending them copies. Applications under the White Paper, to which I presume the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone) refers, have been referred to Committees in respect of lace and embroidery, leather and fabric gloves and glove fabric, superphosphate, and gas mantles. Only the first of these Committees has reported up to the present, and the Report has been published.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the Report of the Committee which is examining the application for protection made by the superphosphate industry?

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the Report of the Committee which is examining the application for protection made by the gas mantle industry?

I understand that both the Committees mentioned have practically completed their inquiries, and I have no doubt that they will present their Reports as soon as possible.

Has the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries had an opportunity of appearing before the Superphosphate Committee and putting the views of English agriculturists, and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the Minister may have such an opportunity?

The Minister of Agriculture has full knowledge of all the action which has been taken.

Has any evidence been taken from the Ministry of Agriculture in the interests of farmers?

Lace

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has yet come to a decision on the Report of the lace inquiry?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on this subject at the close of to-day's questions.

Gloves

asked the President of the Board of Trade

Four months ended 30th April.

1923.

1924.

1925.

Number.

Number.

Number.

Imports:

Motor cycles and tricars

609

111

400

Cycles, not mechanically propelled

642

359

404

Exports of United Kingdom manufactures:

Motor cycles and tricars

4,162

11,046

15,315

Cycles, not mechanically propelled

28,777

58,774

85,317

Re-exports of imported merchandise:

Motor cycles and tricars

3

19

12

Cycles, not mechanically propelled

1

22

24

Russian Soviet Land Forces

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the report recently issued by the War Commissar of when he expects to receive the Report of the committee which is examining the application for protection made by the glove industry?

The Committee is still hearing evidence, and I cannot say how soon its Report is likely to be received.

Bicycles (Imports and Exports)

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of bicycles, motor and ordinary, imported into Great Britain for the first four months of 1925, and also for the same period of 1923–24; and the exports for these periods?

The answer is in a tabular form, and the hon. Member will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the numbers of motor cycles and tricars, and of cycles not mechanically propelled registered during each of the periods specified as imported into and exported from the United Kingdom. Separate particulars relating exclusively to motor bicycles and ordinary bicycles are not available:

the Union of Russian Socialist Soviet Republics; and if he will inform the House what is the present active and reserve strength of the various branches of the army of the Russian Soviet Republics?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the total strength of the land forces of the Russian Soviet Republics is estimated at 1,058,000. This figure represents the authorised strength, and excludes the reserve forces.

Have the Government any knowledge why this very large standing army is being kept in existence in Russia, seeing that all the other European armies are being reduced in strength?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Scotland

Land Court (Report)

asked the Secretary for Scotland when the Report of the Land Court for 1924 will be available?

This Report has been presented to-day, and will be available within a few days.

Highland Mail Services

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can say what progress has been made by the Committee set up to inquire into the transport and mail services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?

The Conference referred to in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland on the 26th May has held several meetings and is collecting information necessary to the preparation of its Report. Their inquiries will be conducted as expeditiously as possible.

Steamship "Cygnet" (Steerage Passengers)

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that passengers on the steamship "Cygnet," carrying His Majesty's mails and plying to Tiree, are asked to pay cabin fares, and that there is a notice that abaft the bridge of the ship passengers must pay cabin fare; whether he is aware that the bridge of the ship is near the bow and forms one side of a square to make a space for the hatch, and that there is very little room for any passengers in the remaining space, and that in rough weather the steerage portion of the boat forward of the bridge cannot be used by anyone; and whether he will inquire into this demand for cabin fares from steerage passengers?

I am informed by the owners that the facts relating to this vessel are as follows: There are two classes of fares, one for cabin and one for steerage passengers. The usual notice indicates the portion of the ship available to cabin passengers only. The main deck is entirely free to steerage passengers, and is well sheltered. A saloon is also provided on the main deck for steerage passengers, and is fitted with sofa seats to accommodate about 30 passengers, a number much in excess of the usual number travelling. The bridge is on the top deck slightly forward of midships and aft of the well of the ship. The portions of the top deck which are alongside and forward of the bridge are also available to steerage passengers.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the information is that there is no accommodation for steerage passengers in rough weather in this particular vessel?

I am informed that the accommodation is in excess of the usual number of passengers.

Birds of Paradise Plumage

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the considerable sale taking place in birds of paradise feathers, notwithstanding that their importation is prohibited under the Importation of Plumage Act; and is he satisfied that everything is being done to enforce the provisions of this Act?

I am informed that the plumage of birds of paradise has recently been offered for sale at some establishments, but it has been ascertained that this plumage has been stored in this country from a date earlier than the 1st April, 1922, when the prohibi- tion against importation first came into operation. I am satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to enforce the prohibition.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the case of osprey plumes, at any rate, dressmakers state that they have no difficulty in obtaining ample supplies when required?

I have not had that brought to my notice, but it may be that they were supplies imported prior to the prohibition coming into force. I should be Very glad if my hon. and gallant Friend would give me information on the point.

Coal Industry

Negotiations

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make any statement as to the position of negotiations in the coal industry.

I have been asked to reply. I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) on 20th May, except that I understand that the joint sub-committee is meeting again this week.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how soon it will be possible for a decision on this matter to be arrived at, or for any announcement to be made?

That depends very largely on the joint sub-committee, which is meeting this week.

Treatment Plant, Nottingham

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any guarantee has been given by the Government from any of its departments for the development of plant for coal treatment in the Nottingham district?

The answer is in the negative. I understand that two applications are under the consideration of the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee.

Will the matter be submitted to this House, before facilities are given for anything of that kind?

I do not think I could give any such undertaking, at any rate not without notice of the question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is highly desirable that every facility should be given to anyone who will develop the coal trade along the lines suggested in the question?

Transport

New Arterial Roads (Map)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider having exhibited in the Tea Room a map showing the arterial roads now being constructed under the auspices of his Department and those which are already in use?

It will give me much pleasure to comply with my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Roadmen's Wages, Shetland

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the roadmen under the North Isles District Committee of the Shetland County Council are paid 6d. and 7d. per hour, whereas roadmen under the Mainland District Committee receive 9d. per hour for the same class of work; if he can say whether the Government road grants are based upon this differentiation; and whether he can take any steps in the matter?

The grants from the Road Fund are based upon the expenditure of highway authorities, without special reference to the varying rates of pay prevailing in different parts of Great Britain, but all grants are conditional upon the Fair Wages Clauses being inserted in any contracts entered into in connection therewith. I do not control the wages which local authorities pay their employés.

In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of this committee to the fact that the Fair Wages Clause ought to be observed?

If the hon. Member will furnish me with data bearing out his suggestion, I will certainly go into the matter.

Lambeth Bridge

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is responsible for the acceptance of the design for the new Lambeth Bridge; and, if not, on whom does the responsibility rest?

The responsibility rests, not with my Department, but with the London County Council.

Motor Cycles (Licence Attachment)

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of a Regulation recently issued that a licence must be fitted on the left-hand side of the handle bar of a motor cycle when used with side-car combination, and that users consider the handle bar a most unsuitable place, as clips for all attachments on a bar are liable to fracture through vibration, and this would involve loss of the licence; and whether he will now give instructions that owners of combinations fitted with a number plate and licence holder combined on the top of the front mudguard of the motor cycle, which is the best and most prominent position, should not be called upon to adopt the more ineffective method provided for in the Regulation referred to?

In the case of a motor cycle with sidecar, the Regulations provide that the licence shall be carried either on the near side of the handlebar of the cycle or on the near side of the combination in front of the driving seat. The latter alternative permits the licence to be carried on the near side of the sidecar body, and from the point of view of the police it is undesirable that there should be more than one alternative position for the exhibition of the licence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several thousand cycles are already fitted with the joint number plate above the mudguard, which is the most prominent place?

I was not aware of that fact, but that does not alter the fact that these Regulations are, in the opinion of the police, most desirable. They were submitted to a motor deputation and were approved of by them.

Proposed Mersey Tunnel

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the city of Liverpool and the borough of Birkenhead, alone of the Merseyside boroughs, have signified their intention of bearing a proportion of the cost of the proposed tunnel under the River Mersey; and whether he will make it a condition of any grant towards the cost of the said tunnel that as much as possible of the skilled, and the whole of the unskilled, labour is supplied from the unemployed in Liverpool and Birkenhead?

In view of the fact that some considerable time must necessarily elapse before the actual work of constructing the proposed tunnel under the River Mersey can be begun, I think it would be undesirable to make any conditions at this stage as to the sources from which the labour should be recruited. When the time arrives for putting the work in hand the local authorities which are promoting the scheme and bearing a proportion of the cost will doubtless arrange their plans with due regard to the state of employment in their respective areas.

Motor Lorries (Speed Limit)

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that heavy motor lorries and vans constantly travel at a rate of upwards of 20 miles an hour, to the great damage of the roads of the country, and of the difficulties of securing a conviction owing to the nature of the Regulations governing a prosecution for exceeding the speed limit imposed on them; and whether he will impose more effective conditions of control and proof of breach of the speed limit in any fresh Regulations under consideration by his Department?

The enforcement of the legal speed limits is a matter for the police. It is admittedly difficult to prove that a speed limit has been exceeded unless accurate timing methods have been adopted, but where the speeds of vehicles have been scientifically checked over a measured stretch of road, I have not observed any reluctance on the part of magistrates to convict. I do not consider that it is desirable to amend the law as regards the legal procedure in these cases.

Electricity Development

asked the Minister of Transport when he will be in a position to state the Government's electricity proposals?

I have at present nothing to add to the statements made to the House on the 21st May, when the Estimates of my Ministry were under discussion.

In view of the increasing amount of unemployment, which might be relieved by work of this kind, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the consideration of this matter?

Has the right hon. Gentleman been reading the speeches of the Prime Minister about the development of electricity?

Post Office

Secret Wireless, Limited

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the formation of a new broadcasting enterprise, known as the Secret Wireless, Limited, whose stated intention is to attack what they term the monopoly at present held by the British Broadcasting Company; and whether he has considered, or intends to consider, the granting of a broadcasting licence to this new company?

Secret Wireless, Limited, is, I understand a company formed primarily for the purpose of developing and exploiting a new system of secret wireless communication; but, so far as I am aware, the system has not yet been developed on a commercial basis. Facilities for the establishment of two low-power experimental stations have been offered to the company, but this offer has not at present been accepted. No application has been made for a broadcasting licence, and the question of granting such a licence would not be entertained pending the inquiry into the future of broadcasting, which will be held this winter.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that opposition to the British Broadcasting Company at the present time is very sadly needed for the purpose of getting improved programmes?

Imperial Wireless Committee

asked the Postmaster-General what names, if any, he has received with regard to Members invited to serve upon the Imperial Wireless Committee; and whether he can give an approximate date as to when it is intended that that Committee should commence its sittings?

I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the Members who have been nominated to the Imperial Wireless Committee. The first meeting of the Committee will be held on the 23rd June.

Following is the list of Members:

Australia:

The Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Cook, G.C.M.G., High Commissioner; and Mr. F. W. Mason Allard, Chairman of Amalgamated Wireless of Australasia, Limited.

Canada:

Mr. Lucien Pacaud, Secretary to the High Commissioner; and Mr. Henry W. Allen, Director of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada.

India:

Mr. J. G. P. Cameron, C.I.E., of the Indian Telegraph Department; and Mr. Nigel F. Paton, representing the Indian Radio Telegraph Company.

New Zealand:

Colonel The Hon. Sir James Allen, K.C.B., High Commissioner; and Mr. John Milward, late Manager in the Pacific of the Pacific Cable Board.

South Africa:

Mr. J. S. Smit, High Commissioner; and Mr. H. E. Penrose, representing the South African Wireless Telegraph Company. Colonel E. A. Sturman, C.B.E., Postmaster-General of the Union of South Africa, will also attend the Committee while he is in this country.

Yes, and we have representatives on it from all the Dominions.

Post Office, Wood Green

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the need of a new post office, preferably a Crown office, being established in Wood Green to replace the adapted butcher's shop now in use, and to meet the requirements of a populous district and neighbourhood; whether there is any reason why such provision should not be made; and what steps he now proposes to take in the matter, particularly in view of the further duties that will devolve on post office administration if and when the new contributory pension scheme comes into operation?

I am not satisfied that the existing accommodation at the post office in question is inadequate to meet public requirements or that there is urgent need for incurring the heavy additional annual expenditure which replacement of the office by a Crown office would involve, but the matter is being kept under review.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as to whether he thinks a disused butcher's shop is sufficient accommodation for a central post office in a large working-class district?

Facilities, Swinton

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a report of the interview between a deputation from the Swinton Urban District Council and the Rotherham postmaster; whether he is aware that there is little or no improvement in the postal services; that an auxiliary postwoman of proved efficiency has been compelled to resign because of the physical impossibility of carrying out the duties under present conditions; and whether, in view of the fact that the sub-postmistress has written to say that she is prepared to alter her premises so as to satisfy all reasonable requirements, he will advise that letters and parcels shall again be sorted and despatched from the Swinton office?

I have received a report of the interview to which the hon. Member refers. I am assured that the recent alterations have resulted in a distinct improvement in the services at Swinton. The morning delivery which formerly finished as late as 9.35 a.m. is now completed before 9.0 a.m. The auxiliary postwoman referred to was offered, but declined to accept, a duty similar to that hitherto performed by her. It is very doubtful whether adequate accommodation for the postmen could be provided at the Swinton office, even with the improvements now suggested by the sub-postmistress; and in any case, as the new delivery arrangements are more satisfactory on other grounds, I am unable to revert to the former arrangements.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to meet a deputation from the Swinton Urban District Council because there is a strong feeling of indignation about this matter?

I am always prepared to consider representations, and if my hon. Friend will consult me afterwards, I will try to do all I can in the matter.

Wireless Telegraphy Bill

asked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to introduce the new Wireless Telegraphy Bill?

Telegraph Offices (Bank Holiday Closing)

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inconvenience and expense entailed on provincial newspapers by the Post Office policy of closing down telegraph offices on Bank Holidays; and whether, seeing that newspapers are dependent upon the Post Office wires for news, he will reconsider this policy?

The restriction of the hours of public business at Post Offices on bank holidays is in accordance with the' settled policy of granting relief from duty on such days to as large a number of the staff as possible, and the arrangements actually in force are considered to suffice for the convenience of the general public. I could not undertake, particularly in view of the heavy loss on Press telegrams, to modify these arrangements generally in the interests of provincial newspapers; but a specified office can be specially opened or kept open for the receipt of Press messages if due notice is given and the cost of the special attendance is defrayed by the proprietors of the newspaper concerned.

The maintaining of a special staff by one newspaper is an almost impossible burden to bear.

Pensions (Payments)

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that guardians are constantly complaining that many pensioners become chargeable on the rates very shortly after receipt of their quarterly allowances; and will he consider the desirability of paying these pensions weekly through the local Post Offices?

My right hon. Friend is not aware of any complaints of this nature. Pensions paid by the Ministry to or in respect of men of non-commissioned rank are paid weekly through the Post Office, except in a relatively few cases in which the pensioners are either entitled to payment quarterly in advance or are, to meet their own convenience, paid quarterly in arrear.

Horses (Export)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of any increase in the number of worn-out horses exported to the Continent; whether any organisation concerned with the welfare of animals has made representations in this regard; and is any legislation contemplated that would have as its object the discouragement of this practice?

There has been a marked decrease in recent years in the number of horses exported to the Continent, but a slight increase in the number occurred in 1924 as compared with 1922 and 1923. I would point out however, that no worn-out horses are allowed to be exported, only sound working horses being passed for shipment by the Ministry's inspectors. General representations urging the prohibition of the export of horses which may be slaughtered on the Continent have been frequently received by my Department. With regard to the last part of the question, I cannot anticipate the Report of the Departmental Committee which is at present investigating this trade.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when we may hope to get the Report of the Departmental Committee and is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals representative entitled to appear before that Committee?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will await the answer to the next question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to state when the Report of the Committee on the export of horses for butchery purposes is likely to be published?

I understand the Committee are now considering their Report, and I am informed that they hope to present it at the end of the present month.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will be able to introduce legislation this Session if the Report indicates the need for legislation?

That is obviously a question which I cannot answer until I have seen the Report, and the question should be put to the Leader of the House.

Agriculture

Land Settlement (Public School Boys)

asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in co-operation with the President of the Board of Education, he will consult with public schoolmasters and others so as to include in his forthcoming small holdings and cottage holdings legislation the most suitable means of encouraging English public school boys to settle upon English land upon terms at least as favourable as those offered under the schemes of overseas settlement now in progress?

Sugar-Beet Factories (Machinery)

asked the Minister of Agriculture the cost of the plant and machinery that has been imported into this country in connection with the construction of sugar-beet factories since the passing of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, and the cost of the plant and machinery that has been supplied by British firms during the same period?

The value of plant and machinery which has been actually imported to the order of sugar beet factory companies since the passing of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, is £126,292. The value of plant and machinery supplied by British firms during the same period is £51,184. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that these figures afford no guide to the total commitments of the various factory companies.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that 75 per cent. of the machinery for these factories will in the future be British made?

I cannot give any assurance other than that contained in the Act of Parliament which imposes that obligation and refers especially to British-made machinery and plant.

Is it not a fact that by obtaining some of the machinery from abroad the factories have been able to get to work much earlier?

With regard to one or two cases the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is entirely accurate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we have been manufacturing sugar machinery in Glasgow for the last 150 years, and that the whole of the supplies required could have been got in that city; and will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking to see that the 75 per cent. proviso is being adhered to and what check has he on it?

I have a complete check. I am well aware of the capacity of Glasgow for making sugar machinery, but the difficulty arose owing to the exceedingly rapid development of the sugar-beet industry in this country. There may be one or two cases in which the machinery was supplied more quickly from abroad, and consequently the factories were able to get to work earlier.

Housing

Government Houses, Chepstow

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if negotiations are proceeding for the sale to a private syndicate of the Government houses situated at Bulwark and Hard-wick, Chepstow; and, if so, is he giving the existing tenants the right of purchase on the same terms and conditions as may be offered to a private company?

( for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The answer to the first part is in the negative. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Rentals (Arbitration)

asked the Attorney-General whether any inquiries are being made as to the possibility of County Court Judges and their officials attempting conciliation as a condition precedent to litigation in connection with rent cases; and whether he can make any statement on this subject?

Provision has already been made by the Rent Restrictions Act, 1923, for arbitration in rent cases as a voluntary alternative to ordinary legal proceedings and I regret that this procedure is not more frequently adopted. What the hon. Member suggests is a new procedure which is not to be voluntary, and is not to be an alternative. I am not aware that inquiries are being made into any other conciliation procedure, and I do not think that any such inquiries would be fruitful.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the recently established municipal court in Philadelphia and the success that has resulted from the introduction of that court?

No, I have not had my attention drawn to the municipal court, but it is obvious that to ask the County Court Judges to try a case before it is set down as a matter of litigation is not likely to be very fruitful, except by the good will of the parties. When the parties themselves desire it, they can do it under existing legislation.

Building Progress

asked the Minister of Health if he will inform the House what progress has been made in the provision of houses during the past three months?

During the three months ended 1st May last, 21,674 houses were completed in England and Wales in connection with State-assisted schemes, and 56,202 were in course of construction on the 1st May. Particulars are not available as to the number of houses erected during the same period by private enterprise without Exchequer assistance.

In view of the statement which the hon. Gentleman has made will he, on behalf of the Government, withdraw the imputation of "ca'canny" made against the building industry?

Foreign Communists

asked the Home Secretary whether the Order prohibiting the entry into this country for short periods of aliens desirous of attending political, Communist, or other Socialist conferences is intended to apply to all persons who may be known to the authorities as persons belonging to the Communist movement, or the advocates of Socialism, or any other political creed?

I presume the hon. Member has in mind the special instructions to which reference was made in this House before the Adjournment. Those instructions related to the exclusion of aliens who might seek to come here for the purpose of attending the Communist Congress which was then pending at Glasgow, and, while their application was limited to that particular purpose, they reflected a general policy which I explained to the House.

What is the use of that policy if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to prevent people going to Glasgow for the conference?

It is not at all certain that it was not able to prevent undesirables from coming here. A very well-known Communist was prevented from coming from Berlin to the conference, and others also.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the advocacy of Communism is illegal?

Obviously, if it had been, the hon. Member might find himself in custody.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of that answer, on what grounds does he stop persons holding Communist views from going to a Communist conference, which I understand is a legal body, meeting in a legal manner in this country?

I have already explained that, while we have to put up with English Communists, we are not prepared to put up with foreign Communists.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take similar steps of exclusion against those who come from reactionary countries to attend conferences in London?

I have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the prohibition order applies to other political organisations. What I want to get at is whether it is only aimed at revolutionary Communists, and that the same rule does not apply to revolutionary royalists. He has not answered the last part of my question. Portuguese royalists in this country—[ Interruption ]. You ought to answer. The question is on the Paper. [ Interruption. ]

On a point of Order. Cannot we have information from the Minister as to whether he is prepared to answer the last part of the question?

If the hon. Member is not satisfied with the answer, he can put down another question for the day after to-morrow.

British Empire Exhibition

(Admission Charges, Tuesdays)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number of persons who have paid for admission to the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley on Tuesdays, 12th and 19th May, respectively, together with the corresponding figures for the same two days last year; and whether the contractors in the amusement park have intimated their intention of closing their stalls until 5 p.m. on Tuesdays should the admission charge of 2s. 6d. be continued?

I understand that the number of persons who paid for admission on Tuesdays, the 12th and 19th May of this year, was considerably smaller than the number on the corresponding dates of 1924. The exhibition authorities have, however, now decided to discontinue the special charge of 2s. 6d. on Tuesdays.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of a cheap day of admission at the popular price of 6d., so that the working classes can have an opportunity of attending the exhibition?

I will convey the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion to the authorities.

Will the hon. Member appeal to the authorities to allow the exhibition to open on Sunday, the only day when the great mass of the working people are able to get to the exhibition?

When the Money Resolution was discussed, I explained that that would require new legislation.

Iraq (Imports and Exports)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the value of the total imports and exports of Iraq during 1924 in pounds sterling; and what proportion of this amount was to and from the United Kingdom?

Available statistics for Iraq are given in rupees, but, converted at the rate of Rs. 15 to the £ sterling, the following are the totals of imports and exports to and from Iraq during the calendar year 1924 (excluding currency, but including goods in transit through the country):

Am I to understand that of the £12,000,000 of imports only 13 per cent. are from this country?

Mental Patients (Treatment, New Zealand)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to a new system of treatment and care of mental patients recently decided upon by the Government of New Zealand; and whether he can make any statement as to the nature of the proposed new methods?

I have no information beyond what has appeared recently in the Press.

Imperial Preference

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can publish a table showing, in reference to those Colonies and Dependencies which grant preferences on Empire goods in their tariffs, the number of official and non-official members in the governing

Colony or Protectorate.

Composition of Legislative Council or corresponding Body.

Circumstances in which Preference Legislation was passed.

Officials.

Unofficials.

Jamaica

11

19

So far as is known the decision to grant a preference was in no case taken by means of the Official votes against those of the unofficials. In some instances the composition of the Legislature has bean altered since the original decision was taken. The figures given relate to the existing Councils. The present West Indian preferences are based on the West Indian-Canadian Treaty of 1920.

British Guiana

8

14

Barbadoes

None

24

Trinidad

13

13

British Honduras

6

7

Grenada

8

8

St. Lucia

7

6

St. Vincent

5

4

Antigua

9

8

St. Christopher-Nevis

8

7

Dominica

7

6

Montserrat

5

4

Bahamas

None

29

Cyprus

7

12

No opposition to this Legislation is recorded in the minutes of proceedings of Council.

Fiji

11

9 (including 2 native members).

Bill passed without a division.

Mauritius

8 (ex-officio)

10 (elected)

No details of proceedings in Council available, but there is no question of the measure having been carried by the Official votes, and it is understood that the initiative as to the grant of preference was with the unofficials.

9 (nominated—of whom at least 3 must be unofficials).

Cabinet Ministers (Newspaper Articles)

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now come to a decision as to the desirability or otherwise of Cabinet Ministers during their term of office contributing articles upon public policy to the newspaper press; whether he has drawn the attention of the Secretary of State for India to the rule held desirable by Members of previous Cabinets; and, if so, with what result?

The Government have carefully considered this question, and have decided to be affirm the principle that Ministers of

council, and the instances in which the decision to grant a preference was carried by the vote of the official members?

Yes, Sir; I am arranging for a table containing the detailed information desired to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not aware of any case in which Empire Preference was carried by official votes, or was not the expression of the genuine views of the communities concerned.

Following is the table:

the Crown, while holding office, should refrain from writing articles for publication in any way connected with matters of current public policy.

May I ask the Prime Minister when that decision was taken, and is he aware of what appears in today's London evening newspapers?

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a newspaper bill outside bearing the device: "Murder—by Lord Birkenhead," and may I ask what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Are we to understand that the Prime Minister has issued a general prohibition of this practice, or is it to concern only certain aspects of affairs?

I think the answer is perfectly clear. I have answered the hon. Member's question.

Does it apply to the series of articles now being published by Lord Birkenhead in the evening papers?

I am afraid that I do not know what is that series. The phrase I used is, "on matters of current public policy." I think that is quite clear.

Does the Prime Minister consider the question of war, about which Lord Birkenhead has been writing a very great deal, a subject on which a Minister should write at the present time?

In view of the fact that there is a Bill before this House to abolish capital punishment, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a Member of the Government should express his views on the subject of capital punishment in articles?

House of Commons (Procedure)

asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to appoint a Committee to inquire into the possible simplification of procedure and saving of time generally, and, in particular, as to Divisions for the suspension of the 11 o'Clock Rule and Debate on Motions for Adjournment?

Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the feeling among women electors, as expressed in resolutions of mothers' unions and petitions to Members of Parliament, that immediate steps should be taken to restrain portions of the Press from publishing matter which is injurious to public morals; and whether he will give facilities for the early discussion of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet say whether His Majesty's Government can give any facilities this Session for the progress of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill?

I shall answer these questions together. I am not in a position to make any statement at present, but I can assure my hon. and right hon. Friends that this question is under consideration by the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so important a body as the Council of the Law Society has passed a Resolution in favour of this Bill?

No, I am not aware of that. I shall be glad, if opportunity arise, to give consideration to it, but I cannot at present make any statement on the subject.

Inter-Allied Debts

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which foreign Governments, of those who owe moneys to this country, we are in negotiation for the payment of their debts to us; and whether he can report any progress towards the repayment or funding of these debts?

No negotiations are at the moment taking place with the Government of Russia for the repayment of their debts to this country, but with this exception His Majesty's Government is in continuous negotiation with all the foreign Governments owing money to this country. I have at the moment no further developments to report.

Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the statements in the Press with regard to French negotiations with the United States, and, if so, what steps are being taken to safeguard British interests in those negotiations. Are we represented, or in what way will it be done?

No, Sir. We stated very clearly at the beginning of this Parliament what our policy was in regard to the settlement of these Franco American debts, and I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on that occasion.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Government put themselves into communication with the Governments of our debtors. Will he give us the date of that communication?

The French Government made communications to us in the closing days of the administration of M. Clementel, at the Ministry of Finance, and in the interval that has elapsed no new developments have taken place, having regard to the fact that a new Minister of Finance has only just assumed office and has, no doubt, a great pressure of business on his hands at the present time.

Income Tax (Bonus Shares)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he contemplates introducing legislation with a view to making reserves distributed by way of bonus shares liable for Income Tax?

The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. Under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, profits are taxed in their entirety at the source, and no question of further liability to Income Tax can arise upon their distribution, whether in the form of bonus shares or otherwise.

Contributory Pensions Bill

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state the particulars of the scheme by which he proposes to relieve the burden upon employers and employed involved in the contributions under the new pensions scheme?

May we take it that we shall be informed of the Government's plan, before we are asked to part with the Pensions Bill?

That is a question which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether we shall be informed what is the plan of the Government for relieving industry before the Pensions Bill leaves this House?

Government Departments

Registration of Correspondence (Costs)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the practice of Government Departments to keep statistics showing the cost of registration of and the filing of correspondence per letter received; and, if so, whether he can state the average unit cost for all Departments and the costs in the Departments which have the highest and lowest unit figure, respectively?

I regret that no statistics such as those referred to by the hon. Member are kept.

Temporary Civil Servants

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government propose to grant security of tenure to the comparatively small number of temporary civil servants who, after qualifying by examination for established posts, have been rejected on medical grounds; and, as these temporary civil servants have proved in keen competition with their fellows that they are educationally qualified for establishment in the Civil Service, will the Government consider favourably granting to these men and women unestablished poets in the class for which they have qualified, as is done in the cases of candidates who have attained the age of 50 years before passing the examination?

In making their selection of temporary ex-service men for permanent non-pensionable employment under the agreement with the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants of the 12th January last, I have no doubt that Departments will pay special regard to the cases of ex-service men who have been rejected for establishment on medical grounds, but I regret to be unable to extend the arrangement mentioned in the last part of the question to persons who have been unable to satisfy the prescribed tests for establishment.

Teachers' Salaries (West Ham)

59 and 60.

asked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he is aware that, in connection with the recent award of Lord Burnham respecting teachers' salaries in the highly-rated area of West Ham, of each £10,000 reduction in salaries the Government receive the advantage of approximately £8,000; and whether, as this area is necessitous, he will grant a higher proportion of this reduction to the local authority;

(2) Whether he has recently received appeals from the West Ham local Education Authority for a revision of the basis of grant for this highly-rated area; whether he is aware that, owing to the vicissitudes of the industrial life of this borough, it has for a long period been a necessitous one; whether he is aware that for the current half-year the precept levied for educational purposes is over one-sixth of the total rates for the borough; and whether he will recommend an increase in the basis of grant for this area?

I will answer these questions together. The fact, stated in the first question, that the National Exchequer already defrays approximately 80 per cent. of the cost of teachers' salaries in West Ham seems to be a sufficient answer to the suggestion, made in the second question, that the grant should be increased. My right hon. Friend has received a communication on the subject from the West Ham Authority, but he is afraid that he does not see his way to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of either of the questions.

Naval Officers' Marriage Allowance

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the long delay in the decision as to marriage allowances for naval officers, he will consider the desirability of making these allowances retrospective when the grant is made?

I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Is it not a fact that the money required for this purpose has been already granted by this House?

I have already answered a question of that sort. A Vote has been passed by this House for £350,000.

Are they going to get interest on the money which is being withheld from them?

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any forecast as to when he will be able to make a statement?

India

Mandalay Gaol (Bengal Prisoners)

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is satisfied that the conditions obtaining in the Mandalay Gaol, where the Bengal political prisoners are confined, are satisfactory from the point of view of health and decency?

I have made inquiry and am satisfied that the few Bengal prisoners confined in the Mandalay Gaol are well-treated, and that the conditions of their confinement are healthy and comfortable. They have careful medical attendance, and there should be no occasion for complaint.

Have these political prisoners any form of recreation, and, if so, what?

The telegram which was sent in reply to one by the Secretary of State asking for information on this point states that for recreation the prisoners have lawn tennis, badminton, ping-pong, dumb-bells, Sandow developers, and also a plunge bath.

Post Office (Woomesh Chandra Sarker)

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India has received a petition from Woomesh Chandra Sarker, formerly clerk, General Post Office, Calcutta, in which the petitioner complains of unjust dismissal by the Indian Posts and Telegraph Department; whether he has considered the facts of the case and the evidence submitted by the petitioner; and whether, in all the circumstances of the case, he is prepared to grant an impartial inquiry into this matter?

Subadar Sheik Mohamad Hussain

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is aware that Subadar Sheik Mohamad Hussain, of the 114th Mahratta Light Infantry, rejoined the combined Labour Corps, Dadar, Bombay, in 1917, after a medical board had found him fit for service; that subsequently, while on active service, he contracted a lingering disease that rendered him unfit for further service; that he was accordingly discharged after a service of two years and 15 days with a certificate of exemplary conduct; that he died subsequently of the said disease; that his widow and children were refused a family pension on the ground that there was no proof of the cause of the deceased's death, although a medical certificate from a qualified doctor who attended him till death and the testimony of four of the deceased subadar's brother officers were produced before the controller of military accounts in India; and whether he will have this case looked into and a pension awarded to the deceased's widow?

I have no information, but there is no reason to suppose that the authorities in India have not dealt suitably with this matter. Special inquiry can be made if the hon. Member so desires.

Washington Treaty (Root Resolutions)

asked the Secretary of State for Foregn Affairs whether he can state if any progress has been made by the French Senate towards the ratification of the Root Resolutions of the Washington Treaty, providing for the safety of the crews and passengers of merchant steamers in war time?

My latest information is that no progress has been made towards the ratification by France of the Treaty embodying these resolutions.

Could not the Foreign Office make some representation to France as to the horror with which this kind of warfare is regarded in this country?

I think that the French Government are quite aware of the views which are held.

Bulgaria (Volunteer Troops)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allies are taking steps to ensure that no armed civilians or Fascist troops are maintained in Bulgaria after 31st May in excess of the numbers of regular troops and gendarmerie allowed by the Treaty of Neuilly?

Of the 13,000 volunteers whom the Bulgarian Government were permitted to raise for the purpose of restoring order after the outrage at the Cathedral at Sofia, 3,000 have already been disbanded. On 31st May the Bulgarian Government were informed that they were required to disband the remaining 10,000 within 48 hours. The Bulgarian Government have given the necessary orders.

Italian Ambassador (Diplomatic Bags)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any limitation on the weight or number of diplomatic bags admitted with diplomatic immunity into this country for the Italian ambassador; and, if so, what these limitations are?

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

In view of the activities of the foreign organisation known as the British Fascisti, will the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs look into the matter?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are gentlemen parading in London in uniforms—in black shirts—openly advocating violence?

Is it recognised that we are going to give opportunities to people to advocate violence openly in this country? If the right hon. Gentleman goes to Hyde Park, he will hear them advocating it—the people with the black shirts.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Arising out of the original answer, may I ask whether our representative in Moscow has similar privileges with regard to his correspondence?

Pilgrimages to Mecca

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the present political position in the Hejaz?

Hostilities continue in the Hejaz between Ibn Saud and King Ali without effecting much change in the general situation. The most recent information received from His Majesty's Agent and Consul at Jeddah is to the effect that an armed steamer belonging to the Hejaz Government bombarded the coast near Rabigh on the 31st of May. Rabigh is a town near the sea coast north of Jeddah and is in the possession of Ibn Saud. It was the intention of a number of Indian pilgrims to travel to Mecca via Rabigh, and some are already on their way. The bombardment of Rabigh raises the problem of the desirability of recommending the discontinuance of the pilgrim traffic and this question is at present engaging attention. The pilgrims left India against the warnings of the Government of India which did not fail to point out the dangers involved in making the pilgrimage in present circumstances. His Majesty's Government adhere to their traditional policy of non-interference in religious matters and are resolved to avoid intervention in any struggle for the possession of the Holy Places of Islam except in so far as may be necessary for the protection of British interests.

Is it not possible for His Majesty's Government to take the line of protecting these pilgrimages, in order to afford the facilities which are given elsewhere for the exercise of religion?

I think the point raised is covered by the answer which I have just given.

Poor Law Institutions (Oakum Picking)

asked the Minister of Health whether any, and, if so, what boards of guardians and vagrancy committees before the making of the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, expressed their desire to the Ministry of Health that stone-pounding or oakum picking should be placed among the prescribed tasks; and what did they indicate to be their object in so doing?

asked the Minister of Health whether he has decided to abolish the practice of oakum picking in Poor Law institutions?

The reply is in the negative. The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the Order of 1925 was mainly a consolidating Order. Oakum picking has been a prescribed task for many years and stone-pounding was included in view of the fact that a large number of unions had authority to use this task. My right hon. Friend proposes to indicate to boards of guardians that the task of oakum picking should not in future be imposed.

Will the hon. Gentleman state whether the answer in the negative refers to question 72?

What is the constitution of the boards of guardians which still impose oakum picking? Are they not mostly composed of supporters of the present Government?

Will the hon. Gentleman consider substituting for these conditions the conditions that are allowed to political prisoners in Indian prisons?

Apprentices (Constructional Trades)

asked the Minister of Labour if his Department has any statistics referring to the number of apprentices in the various trades connected with constructional work, such as vehicle building, engineering, etc.; whether he is aware of the number of boys entering workshops who do not serve anything in the nature of an apprenticeship, and that at about 16 years of age. they are engaged upon repetition work which continues until they are 21, when they are discharged; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter?

The information available is not sufficiently definite or complete to enable a return to be compiled giving the statistics desired by the hon. Member regarding the number of apprentices in the industries mentioned. I am, however, aware that a considerable number of boys employed in these industries do not serve an apprenticeship and that many of them are employed on repetition work, but there is no evidence indicating that they are normally discharged at 21. I hope that the inquiry which is now being carried out by the Ministry into the question of apprenticeship and training will materially supplement the information at present in my possession.

Mr. H. Homer (Arrest)

( by Private Notice )asked the Home Secretary by whose instructions Mr. Harry Homer was arrested and brought from Ramsgate to London by police officers and interrogated by other police officers at New Scotland Yard, and who authorised police officers to enter and search Mr. Homer s house; whether such proceedings are legal with- out a magistrate's warrant or summons first being issued; whether it is now an established practice for police officials to examine prisoners arrested in this manner, and whether the statements made by such prisoners to police officers at secret hearings may be used against the prisoner, and is a person so interrogated liable to any penalties for refusing to answer?

Information having been received that an official document had, without authority, been sent to Harry Homer, a well-known Communist, for the purpose of its transmission to "the other side,"—

As to the question of what is "the other side," I may inform the House that Homer, in reply to interrogation, admitted it was Moscow. Information, as I say, having been received to this effect, the Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police issued a warrant, under Section 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, authorising his house to be searched, and, the document having been found in his house as a result of the search, he was arrested under Section 6 of the same Act. It is always open to police officers to interrogate any person, whether suspected or not, from whom they think that useful information in regard to a crime may be obtained; but if the person interrogated is likely to be charged with a crime, he is first cautioned in the usual manner. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920.

No, Sir: I am glad to be able to inform the House that when we got the document it was found to be an old edition of a certain naval annual. In the circumstances, the plot having failed, we did not proceed and let the man go. [ Laughter ].

Are we to understand that the house of any British subject may be raided in this manner; that any British subject may be taken by police officers without any warrant whatever and charged merely on suspicion, and that he has no remedy except a statement such as that just made by the Home Secretary and received as a joke in an assembly which is supposed to protect the liberties of British subjects?

If the Home Secretary or the police authorities have reason to believe that an official document has been improperly conveyed to any other person for the purpose of being sent out of the country, the Commissioner of Police is fully entitled to issue a warrant for searching the house where the document is believed to be.

The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that there' was no warrant issued—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

The hon. Member cannot make a statement. He can only ask a question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no warrant was issued, or read to this person? Is he also aware that this is the second occasion on which the Secret Service of this country have made big fools of themselves, and inflicted wrong upon citizens? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that less than 18 months ago the same people searched the offices of a newspaper on the same flimsy excuse, and obtained no results whatever, and will he in future employ intelligent officers to do such work?

The hon. Member is wrong in his assumption. A warrant was issued, and it was under that warrant that the search was made.

It was not issued by a magistrate. You know this. You are only quibbling about it.

The law gives the Commissioner of Police in certain cases power to issue a warrant, and when it is issued the warrant is executed.

This matter cannot now be discussed. It may be discussed on the Home Office Vote.

China (Disturbances)

Statement by Mr. Mcneill

(by Private Notice )asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was consulted before the recent firing in China; what are the numbers of our casualties; how many Chinese have been killed by the British forces; whether representations have been made to him by the Chinese Government, and whether he has any statement to make in the matter?

( by Private Notice )asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what action has been taken or is contemplated by the Government in connection with the troubles in China and whether he is able to make a statement on the position?

I must apologise to the House for the length of the reply, but, in view of the situation, I thought it well to deal with the matter fully.

The answer to the first part of the question put by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) is in the negative. It is obvious that the international authorities on the spot, faced by a situation of sudden and imminent danger to life and property, could not wait to obtain instructions from their Governments before taking the necessary steps to restore law and order. I am still awaiting detailed information regarding the first collisions between the students and the police, but it appears that the first volley was fired at the moment when the student mob were forcing entrance into the police station with cries of "Kill the foreigner." I deeply regret that this attack by the forces of disorder should have been conducted behind a screen of misguided students, but the British Consul-General at Shanghai, with whom I understand that his United States, French, Italian and Japanese colleagues are in full agreement, reports that the police showed the greatest patience and could not have acted otherwise than they did.

No British casualties have been reported. The Chinese casualties in the attack on the police station on the 31st May are reported as 23, of which seven were fatal. Next day bodies of students and rioters in the Nanking road district attempted to renew attacks on the police and volunteer patrols. In one case where stones were thrown a patrol fired and inflicted 13 casualties. What proportion, if any, were fatal, has not yet been reported.

Representations have been made by the Chinese Government both to the diplomatic body and direct to His Majesty's Government. We are confident that the Chinese Government. who have despatched two high officials to Shanghai to investigate the facts, are anxious to cooperate with the other governments concerned in reaching an equitable and satisfactory solution of this deplorable affair. The diplomatic body at Peking on their side have already, in order to give what assistance they can to this end, sent representatives to Shanghai to examine the situation and submit a report.

Meanwhile there are two observations I should like to make. In the first place, law and order must be restored and maintained in the international settlements. The British officials on the spot who are engaged in that task will receive all the support from His Majesty's Government that may be necessary.

In the second place, His Majesty's Government desire to express their sympathy with the Chinese people and their deep regret that lives should have been lost as the result of misguided agitations. The policy of His Majesty's Government towards China—a country whose traditions and civilisation we admire, with whose national aspirations we are in sympathy, which was our Ally in the War, and with which we are united by close and long-standing ties—is animated by one single concern; that China should become peaceful and prosperous. We recognise an obligation to help her in this task, and we look forward to the approaching Tariff Conference to give us an opportunity, in co-operation with the other Powers, to do so. His Majesty's Government trust that in the meantime nothing will be done to prejudice or postpone these hopes.

Was the origin of the trouble at Shanghai, a labour dispute arising in a foreign mill. If so, what were the circumstances of the dispute, and will the Government give an account of them to the House?

I would rather that the right hon. Gentleman did not press me on that point at present, and for this reason. There are very conflicting accounts as to what the actual origin was, and I am not certain that I could give a wholly accurate answer. But I may perhaps say that the policy of His Majesty's Government for a long time past has been to use their influence in China for the amelioration of labour conditions in that country.

Would the right hon. Gentleman make clear, in answer to a question, what are the hours of labour and what wages are paid in the mills in China?

I shall be glad to give this information if a question is put down, but I cannot give it offhand.

Am I to understand that His Majesty's Government are inquiring as to the possibility of an industrial origin for this trouble, and, if so, when may we have a reply on that question?

We are inviting the very fullest information with regard to the whole incident. I could not at present say when we shall be in a position to give fuller information, but I shall be glad to inform my right hon. Friend at any time when we have information to impart to the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the condition of mills in China is an old subject, and has he specifically put down a question on that point to the Consul-General when asking for information?

If I am pressed for an answer, I do not think that we have put that specific question But when my right hon. Friend says that it is an old question, I must not be taken as admitting that it is the sole cause of the outbreak. I think that it is one among many causes which are inextricably intermingled, and it would be very difficult at present to assign a precise proportion to the various factors which have brought about the present position.

Can the right hon. Gentleman immediately demand information with regard to the origin of the outbreak? How soon does he expect to be able to get information which he can lay before the House? Does he expect to be able to lay it next week?

Of course, we will make inquiries from His Majesty's representatives there, and I have no doubt that, in the course of a few days, we shall get such information as they may possess, but I am not sure that anybody on the spot could be in a position to say exactly what the cause of the outbreak was, or to attribute the proper proportions between the various causes.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman heard that the origin of the outbreak was the killing of a Chinaman in one of the foreign mills? T will repeat my question early next week, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will then have fuller information.

Anglo-French Agreement

( by Private Notice )asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to lay Papers regarding the agreement that has been come to with France?

I hope to be in a position to reply on the return of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I hope that will be the latter part of next week.

Will it be early enough for us to have a debate in the House next week?

I will consider that. I am afraid he will not be back until Wednesday or Thursday, but I will get into communication with him, and let the Leader of the Opposition know.

Imported Lace

Proposed Duty

( by Private Notice )asked the Prime Minister if he has any further statement to make as-to the business it is intended to take during this week?

As I informed the House on the 27th May, we propose to begin the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to-day, and to continue it to-morrow. In connection, however, with the business on Thursday, I desire to announce that the Government have decided to adopt the unanimous recommendations of the Lace and Embroidery Committee which was appointed in March last. The recommendations confirmed those made by the Committee when they sat in 1923, and, as the House will recollect, they are to the effect that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem should" be imposed on the imports into this country of lace of all kinds, and. embroidery as denned in the Report

The necessary Resolution embodying these recommendations will be put on the Paper immediately, and, instead of continuing the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on Thursday, as was first proposed, we shall submit this Resolution for discussion in Committee of Ways and Means on that day.

Will the 33⅓ per cent. be applicable to artificial lace in addition to-the duty imposed by the tariff?

Will there be any opportunity such as is, I believe, usual on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, to discuss this new tax in relation to the other proposed taxes of the year?

There will be an opportunity one the Committee stage of the Resolution, on the Report stage, and during the Finance Bill.

But will there be an opportunity to discuss this tax as an integral part of the whole financial; proposals of the Budget?

I should say, on the spur of the moment, that that particular form of discussion would not be possible, but it must rest with the Chair.

Is there any precedent for introducing a, tax of primary importance after the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?

I should not call this a tax of primary importance, and my hon. and gallant Friend will remember that this was the new form of procedure by which we proposed to carry out the safeguarding of industries, on the ground that it gave the House a great deal more possibility, both for discussion and division, than was possible under the Safeguarding of Industries Act under the Coalition Government.

When the Prime Minister made that point, as he did in Debate, did he not specifically name the Second Reading of the Finance Bill as one of the occasions on which new taxation could be discussed?

I think it would be extremely unlikely that I mentioned the Second Reading discussion. In Committee and on Report the opportunities are innumerable, but I could not hope to satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend.

Bills Reported

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,

Walsall Corporation Bill,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed

Orders of the Day

Finance Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—( Duty on tea. )

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) and other hon. Members—in page 1, line 19, to leave out from the word "shall" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "cease, as from that date, to be payable"—amounts to a direct negative of the Clause.

On a point of Order. I think it would be for the convenience of Members to know if you intend, Captain FitzRoy, to call the Amendment standing in my name, to reduce the duty to twopence instead of to one penny, as is proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), or should we take the opportunity of putting our point of view on this Amendment?

I think it would save the time of the Committee if the hon. and gallant Member would make his comments on this particular Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, to leave out the word "fourpence," and to insert instead thereof the words "one penny."

The proposal for the reduction of this duty has been so often before the House in various forms as to amount now almost to a hardy annual. Last year, however, there was such a practical application of the principles for which we have asked that we are led to hope that a little more pressure on our part may lead ultimately to the eradication of this duty, which is the object we have in view. The Amendment is for a reduction from the present fourpence per pound to one penny. Last year there was a total reduction of four-pence on the tax as it then was, at 8d. per pound. For some five or six years, from 1915 to 1921, the tax was standing at 1s. per pound. Last year, it is true, the reduction was so considerable as to bring the amount of the tax below that which was levied in the year immediately prior to the War. There has been very considerable criticism of the Labour Chancellor's proposal last year regarding this duty, of which I think it may be worth while reminding the Committee in order to deal with the arguments which will arise in connection with this Amendment. It was held that the reduction by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) on that occasion was very largely negatived or wiped out by the action of the tea suppliers in the raising of the price of tea.

4.0 P.M.

As a matter of fact, the price was not raised immediately; indeed, it would be true to say that after the tax had run, its course for a number of months—for example, up to January—it had caused the average price of tea to be 2s. 5½d. in place of the average price of 2s. 6½d. at the same period in the previous year. That means that even at that period, in January, the 4d. reduction had resulted apparently in only an alleviation of 1d. per 1b. in the price to the consumer. I want to point out that there was in existence a series of other factors that must be taken into account if the price level of tea 12 months ago is to be properly understood. It is our contention that a Customs Duty on any article, and particularly on an article like tea, which may be regarded as a necessity, puts so many obstacles in the way of private traders, and places so many additions to the cost of production that it becomes difficult for the small trader in the general competitive field to operate against those who are more favourably placed. A Customs Duty of this sort is always a protection to the big trader, the trader well backed with finance, because it gives him. if he be a single trader or if he be working in a trust, a special advantage in comparison to the smaller trader, and it is my contention that as long as the tax upon tea remains those who deal in tea will be assisted in their power to corner the commodity and to charge a price out of all proportion to the cost of production.

A very important part of the contention which I wish to put forward is that the continued existence of any tax upon this commodity must assist not so much in the lowering of the price to the consumer as in the highering of the profits that are taken by the traders. I contend that the very high profits that have been received in recent years by the tea-trading companies are largely the result of the advantage which the tax gives to them. For example, you have the Consolidated lea and Lands Company trading in the period 1922–23 making a profit of £626,000 and giving ultimately 50 per cent, per annum on the ordinary shares; the Dooars Tea Company, Limited, with net profits of £192,000 in the same period and also paying 50 per cent, interest on the ordinary shares; and the Eastern Assam Tea Company with £79,000 net profits in the same period and 50 per cent, interest on the ordinary shares. I will not weary the House by doing so, but I could give a list of most of the large tea trading companies which paid in interest upon the ordinary shares anywhere from 25 to 50 per cent, during that same period. We believe that the retention of a tax upon tea assists these processes by which traders can make trusts and can charge high prices, and, while it may be true that last year when the tax was reduced, the whole of the benefit did not go to the consumer, we believe that, if the tax could be entirely eradicated and there could be in reality a system of free trading among those engaged in the supply of tea, it is highly likely that then the remission of taxation would go entirely to those who consume the tea.

We feel that the tax upon tea possesses all the demerits that are usually associated with indirect taxation. I think it was Professor Bar-stable who in his work on public finance said that the great demerits—indeed, he rather considered it as a merit—of indirect taxation such as this Customs Duty upon tea was that it was not felt by the payer and did not cause him any great amount of annoyance. Is that a merit so far as taxation is concerned? I feel that at the present time one of the things that people need to realise more than anything else is the amount of tax that they individually are contributing to the community. The Income Tax payers have made their voice felt very considerably in the complaint that they have with regard to the tax that they are paying. The Tea Tax payer does not speak so volubly, because, as Professor Barstable says, the tax has been created so as to cause him the minimum amount of annoyance. Usually, a man who buys tea feels that the tax is entirely concealed in the price. He looks upon the total amount that he pays as something that covers the cost of production of the tea and forgets entirely that he is having extracted from him a certain contribution to the upkeep of the community. As Gaudin, one of the French public financiers once put it, the best tax is that which most effectually disguises its nature. We feel that that point of view is entirely mistaken, particularly at the present moment after all the false financial methods that were embarked upon during the War and since. If the working people who are compelled to pay taxes could feel what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really extracting from them, they would probably question a great deal more closely than they do the unfair way in which taxation is distributed among the general members of the community. Unfortunately, what many Chancellors of the Exchequer seem to have in mind and what I believe the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind, although I will let him speak for himself, is that the working class should be taxed in such a form that they are not compelled to think when they pay the tax. Too much thinking on the part of the working people might be a very unfortunate quality at the present time.

We are very desirous that in all processes of taxation that are decided upon in this House those who pay the tax should ultimately know exactly what they are contributing towards the general welfare of the community. We make the further charge with regard to this issue that a tax of this sort is designed to place loads upon some people so that they are felt much more burdensome than in the case of others upon whom the same tax is placed. When a man pays a tax upon income those things that he feels necessary for his consumption he can still keep untaxed, because he pays the Income Tax out of the margin that he sets aside for general expenditure. But when the community decides that all people, irrespective of their class, their needs, and their wants, shall pay so much upon a commodity which they consume, such as tea, the burdensomeness of the tax is very much higher in some cases than in others. For that reason, we suggest that this tax, in common with indirect taxation generally, ought to be wiped out, and that all taxes should be in a form of Income Tax, so that people may know, especially those who have the capacity to pay, exactly what it is they do pay.

Adam Smith, in discussing this matter, put forward the view that a tax upon tea, indeed indirect taxation generally, has this merit, that the individual who paid the tax was at liberty to buy or not to buy as he might please. There has been deduced from that by some economists the view that indirect taxation is voluntary taxation, and I have heard the argument in this House that there is no particular burdensomeness about a tax upon tea because if those who consume tea desired they could do without it and then they would find no burdensomeness in the tax whatever. I contest that view. It may be true with regard to some kinds of commodities upon which indirect taxation is levied that the amount of the tax can be avoided easily by giving up the commodity upon which the tax is collected. I do not suppose that we shall all agree, but it would certainly be true from my point of view with regard to a tax upon intoxicants. There, indeed, taxes may be regarded as voluntary, unless the individual has become so much a slave to intoxicants that re can no longer do without their consumption. But, apart from that exceptional case, it may be true with regard to taxes on beer, wines, and spirits that there is something in the nature of a voluntary tax, but, it is not at all true with regard to the tax collected on tea consumed by great numbers of the working classes.

In hon. Members realised what is the position in many working-class homes to-day with regard to this question of the consumption of tea, I am sure that they would never insist upon the view that it is easy to do without paying the tax if the individual desires by not buying the tea. What is the position in many of the poorer homes at the present time? People there do not eat the full meals that more fortunate individuals, such as those who are in this House, are able to get for themselves. The full meal of meat or of vegetables rarely comes the way of many working-class families at the present time. Theirs is a meal that too often consists of bread and margarine, it may be helped out with a little jam. That is the type of meal some hundreds of thousands of mothers in this country regularly have, and not the meal such as we ourselves are accustomed to have, and the only way that the people can help themselves out with a diet of that kind is by the addition of something like tea, in order to make the meal a little more palatable than otherwise would be the case. I am pretty certain that if hon. Members were in the habit of having meals of the sort I have described, they would feel that the consumption of tea was very far removed from a luxury, or even of a semi-luxury, and would realise it to be an absolute necessity in order to make the meal that the working-class people consume possible for them at all. When you put a tax on tea, you are taxing a very definite necessity: you are taxing the women's food; you are taxing the children's food, and I do not believe there can be any satisfactory solution of this problem until we have entirely removed the tax upon tea.

There is another point with regard to this particular tax which I would put before the Committee in a quite tentative way, namely, the influence of a tax upon tea in preventing the substitution of something better as a national drink for many of the intoxicating liquors that are now consumed. I believe hon. Members on the other side, or at least many of them, have been willing to embark upon such temperance reform as would enable some diminution of intoxicating liquors through the high tax that is charged upon those liquors. At least I can appeal to those who take that view, when it is discovered that tea, which has not the demerits of intoxicating drink, can be taken, and is taken, in large quantities by the people of this country, that there is some case if you put a high tax upon intoxicants for removing the tax upon a liquor that could become very effectively a substitute. I believe the development of tea-shops in London and elsewhere has been among some of the best means of inculcating these views of any of the modern organisations, and the cheaper we can have tea and commodities of that sort served up in those institutions, the more are we likely—and I believe this view has been expressed by hon. Members on the other side of the House—to provide a positive substitute, a positive means of preventing much of the imbibing of intoxicating liquor that goes on.

From every point of view, then—from the point of view of tea being a. necessity, from the point of view of tea being an effective substitute for the purpose of drinking, from the point of view that a tax upon tea is not equal in the burdens that are imposed upon the different individuals who pay the tax, I suggest the time has come for the eradication of this tax. But, in order to conform with the usages of this House, although intending the eradication of the tax, I move that the tax be reduced from 4d. a lb., at which it now stands, to 1d.

I intended to move my own Amendment to reduce the tax from 4d. to 2d., but as the Amendment of my hon. Friend has been moved, I intend to vote for his Amendment, and I take it my hon. Friends who support me will do the same. I will very briefly give the reasons, without going too much over the ground so very ably covered, if I may say so, by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I, also, would like to see the Tea Duty swept away, but as it would be out of order now to move that, we do the next best thing, and propose to reduce it to a penny. Tea is not a luxury at all. The day when it was considered a luxury has gone. The day when it was a cherished article imported in small quantities, and only used by the wealthy classes, has gone by altogether. Now we get cheap tea in ever increasing quantities. In 1923, the latest year for which I have the figures, the amount of tea consumed in this country was 387,000,000 lbs., or nearly 8 lbs. per head of the population, and the amount used proportionately by the wage-earning classes is greater than that consumed by the more well-to-do, because the more well-to-do can afford coffee, wine and spirits. It is very largely a staple drink, and a much greater proportion is, therefore, consumed by the poorer classes. Therefore, the tax is particularly heavy on those classes, and, especially in these times of bad trade and falling wages, it would be just to reduce the tax accordingly.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the prices of commodities are falling. Yes, but very slowly. I think the figures show that the fall in wages in the last three years has been greater than the fall in prices. I do not think the prices of artificial silk, or mercerised cotton, or other substitutes for silk are likely to fall for some time. However, we shall have the opportunity of discussing that in the small hours of the morning or to-morrow. But tea prices, certainly, are not falling, and I think the general price level has not fallen proportionately to the wage level throughout the country during the years of the slump. It was inevitable and could not be avoided, but we in this House can help to reduce the cost of living directly by removing this onerous burden on tea. I am aware that the tax has been reduced, and I suppose we shall be told, as usual, that it was increased in 1916 to 1s. a lb, and remained at that level until 1922. But the circumstances then were quite abnormal. We may also be told that very substantial reductions were given by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. That is all very true. Very substantial reductions were made then, but still further relief should be given, and I think one argument that should appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that this would do something to reconcile the womenfolk of the country, whom he is hitting so very hardly by his silk duties. This would be something of a set off, and might save him the loss of a few seats at by-elections, where the women vote is likely to go against him.

We may also be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if we reduce the tax to 1d. it will be impossible to give a preference, or a large preference. On the preference question, I hope to say a few words when we come to discuss the whole Clause, but I will only say, in passing, that the preference has been of very little use, because the amount of China tea that enters the country remains practically the same, and the amount of Java tea has, of course, actually increased in quantity since the preference was given to Indian tea. Furthermore, without going largely into the subject now, I may say we have not received any reciprocal treatment for this preference, and a very huge tariff is being put on steel and cotton goods entering India at the present time. In these circumstances, I do not think the preference argument should be used for keeping on this tax. For all these reasons, I think it would be only just and right to reduce the present tax of 4d. to 1d., and I shall without hesitation support my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment.

The hon. Member who moved the Amendment stated to us with engaging candour that it was a hardy annual, and that indeed is the fact. Everyone will sympathise with the great proportion of the arguments which he used. Tea is not a luxury. It is a basic comfort, one of the most primary comforts of the very poorest people in the land, and, as such, a reduction in the Tea Duty can always be regarded—and rightly regarded—as a benevolent step administering towards the general well-being, contentment and health of the people as a whole. But the very force of these arguments has made its influence felt upon the financial legislation of the last few years, and we have seen a succession of mitigations of the Tea Duty. It has been reduced three times since the War. It is now lower than it was before the War. Tea stands out, at any rate, as an exception in that it is actually in a better position now than it was before the War, and the Tea Duty was halved last year by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.

We must regard the historical aspect of the case. I recognise, of course, the arguments which have been used, but there is no subject which has been treated in a greater spirit of mitigation than the duty upon tea. The right hon. Gentleman made this remission of approximately 3½d. on the pound of tea. It cost something like £5,000,000 to the revenue. It did not all reach the consumer. Of course, it is very difficult to argue whether, if the Tea Duty had not been taken off, the rise would not have been greater. But it is the fact that if you make a sudden remission of the Tea Duty without enabling the production of tea, which is a very slow culture, to be developed proportionately, you get an immediate expansion of demand and a consequent rise in the price, because the supply to meet that demand is not immediately forthcoming. Anyhow the fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman, with benevolent intentions—intentions on which I have not a single, word of criticism to pass—gave away over £5,000,000 of revenue by the reduction of 3½d. in the Tea Duty while the present price of tea only represents a penny reduction to the consumer, so that it is a disappointing result in a sense, although it may be that that will be repaired in future months or future years by the movements of the market.

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment raised wider questions than those immediately connected with the Tea Duty. He said, in the first place, that he wished all indirect taxation swept away. Of course, that is a policy, but it is certainly not the policy of His Majesty's Government. He pointed out that indirect taxation within certain limits may hardly be appreciable to the individual, and he quoted high economic authority for saying that it was very important that the individual should know exactly what he is paying. If we lived in an entirely ideal state of society, those arguments might be applicable, but at the present time, when the business of gathering taxes imposed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a rough and painful business, we cannot accept as a fundamental canon of our taxation that you must always raise your taxation in. the manner producing the greatest amount of dissatisfaction. That would be going too far.

The hon. Member must consider the great remissions that have been made in those taxes, and he must also consider and remember that he or his friends, sitting as they were on these benches, made exactly similar proposals last year to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, and they were answered with great effect by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), in resisting the Amendment moved by the Liberal party, who then, as now, were not concerned with the responsibility of finding the necessary money for public expenditure, he pointed out that the indirect taxpayers were now paying a smaller proportion of the total taxation revenue than ever before, that the benefits they received under social legislation had been greatly extended, that the duty on tea was now less than it was before the War, that a further decrease of the duty would be likely to give rise to such an increase of demand as to cause an altogether disproportionate movement of prices, and, finally, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not afford the loss of revenue involved, which would upset the balance of his Budget. It is almost a quotation from one of my own speeches of recent times, and I cannot do better than leave it there.

The effect of the diminution of the Tea Duty has been much more serious on the Revenue than the benefit to the consumer. But at the same time some of that benefit has reached the consumer, and to that extent the benefit is measured in the only way you can measure it, not in pounds, shillings or pence or by percentage statements, but by quantitative statements of the amount actually consumed. I am glad to say that there was a steady increase in that amount. In the year 1923–4, 381,000,000 lbs. were consumed, while in 1924–25, after the remissions of last year's Budget, it rose to 393,000,000 lbs. consumed, and beneficially consumed to the advantage of the people. I may mention that in this wicked Budget, introduced by the cruel dispensation over which I preside, we are estimating for 395,000,000 lbs. in the current year, or 2,000,000 lbs. more to be consumed by the masses of the people than were consumed even under the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

In these circumstances, if you take, on the one hand, the great remissions that have been made, the last of them last year, and that the Tea Duty now stands lower than before the War, and when you consider the consuming power of the people quantitatively judged, I think we may fairly say that we must leave this matter where it 1s for the present time or for the present year. If I could afford this sacrifice of 54,800,000 in a full year,. or of £3,500,000 in the present year, I could see many other social purposes to which I could with much better effect put this money than to the abolition or the diminution of the Tea Duty.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not do me the honour of reading the> Debate on the Resolution a few weeks ago, because ii he had I do not think he would have made some of the statements he made this afternoon. He first erred with regard to my right hon. Friend's action in giving away money last year for the consumer of tea, which he said did not reach the consumer in the price of the article. I think I was able to show the House, when discussing the first Resolution, that that was not the case. He will remember that the standard rate of tax was reduced by 4d. but, owing to the Empire Preference, the actual remission was only 3⅔d. The whole of the 4d. was given, however, at once in the price of the article. The wholesalers of tea undoubtedly suffered a considerable loss in passing on the whole of the 4d. including the Empire grown proportion. We on these benches sometimes criticise very strongly the big business people, and we need to be fair in giving credit where credit is due. A study of the market for some years past will, I think, convince the Chancellor that the fluctuations on the market with regard to the price of tea have nothing at all to do with the imposition or the remission of taxation on tea in this House. I have said on two or three occasions in this House that the real governing factor in the fluctuations in the price of tea in the last 12 months arose from causes which had begun to operate even before the introduction of last year's Budget. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken the trouble to ask in tea trade circles, whether there was a move in January and February. 1924, to negotiate for forward contracts with a view to keeping tea off the market and cornering it? Can he not trace the results of those actual operations in the price to the consumer later on in the year? We who are connected with the consumers' organisation in the country, selling perhaps more tea than any other entity engaged in the business, know that if it had not been for the existence of a consumers' organisation the position would have been far more serious. The attempt to corner the market in that way has been broken. At the present time the average price of tea, taken over the whole grades of the different kinds of tea, is not really higher than was the case last year after allowing for the remission of the duty.

I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to look up those figures. He can then demonstrate for himself that—

My figures are as follow: In April, 1924, the average price paid by the working class was 2s. 6½d. Then it dropped with the remissions straight away to 2s. 3¼d., showing that the remission went through. Then it gradually rose up, and in February it reached 2s. 5¾d. It is now 2s. 5½d. Those are the latest figures I have been able to get.

Let me inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the real position is. I am taking now the wholesale price of the tea. In January, 1924, the average price was 1s. 6d., and it was the same for February and March, and right on up to July. In July it was 1s. 6½d., in August 1s. 7d., in September 1s. 9½d., in October 1s. ll¾d., and in November 1s. l1d. Then in January it was 1s. 8d., in February 1s. 6½d., in March 1s. 5½d., and now it is about 1s. 5d. He will see, therefore, if he looks at it, that at the present time, allowing for the fluctuations in between, the whole of the value of the remission of taxation of my right hon. Friend's Budget last year now falls to foe passed on to the consumer direct. That was the main reason why I got up to reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. I do not want to traverse the whole ground which has already been well put by the Mover of the Amendment, but there is one other thing in the Chancellor's statement to which I want to draw attention. He quoted a statement) of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham).

He was making a Treasury defence of a provision in the Budget by which they had provided for lowering the duty, but could not afford any further provision. He was also making that speech in defence of a Budget in which they had not decreased the Super-tax—

Yes, but not in a Budget which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is defending on the ground. that it is broadening the basis of taxation. That was the Chancellor's argument. The salient point I wish to bring: to the right hon. Gentleman's attention: is this. He quoted my right hon. Friends as having said that before the War indirect taxation was higher than it was in the Budget last year, but I would point out that since the War the whole position with regard to the distribution of wealth has been changed. In speaking on the Resolution on this question a few weeks ago, I said it had been demonstrated once more that war always makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. There has not been a single report of any consequence from the Board of Inland Revenue since 1917 which has not demonstrated that to be a fact. Even if indirect taxation were considerably lower than it is to-day, still in relation to the distribution of wealth among the classes of the community the pressure of indirect taxation would be such that it, would be borne by people least able to bear it in relation to the rest of the community. In the Labour party we shall continue to stand for the removal altogether of indirect taxation, and for the imposition of taxation upon each individual in the community upon the basis of Ms ability to pay.

The Chancellor's defence of his refusal to accept this Amendment was rather a milk-and-water one, if I may use such a term, for a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had, as it were, a foot in the past. He could not break away altogether from his old Liberal convictions. He said he would have been glad to do what we ask if it had been possible. I wish he would go back to some of those great speeches of his—some of them made in Oldham before he changed over, in 1905–6—about the burden of taxation being placed upon the backs least able to bear it. If he would have a little more regard for those views now, I think we should get far more consideration from him than we are getting generally in this Budget.

I would like to add a few words to the observations of the hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division (Mr. A. V. Alexander) on the unsympathetic reply we have received from the Chancellor. The reply of the Chancellor amounts to this, he cannot do -anything in the matter. He went so far as to say that even if he were in a position to spare the money for this reduction, he could find many better ways of utilising £5,000,000 than by reducing the Tea Duty. It was a pity he did not think of those things when he was making his concessions to the Super-tax payers. I agree with those who have said that the claim for a reduction of the Tea Duty is becoming a hardy annual in this House, and no doubt that, or the relay system among Members on the other side, accounts for the smallness of the attendance while we are discussing it this afternoon. This morning I looked through some of the previous Debates on this subject to try to find an original argument that had been used. I came across only one, and that was used in debate two years ago by the present Home Secretary, who at that time, in place of having the exciting job of hunting Communists down, filed the more prosaic post of Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He produced the most amazing argument I have yet read in these Debates. His argument was that it is desirable in the interests of good government that everybody shall take a share in the payment of the Tea Duty, which will give him a responsibility for government, and, in effect, make him a partner in the Government of the country. We on these benches have often wondered what Members on the other side meant by their frequent references to schemes of co-partnership between capital and labour. We have sometimes unkindly suggested that the co-partnership they had in mind was to say to the workers, "You do the work and we will take the profits." Evidently, however, their ideas go further than that. The idea in the mind of the present Home Secretary when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury was, "We do the governing, and you do the paying."

If taxes are to be imposed to give people responsibility, it seems to me it is an argument for direct taxation and not for indirect taxation, for it has been well said that by indirect taxation you can take the last rag off a man's back and he does not know what is making him poor. It is partly because of that that we on these benches are in favour, ultimately, of the abolition of all indirect taxation, and in particular of the removal of taxes on food. The strongest argument for that policy which has been used in recent years—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer tentatively ventured to put it forward this afternoon, although he was not very dogmatic about it—is that any reduction made by the abolition of this tax would be filched from the consumer by those financially interested in the production and distribution of tea.

It amazes me to hear an argument like that—that no matter what a Government does in the way of reducing the Tea Duty, the financial interests concerned in the business will see that the reduction does not reach the public. That seems to be an extraordinary argument to come from the benches where Members are sturdy defenders of capitalism. Surely there can be no stronger argument against the present profit-making system than to say that even a Government is helpless to see that when reductions are made in taxation they reach the people for whom they are intended. When, in the course of time, as the Chancellor said in a recent speech, it comes to our turn to cross over to the Government Benches—I hope in much larger numbers than when we were there last time—we shall, I am sure, address ourselves to this phase of the matter, in order to secure that when reductions are made they shall reach the consumer. The Chancellor went to great pains to point out in his Budget speech that his Budget must be viewed as a whole, each part balancing with another. He mentioned it a moment ago, for when the Member for Hillsborough referred to the relief given to Super-tax payers the Chancellor reminded him that he ought also to take into account the increase of the Death Duties. Viewing the Budget from that point of view, I would like to ask what concessions the great mass of the people have obtained from it? The reductions in Income Tax and Super-tax do not affect them, and there is not a single item in relief of the consumers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his tongue in his cheek, if he will forgive me for saying so, spoke the other week about the. broadening of the basis of taxation. We appeal to him to prove his sincerity by giving at least one small concession to the consumers of this country.

I feel rather embarrassed in rising from these benches, but there is not a single supporter of the Government, apparently, who is prepared to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his refusal to reduce this duty. The question has been raised this afternoon as to the relationship of direct and indirect taxation. Judging from the point of view of this Budget alone, nothing whatever has been done to reduce the amount of indirect taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had no money available in order to reduce these taxes. I have looked into the figures, and I find, according to his own statement, that the estimated yield of last year's taxes this year would have been £826,000,000. His estimate of this year's expenditure was something like £799,400,000, leaving in his hands the sum of £26,600,000. He wished to keep in hand a sum of £1,100,000, but there was, on that basis, a prospective surplus of £25,500,000. If we add to that the increased Death Duties, we should get available for distribution a sum of £30,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his anxiety that the direct taxpayer should not suffer any longer, reduces the Income Tax by £27,000,000. Even then he has available a. surplus of £3,000,000. Does he use that for the purpose of reducing indirect taxation? Certainly not. What is the position? The man who has a fairly good income, and can pay 2d. or 3d. more for his tea, if necessary, gets Income Tax relief to the extent of £27,000,000. The Super-tax payer, who can substitute for "tea something more palatable to him, perhaps, namely, wine or other similar things, gets a reduction of £6,700,000. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has no money available for reducing the burdens which the common working men and the common people of this country have to bear. I imagine the only real principle which underlies the applica- tion of indirect taxation is this, that indirect taxation should, as far as possible, be limited to those articles which are articles of luxury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is of opinion that silk is a luxury and artificial silk, too, and he may even think that tea is a luxury.

It is more than that. I will go further than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and say it is a basic necessary to the great majority of the people of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gives relief to the extent of £6,700,000 to 90,000 people who pay Super-tax, and he gives relief to the extent of £27,000,000 to 2,400,000 people who pay Income Tax; but 45,000,000 people, the majority of whom do not come in for those benefits, get no benefit at all. For these reasons I very strongly support the Amendment.

5.0 P.M.

I shall certainly support the Government, not because I am in the habit of doing so, but for the basic reason that I believe taxation should rest on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. I have gone to the trouble to obtain the opinions of one whom I know hon. Members on this side will accept without any question—I mean Sir Herbert Samuel, who used to make useful contributions to our Debates in matters of statistics, and in an address particularly on this question of the taxation of tea. I have his figures to prove that the taxation of tea rests with greater force upon the higher wage-earning classes than upon the poor. In 1903–4 the Board of Trade instituted inquiries as to the consuming capacity per annum of various grades of wage-earning classes, and the figures are as follows. Where the breadwinner was earning 21s. 4½d. it was found that in his family of five, 24·45 lbs. of tea were consumed. Where the wage-earner was obtaining 36s. 6¼d., his family of five consumed 28·40 lbs. The family of a wage-earner of 52s. ½d. consumed 29·45 lbs., and as the wages went higher so also the amount of tea consumed also increased. Those of us who are not in the habit of taking exciseable liquors feel that it is fair and just that we should contribute something by this means to taxation. I will quote figures for the later years to show that in every case the classes with higher wages consume more, and thus bear the greater portion of the tax, which to my mind, I repeat, is the most equitable position in respect to taxation. Take the Board of Trade figures for 1913–14. Those with incomes of £50 a year consumed 28.9 lbs. with a family of five. Those with £2 a week consumed 31.6 lbs., those with an income of £150 a year, 33.3 lbs., and those with £200 a year 35 lbs., all per annum. They were consuming more tea and therefore paying more tax. In 1918–19, the latest figures obtainable, exactly the same thing obtained. I suggest that while there may be objection—and I agree there is— to taxing the food of the people, where the money is required and where it can be spread across the shoulders best able to bear it, this is an equitable form of applying the tax.

I wish to support the Amendment and to give the Chancellor of Exchequer some considerations in favour of the reduction of the duty for reasons the very opposite of those advanced by the last speaker. The hon. Gentleman has argued that the justification for this tax is that it is being borne by the people who are best able to bear it, and he has cited as a reason for his argument that people who have slightly more wages than the lowest amount are larger consumers of tea, and therefore, he says, they are quite able to bear the tax. I cannot follow his argument.

May I remind the hon. Member that the tax amount is put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer exactly the same as his predecessor gave—a Labour Chancellor.

That is not disputed. The argument I am presenting is that, judged from the point of view of the universally accepted canon of taxtion that one should contribute according to one's ability, this 4d. a pound on tea is a thoroughly bad and unsound tax. We call upon the poorest person to contribute the full maximum tax, alongside the same amount contributed by the richest person in the land. That is a perfectly unsound principle of taxation. It has been argued that people who have slightly higher wages can consume more tea and that, therefore, they ought to pay the tax. In that way we might argue that the millionaire should pay a different tax in proportion to his income. That would be perfectly sound according to the hon. Gentleman. But as things are it is entirely on the other side. For instance, according to the figures which have just been quoted, people whose incomes are stated to be round about 21s. and 25s. a week are called upon to pay as much as 10s. a year in the form of taxation upon tea. Take, for instance, the case of the Chancellor's widow and two or three children, to whom in another Bill it is proposed to concede a pension of 10s. to the widow, 5s. for the the first child, and 3s. for the second. A widow with three or four children will be contributing each year on an average a matter of 13s., 14s. or 15s. in taxation. That is a perfectly unsound method of taxation. One should face logically and equitably as to what is right in the application of a tax, what is equity and what is justice. In many-ways, with regard to Income Tax and other matters, we have recognised for many years that people whose incomes are not sufficient to give them a decent minimum standard of existence ought not to be called upon to contribute towards the taxation of the country. From that point of view this tax is perfectly unsound. As to the amount, the Chancellor is remitting, in favour of people who have no need of a remission at all, taxation which will far more than cover the loss of the £5,000,000 which is raised by this tax. I appeal to him to recognise that the tax is hitting in the severest way great masses of the people whose incomes are down to the lowest amount and to whom a reduction of 3d. a pound would confer a substantial and appreciable benefit.

Ever since I came into the House I have steadily opposed any taxation upon tea, and I want to continue my opposition to the present tax. The hon. Member below the Gangway who supported the Chancellor made a great point of the amount of tea consumed by various people in proportion to their wages. It is rather peculiar that he only indicated in that matter how tea formed a very large proportion of the necessities of life which the lower-paid workers consume. He said a family in receipt of an income of £50 a year in 1913–14 consumed 26 pounds.

I will give the figures again. In 1913–14 a family of five, in which the breadwinner was earning £50 a year, consumed 28.9 lbs. Where the income of the breadwinner was £100, the consumption was 31.6 lbs.; where the income was £150 it was 33.3 lbs., and where the income was £200 it was 38.9 lbs.—all per annum.

I think the hon. Member must have been reading the wrong figures, because I took them down as I have given them. But, even with the revised version which the hon. Member has submitted to the Committee, I again repeat that it shows very definitely how much the consumption of tea enters into the life of the smaller wage-earning classes in the country, and the imposition of any tax whatever, by any Government, upon such a commodity makes the burden even greater, and reduces the amount that the small wage-earning class can spend upon tea or any other article that they are consuming. The hon. Member seems to be forgetting that it is not only tea that is taxed. There is also a tax upon sugar. Probably, also, the wage-earner smokes, and he has to pay a tax upon his tobacco; or he may like some dried fruit now and again, when, out of this magnificent wage, his wife can purchase some, and upon that also a tax has to be paid. Therefore, taking the amount of taxation that he has to pay in the year, a very large proportion of his income of £50 goes in taxation alone. These are the reasons why we on these benches protest that the burden of taxation is not being widened, but that it is being placed upon shoulders that cannot bear it and leave sufficient to purchase an adequate amount of the necessaries of life, and why members of the Labour party in this House say that this Budget, like previous Budgets which have come from the party opposite and from the Coalition Government, is a class Budget. The Budget that was brought before the House last year by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Yes, but there was a reduction of one-half as compared with what the Tories had the year before, which means that in one of these families where the income is only £50 a year they saved in taxation on tea alone something like 11s. a year, or sufficient to enable them to purchase three or four pounds of tea more. No hon. Member, the hon. Member for the Hartlepools least of all, would think of going to his constituency and arguing that the reduction of the tax by the Labour Government last year did not confer a benefit on the lower-paid workers. I see that he agrees. Very well; a further reduction of tax now would confer a further benefit upon them. We are asking for a further reduction of 3d. on tea, in order to enable these people to get that benefit, and yet the hon. Member, who admits the benefit, comes along and says he is supporting the Tory Government in its Budget because these taxes are feeing paid in proportion to the incomes of the people. Why does he not tell his constituents that the man earning £50 a year is not to have any benefit?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his usual method of looking at everything from a humorous point of view when it is a matter of Debate in this House, tries to score two or three points upon the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Budget of last year, but he cannot deny that last year's Budget was a boon to the people who have felt taxation so burdensome in this country. His method of getting over the difficulty that was placed in his way by the Budget of last year—the difficulty of keeping the people from getting any remission of taxation to whom that remission would be a real benefit—was to throw dust in the eyes of the people by mixing this matter up, in his Budget speech, with other things for which the people have to pay, and making them believe at the beginning that they were going to get this out of other taxation that was being imposed in this Budget. The thing is preposterous. It is a trick played upon the working classes of this country to make them believe that, out of the taxation which this Budget imposes, they are going to receive benefits which they are not going to receive at all, and for which they will have to pay under another Bill that is to be brought in after the Finance Bill is carried. Why are you not honest with the people? Is this the record of Tory democracy, to have tricked the people all the time? You have tricked them long enough.

In asking that a portion of this tax should be remitted, we are asking something that is calculated to benefit some of the people. The remissions that are being made to people who can afford to pay taxation are really becoming preposterous. A previous speaker has already mentioned that 2,500,000 Income Tax payers are being given a remission of £27,000,000, and the Super-tax payers are being given a remission of over £6,000,000, but to the wage-earner, to the man who is already burdened with taxation and has to cut down his outlay on the actual necessaries of life, no remission is being given whatever. When we ask for this remission we are told that he is not-paying so very much, and so it will not benefit him to remit any more of his taxes. The Labour party have put down this Amendment in good faith, and are determined to carry it to a Division, and, as I have voted against taxes on food and against indirect taxation since I first came into this House and took part in a Budget debate and a Budget vote, I shall go into the Division Lobby as happily to-night as I have done previously, to vote against any further imposition of taxation upon the food of the people.

The figures which have been given by the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden) are exceedingly instructive, and, I think, worth a little further examination. He told us that he would vote for the Budget because the Tea Duty was a burden which would have to be borne most by those whose backs were broadest, and he gave as an illustration the case of the man earning less than £l a week and consuming 28.9 lbs. of tea in 1913, who, accordingly, would be paying 12s. a year in tax. I suppose the man who has an income of £5,000 a year could not consume a proportionately increased quantity of tea. Would the hon. Member for the Hartlepools consider the 12s. a year that he pays in tax a comparable burden to an income of £5,000 a year?

The hon. Member has asked me a question, and, of course, I shall be very pleased to reply. It is a fact that a higher wage-earning capacity means a greater consuming power and a greater personnel as regards domestic assistance and extra staff also in the home. As a result of that, it is a fact that the incidence of the Tea Duty involves the payment of a larger tax in such a home than in a poorer home.

I am astonished that the hon. Member, who is a logical man, should fall into such an error. Surely, the millionaire, who, as a rule, has not a large family, does not consume; pro rata more tea than the worker who earns £l a week, and, possibly, has eight or nine children? It seems to me that the consumption of tea in the workman's family will certainly be as great as, if not greater than, in the millionaire's family. In fact, I think the experience of all social investigators is that the consumption of tea in poorer homes is a good deal greater than in wealthier ones, where other liquids figure more largely. Therefore, I submit that this Budget is not placing the burden on the backs of those who are best able to bear it, and I am astonished that my hon. Friend, representing, as he does, an industrial constituency, should not have put up a plea for some measure of relief to industrial areas in this Budget. It seems to me that a reduction in the duty on tea would eventually mean a reduction in the cost of tea and in the cost of living, which would all help towards that reduction of costs which is so essential if trade is to recover.

Our great criticism of the Budget is that it does nothing whatever to help industry or to help that revival of trade which is so essential, while the Super-tax payer, the man who in many cases is not in industry, but belongs to the rentier class, living on income which he does not earn, is, of all people, singled out for relief, whereas the employers and the workers have to bear an added burden. That is another reason why we should press for this relief in indirect taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in resisting the proposal, referred to the decrease that had taken place in the burden on tea in previous Budgets, but he did not tell us that in previous Budgets the decrease in indirect taxation had been infinitely less than the decrease in direct taxation. In recent years direct taxation has been reduced by something like £154,000,000, while indirect taxation has only been reduced by £51,000,000. This year's Budget, giving relief to the direct taxpayer and not to the indirect taxpaper, is, therefore, not helping that revival of trade which would come from reduced costs, whether in regard to living or in regard to production. I hope, therefore, that following the sound Liberal principle of a free breakfast table, the Committee will support this Amendment.

I desire to support the Amendment because, for one thing, I have never supported the taxation of food, and certainly not in the case of the poorer sections of the people of this country. In the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there was certainly one very interesting point, as to how far it is possible for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit taxation so that the benefit shall really be felt by the people whom he is anxious to assist. There is no doubt whatever that, in the case of tea, probably some months before my right hon. Friend the Member for Come Valley (Mr. Snowden) had thought of making any reduction, there was a movement in the direction of reducing the production, or at any rate the supply, of tea, which in any case would have had the effect of raising the price very considerably had it not been for the saving due to the reduction of taxation. Therefore, it is quite impossible to say how far the consumer of tea has really benefited by the reduction made by my right hon. Friend, but I think that probably, if we follow out the various forces that are acting upon a commodity such as tea, when it is being affected at the same time by a reduction of taxation and by a reduction of imports due to the modern control over industry by means of combines and trusts, probably, on the whole, as the result of those influences working together, the consumer did gain to a considerable extent. If there had not been a reduction in taxation the rise in prices would have been quite as much as the taxation. It seems to me that the justification for very largely reducing taxation on tea and food is that not one of us would argue against the proposition that one of the greatest evils from which the industrial population is suffering to-day is that a large number of them are not properly fed, and that any reduction in the taxa- tion of food which will provide cheaper food for the poorer classes must be beneficial.

There is one other point which I think should be raised at the commencement of the discussion of the Budget, and it is as to how far direct and indirect taxation is really being affected by the proposed change in regard to the large amount of money which is going to be spent upon the National Debt. I should like to remind the Committee that in looking at this question of indirect taxation that, £300,000,000 of the £350,000,000 raised in this way is going to be taken for the reduction of the debt. When we are considering whether we should raise money by direct or indirect taxation two great purposes should be kept in mind. One is that the transfer of money from the taxpayer to those who are claiming it as holders of the debt is really a simple transfer of money from the pockets of one set of people to the pockets of another set of people because, as far as services rendered are concerned, there are no services being rendered at the present time at all, and those services apply to the past and no benefits are being received from them now.

In these circumstances any Chancellor of the Exchequer must bear two things in mind. One is that in raising the money we should see that the burden is not being thrown upon those who cannot bear it, nor upon those who have to pay the tax at the expense of their physical fitness by taxing the food of the poorer classes The second point is that the burden should be removed from industry as far as possible. Hon. Members may ask if you remove taxation from these two categories how are you going to raise the money which is required? It seems to me that at the present time there must be a far larger number of people living in this country on fortunes accumulated during the War who are receiving interest on investments in the National Debt, and interest derived from other investments. It is through direct taxation that the money needed for the National Debt will have to be found. If we do not follow out this policy I suggest that we are face to face with two difficulties. One is that the poorer classes will suffer from heavier taxation, and the other is that there will be an increase in the burdens placed upon industry.

I should have liked to have heard from the Government benches a statement as to how far the Government have considered the weight and the burden of debt, and whether they have given any consideration as to its direct effect upon the whole system of our taxation. I suggest that to quote figures dealing with direct and indirect taxation which are pre-War statistics bears no comparison with the position as we find it to-day on account of the way money is being expended in connection with the debt. It is on this account, and on account of my fear that we are throwing too much of the burden on the poorer people in quarters where it should not fall, that I intend to support this Amendment.

The phase of the question I wish to submit to the Committee is that I am not only opposed to indirect taxation because it is inequitable in its incidence and falls most heavily upon those persons least able to bear it, but because indirect taxation indirectly increases the amount of capital necessary in business. The grocers and those who handle our tea supplies in this country naturally have to add capital to their businesses when an indirect tax is imposed upon a commodity, and the consumer not only pays the Government tax which in this case amounts to 4d. in the pound, but he has to pay the interest on the additional capital invested in the business. Again, if on a commodity like tea the gross profit may be 12 or 15 per cent., if the price of that commodity is raised by indirect taxation from a normal 1s. 6d. per lb. to 1s. 10d. per lb. by the addition of the tax, you do not find that the trade gererally adjusts the gross and net profit to the net cost of the duty. Therefore indirect taxation represents undoubtedly a double tax on the consumer, and that is one of the reasons why we who represent the co-operative movement are always opposed to the principle of indirect taxation, because not only does the consumer pay the Government tax, but they have to pay interest on the surplus capital, and pay a higher gross profit because of the increased price that naturally results.

Another reason why we are entitled to request that there should be some reduction in the Tea Duty is because this is one of the first Budgets in the post-War period where the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to give a remission in taxation when the indirect taxpayers have been practically ignored. I find that in the last four Budgets the Income Tax paying people have been relieved of £120,000,000 a year in the four Budgets from 1922 to 1925, but the amount of reduction in indirect taxation is only roughly £40,000,000 and of that remission in food taxation over £30,000,000 was given by the Labour Government last year. Therefore if we contrast the policy of Conservative Governments and Liberal Governments with the policy of the Labour Government in indirect taxation as against direct taxation we find that in the three years when we have had Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer there has been £20,000,000 devoted to the remission of direct taxation and only £5,500,000 devoted to a reduction of indirect taxation. Taking all things into consideration, the fact that the whole of the surplus has been given this year to the Income Tax and the Super-tax paying section of the community shows that the demand for the remission of the Tea Duty is very sound. After all, we have got this particular duty down to a more or less negligible factor as far as it can 'be considered as a revenue-producing tax.

I think this year the Treasury can only expect something like £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 from this duty, and surely this is a matter upon which all parties should now agree and the Tea Duty should be entirely swept away. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is smiling, but after all when we are considering a commodity like tea as a beverage we should remember that there is no beverage so universal in this country in regard to its consumption as tea. It is the beverage particularly essential to the poorer sections of the community, and it is one that has become more and more substituted for beer in the factories as a stimulant, and I think the social advanage from the point of view of equity in taxation, and the fact that it does not represent a very great problem to the Treasury completely makes out our case for the reduction of the Tea Duty to 1d. which practically means its abolition. I think the arguments for this Amendment are overwhelming in their character, and it is quite time that the Treasury should concede this demand.

Question put, "That the word 'four-pence' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 149.

Division No. 122.]

AYES.

[5.45 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

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

Eden, Captain Anthony

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Albery, Irving James

Edmondson, Major A. J.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Ellis, R. G.

Macintyre, Ian

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

Elveden, Viscount

McLean, Major A.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Macquisten, F. A.

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

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Atholl, Duchess of

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Atkinson, C.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Malone, Major P. B.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Fermoy, Lord

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Balniel, Lord

Fielden, E. B.

Margesson, Captain D.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Fleming, D. P.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Ford, P. J.

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Meller, R. J.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

Frece, Sir Walter de

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Berry, Sir George

Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Grace, John

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

Murchison, C. K.

Blundell, F. N.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Grotrian, H. Brent

Nelson, Sir Frank

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Neville, R. J.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Brass, Captain W.

Hammersley, S. S.

Nuttall, Ellis

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Hanbury, C.

Oakley, T.

Briggs, J. Harold

Harrison, G. J. C.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Briscoe, Richard George

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Brittain, Sir Harry

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

Pennefather, Sir John

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hawke, John Anthony

Penny, Frederick George

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Pielou, D. P.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Bullock, Captain M.

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Burman, J. B.

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

Preston William

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Price, Major C. W. M.

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Radford, E. A.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Holt, Captain H. P.

Ramsden, E.

Campbell, E. T.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Casseis, J. D.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Remer, J. R.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Remnant. Sir James

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hume, Sir G. H.

Rentoul, G. S.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hurd, Percy A.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Christie, J. A.

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Ropner, Major L.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C

Jacob, A. E.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Clayton, G. C.

James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rye, F. G.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Salmon, Major I.

Cohen. Major J. Brunel

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cooper, A. Duff

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Cope, Major William

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Couper, J. B.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Lamb, J. Q.

Savery, S. S.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

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

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Shepperson, E. W.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

Crook, C. W.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Smithers, Waldron

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Loder, J. de V.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Looker, Herbert William

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Lumley, L. R.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Wolmer, Viscount

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Womersley, W. J.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Watts, Dr. T.

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Walls, S. R.

Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Waddington, R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Major Sir Harry Barnston.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Wise, Sir Fredric

NOES.

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

Harney, E. A.

Rose, Frank H.

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

Harris, Percy A.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Ammon, Charles George

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Scrymgeour, E.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hayday, Arthur

Scurr, John

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayes, John Henry

Sexton, James

Barr, J.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, G. H.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Broad, F. A.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Sitch, Charles H.

Bromfield, William

Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield

Smith, Ben (Bermondsay, Rotherhithe)

Bromley, J.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Buchanan, G.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Charleton, H. C.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Snell, Harry

Clowes, S.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Cluse, W. S.

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

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stamford, T. W.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, Campbell

Compton, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Connolly, M.

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

Taylor, R. A.

Cove, W. G.

Kenyon, Barnet

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

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lansbury, George

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lawson, John James

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

Dalton, Hugh

Lee, F.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Livingstone, A. M.

Thurtle, E.

Day, Colonel Harry

Lowth, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Duncan, C.

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Dunnico, H.

Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Mackinder, W.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

MacLaren, Andrew

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

England, Colonel A.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Warne, G. H.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

March, S.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Fenby, T. D.

Maxton, James

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

Forrest, W.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Montague, Frederick

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Gillett, George M.

Morris, R. H.

Whiteley, W.

Gosling, Harry

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

Wignall, James

Greenall, T.

Naylor, T. E.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Owen, Major G.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Paling, W.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Groves, T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grundy, T. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Riley, Ben

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Ritson, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hardle, George D.

Robertson. J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Barnes.

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

I wish to make reference to the preferential rates granted by the Finance Act, 1919, of one-sixth in favour of Dominion-grown tea. I am sure that I shall not make an appeal in vain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of a general preference. My earliest recollections and my earliest education in connection with the danger of Imperial Preference are the very eloquent utterances which the right hon. Gentleman made in various parts of the country, and nobody has stated more clearly than he the strong anti-Imperial tendency of attempting to form a cash nexus between this country and the Dominions. Whether or not I shall get an answer I do not know. The position which prevails to-day must be rather pathetic for those ban. Members opposite who take an interest in this question. Not only are they under orders with regard to their presences and absences, but they are not permitted to make any contributions in defence of the Budget. Apparently, the orders are that half shall be absent and half shall be silent. Whether or not any hon. Member opposite will imitate the courage of the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden) and make any defence of the Budget, I do not know. If not, we can only liken them to what used to be called the patient oxen.

In dealing with this rebate, perhaps the Chancellor of Exchequer would answer another question in regard to the Clause. This Clause affords an opportunity for a discussion of the burden as between the direct and the indirect taxpayer. That is, roughly speaking, between the rich and the poor. It would be very interesting if the Chancellor of Exchequer would answer now the question as to where he thinks the line should be drawn. He himself this year has weighted the scale against the poor in this Budget.

Oh, yes. I will give him the point which he was so anxious to make against the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), when he said that the increased Death Duties balanced the reduced Super-tax. He has given a remission of £39,000,000 to the Income Tax payer, and has actually increased the burden—

The hon. and gallant Member cannot start a discussion of this kind on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Two years ago this tax was made an annual tax, for the purpose of providing a discussion on the question as to the weight of direct and indirect taxation. The discussion which we had in 1923 turned mainly on the relative incidence of these two forms of taxation, and you were in the Chair.

It is in order for the hon. and gallant Member to say that this is a tax which bears hardly on the poor, but he cannot develop it as a general argument. Except by general consent the whole question of direct and indirect taxation cannot be discussed on the question that this Clause stand part of the Bill.

By permission of your predecessor in the Chair, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spent at least 15 minutes in a very full discussion of the whole bearing of direct and indirect taxation. Are we not to be allowed to reply?

On a point of Order. We have already had a very general discussion on a particular Amendment. If the discussion had been kept to the exact terms of that Amendment, it would have been far more limited, but the Chair decided that it would be for the convenience of the Committee and that it would be the general wish of the Committee that there should be a very full and general discussion on the whole aspect of direct and indirect taxation in connection with the Amendment. But the tacit understanding was that the whole matter should not be gone over again on the Clause.

We are in Committee, and the purpose of Committee is to force replies from the Government. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an ex-parte statement on this matter, but he made no reply to any criticism.

It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said more than a less indulgent Chairman would have allowed him to say. If that be so, it is a reason for not repeating a discussion which, by general consent, was allowed.

I do not want to go beyond reasonable bounds. Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give us any indication where this is to stop?

I must inform the hon. and gallant Member that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempts to answer that question, I shall be obliged to stop him.

6.0 P.M.

I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman has heard your ruling with a great sense of relief. In that case I wish to confine my remarks to the question of the Imperial rebate. What justification is there for giving this one-sixth rebate on colonial tea? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained that in his view the benefit of the remission of the tax has not reached the consumer. If it does not reach the consumer, it means that the producer gets it. If the producer gets it, we are merely, by giving this rebate, making a present out of the Exchequer to the planters in Ceylon. I do not know that there is any evidence that the people who work in Ceylon get the benefit. I believe the benefit goes largely, I do not say wholly, to make larger dividends and larger profits for companies that are operating large estates in India and Ceylon. Is there any possible justification, on Imperial or any other grounds, for asking the overburdened Exchequer of this country or the poor taxpayers of this country to make a contribution, however small, for the benefit of the limited class of people who happen to be engaged in this particular industry? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself pointed out from the Imperial aspect that if once you teach the people of this country that Empire is a thing which you have to pay for on your tea, sugar, tobacco or beer, it will make the whole idea of Empire odious to people who can hardly support this expense. I am not sure that an Amendment to exclude this would have been in order, because it might be held to increase a charge, but it is the duty of those who do not believe in giving a present from the Exchequer of this country to one limited, and by no means needy class, under the guise of Imperial Preference, to protest and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a justification for the position which needs it.

I will answer the non. and gallant Member very shortly. This is not either the time or the place to enter into a general debate on the principle of Imperial Preference. The preference which is given on Empire tea is part of the general application of the policy of Imperial Preference on existing duties. When the late Mr. Chamberlain unfolded his original Imperial Preference, with the view of drawing the Empire more closely together, he based it fundamentally on the taxation of bread and meat. That has been found, after long years of political warfare, not to command the support of any majority in this House. But we here do desire to draw the Empire together, through a system of preferences on articles already dutiable or in respect of duties which do not affect the cost of living or the vital necessaries of the people. That principle is not accepted by all parties, but it is accepted by a considerable proportion of persons in all parties.

It has been voted for again and again during the last ten years, and in the Great War, when the troops of the Dominions were sent to our aid from all parts of the world, when we were fighting for our lives, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was playing a much more useful part in the defence of the country than he is playing at the present time below the Gangway, when we were all in great straits and great difficulties together, trying to do the best we could, the feeling was universal, and it was solidly affirmed at the Imperial Conference in 1917, which passed a resolution to that effect, that there should be preferences granted by the different parts of the Empire to each other so far as that could be done in such a way as not to affect the cost of necessaries of life of the people of this country.

This preference on tea is only a portion of that general policy, and it is operating, not in the direction of increasing burdens, but in the direction of diminishing burdens; because, so far as it operates, it tends to diminish the cost of tea to the consumer. It is a remission of taxation, the whole of which may or may not reach the consumer, it is true, but 84 per cent. of the tea supply in this country comes from the British Empire, and it governs the price in this market. Therefore, the preference directly contributes to cheapen an article consumed for their comfort by the great mass of the people, and I cannot see that, if opposition to the principle of Imperial Preference is to be made from any quarter, it could possibly be based on a less secure foundation than that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has selected.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that there could be no worse grounds on which to base opposition to Imperial Preference. That is a matter of opinion, but, speaking for my friends, we intend to attack this principle wherever we can, whether the grounds be good or bad—whether the grounds which the right hon. Gentleman chooses be good or bad, we do not intend to agree to the principle. The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement in direct contradiction of the main argument which he put forward when resisting the reduction of the Tea Duty in the last discussion. Then he told us that a reduction of the duty on tea went to swell the profits of the tea companies. Now he tells us that this reduction of 33⅓ per cent. Imperial Preference goes to a great extent to relieve the unhappy tea drinker in this country. I do not think that that is the case, because the people who drink China tea, drink it in spite of its price, because they think it better for their constitutions or they prefer its taste, while the price of Indian and Ceylon tea is ruled by the world's price, and therefore this reduction, far from binding the Empire more closely together, and making some return for the work of the gallant troops sent here from overseas, is simply going to increase the great dividends paid by the tea companies with their registered offices here in London, and their shares quoted on the London Stock Exchange, or the profits of the merchants with offices in Mincing Lane, and of the tea planters oversea. There is no evidence that it is going to benefit either the Dominion of India, or the Colony of Ceylon.

As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the figures show that 84 per cent. of the tea imported is Empire tea. My figures show that the percentage was 85 in 1922, and that in the same year China tea represented only 5 per cent. of the imports. So that the amount received in duty on China tea is very small. The amount of additional annual revenue from China tea, owing to this discrimination, is only £30,000. I have evidence, which I believe is good, that this discrimination has had a bad effect on British trade in China. In order to get this miserable £30,000, to make this gesture—in the fashionable language of the day—to the Dominion of India and the Colony of Ceylon, we are apt to bring about retaliation in reference to figures something like these.

In 1920 the cotton goods which we exported to China represented £35,000,000 as compared with this £30,000. In 1922 the figure had dropped to £14.000.000. I do not say that that was altogether on account of this preference. There was something in the nature of a civil war going on in China and trade fell off, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) tells me that factories were set up in China and that the process of making cotton goods which started in China during the War has been continued. Nevertheless, there has been this drop, and while there is this tendency irritation has been caused in China by this discriminatory tax. The exports of machinery in 1920 were £7,000,000, and in 1922 £4,000,000. Our trade with China is falling off in these great staple commodities. We should do all that we can to increase it, because China is a most valuable market, and this irritating tax is resented in China in these days. The Chinese are proud of their tea, and of the blends which they produce, and to ask for this special discrimination against them is very unwise. The total British trade with China dropped from £54,000,000 in 1920 to £31,000,000 in 1921, and £27,000,000 in 1922, or 50 per cent. in two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about 1924?"] The figures for 1924 show a very slight increase I am sorry to say. [ Laughter. ] I am sorry that they show only a very slight increase. We have the great silent watch of hon. Members. We do not know how they arrange these watches.

The hon. and gallant Member's observations would be more appropriate in a discussion on the McKenna Duties.

I was referring to the duty rota. There is quite enough anti-foreign agitation in China already. Hon. Gentlemen opposite I dare say, will say that it is the wicked Bolshevists who are stirring up the poor students and coolies in China. That they are distributing pamphlets among the coolies and stirring them up, although they know that the coolies cannot read—

I think from the hon. and gallant Member's expression that he is fully aware of the crimes which he has committed, and, therefore, I need not specify them.

I have committed no crime. If I have strayed beyond the rules of order, I am very sorry. I was only pointing out that there is great anti-British and anti-foreign feeling at present in China. There is no use in attributing this to the imagination of the Foreign Minister in Moscow. This discriminatory tax has helped on that feeling. China was an ally of ours during the War. The relations between this country and China have had their ups and downs. We have had our bad periods and our good periods. On the whole, we have been on good terms with the Chinese people, and they have provided an invaluable market for our produce. I am talking about cotton, machinery, iron and steel, shipping and the other services which we perform for China, and of the great wealth of the British communities in the treaty ports in China who are the pioneers of our trade. We do not make their position easier by this particular discrimination against Chinese tea. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is part of a wider policy of binding the Empire together. He said that he and his friends could not get a mandate for a preference which would tax meat and wheat, and that therefore they are falling back on tea instead. This was the relic of the great Preference programme put forward by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain—a discriminating tax on tea bringing in £30,000 a year to the revenue. You do not hold empires together by ridiculous means of that kind. I am prepared to vote against this Clause, partly because of this tea tax, and partly because it contains the iniquitous principle of Preference, to which I object strongly.

I am sure that the Committee has listened with interest to the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, in the arguments which he discovered against this preferential tariff. I fear that some of us do not agree with the reasons that he gave, however closely we may come to his conclusions. For example, I could not follow him when he argued that the decrease in our exports of cotton goods to China was due to the fact that there was a discrimination in favour of Empire-grown tea as against Chinese tea.

I was careful to explain that I did not attribute the whole of the reduction to that. This discrimination is one of the causes of a feeling of irritation against us, and that irritation is reflected to a certain extent in the falling off of orders for British goods.

I am sure that we are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for his assurance that the entire reduction in our cotton exports to China is not due to a feeling of irritation which has apparently swept over China as a result of our discriminating against her tea. I would rather have thought that the diminution in the export of cotton goods to China was due to the fact that British capital was being exported to China to erect cotton mills there and that those mills compete with British mills.

Again, I am so certain that the hon. Member knows that he is straying from the right path, that I will not point out to him how he is doing so.

I wished in a passing reference to assure the hon. and gallant Member that the argument which he used would not find any great credence on the Labour side of the Gangway. We believe that there are other causes for the diminution of our exports of iron and cotton goods. I have been interested to find that throughout this discussion no hon. Member has even asked himself the question, What were the wages rates paid to the producers of tea in our British Dominions, as against the wages rate paid to the producers of tea in China? From our point of view that is a highly important question. Is it the case that in China the wages rates paid on the tea plantations work out at about 4½d. per week? Is it the case—I am asking for information from those who know better than myself—that the wages rates paid in India are at least double? If that be so, then this House, apart from questions of Empire development, ought surely to consider the question of giving a Preference where the labour conditions and wages are better, irrespective of the kind of flag that flies over the robber.

Both in India and China it is the same gang of capitalists who are exploiting the tea plantations. India, to its credit, has adopted the Washington Convention, so far as hours are concerned. If under the British flag they are compelled to limit their hours of labour exploitation to 60 per week, and if in China this limitation does not take place, if in China there is no factory legislation and no workmen's compensation, and if in China there is literally the buying and selling of child labour at the present time, then this House must consider the giving of a Preference to the country where the labour conditions are better. The hon. and gallant Member ought to have given full consideration to the matter and not merely to have regarded it from the standpoint of party tactics. When he talked about exports of cotton and iron he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek. I am sure that he did not regard as a conclusive argument what he said about the export of these goods.

I cannot let the last speech go without a few sentences of reply. I object very much to being told that I am doing a thing from the point of view of party tactics. I have been accused of many things in this House, but slavish adherence to party tenets has never been one of them. Whatever I have done in this House, right or wrong, it has not been done merely from the party point of view. We are told by the hon. Member that it is wrong to object to a Preference being given to Indian tea, because the conditions of labour in India are better than in China. We have no evidence to that effect. As a matter of fact, I understand that China is a signatory to the Washington Labour Convention, and if they have not ratified it, neither have we.

Week after week hon. Members on this side of the House, and particularly members of the Labour party, have been putting questions drawing attention to the disgraceful labour conditions in India A good many years ago I had some experience both of India and China, and I think that on the whole the Chinese coolie is better off than the Indian coolie. The system of labour guilds and coolie guilds is of very ancient origin in China, and is more highly developed than anything in Western Europe. There are unions and very closely organised and powerful unions in China, and they were there long before we had a trade union movement in this country. It is a very unfortunate thing to annoy a coolie guild in any of the Chinese cities. The coolies are very well able to protect themselves and they do so. Suppose that the conditions were worse in China than in India, is it the Labour policy that they are to give the 334 per cent. Preference suggested? I thought that the policy of the Labour party was not to put on a tariff against goods produced by sweated labour in other countries, as that would give the masters an opportunity of saying, "Now you must work longer hours for less wages in order to get over this tariff," as is being said in this country at the present time in the shipbuilding and other industries. I thought the policy of the Labour party was to prohibit such imports altogether. If the last speaker had said that we ought to prohibit China tea coming into this country, he could have made out a case.

No, certainly not. It is usually only well-to-do people who drink China tea. A few poor people, like myself, drink it because they prefer it. It would be a great mistake to prohibit the import of China tea altogether. That would not help towards any improvement in trade with China. The great bulk of the China tea is consumed in China or in Russia. The imports of China tea into this country are small. We shall not help labour conditions in China by this miserable £30,000 or £60,000 a year of revenue. The hon. Member accused me of having talked with my tongue in my cheek. I will not make such a charge against him, because I do not make those charges; but I think I might well do so, because he has produced no evidence at all and his whole speech was a justification for not voting against Preference, because he does not want to split his party again on this question as he has done on so many others.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 140.

Division No. 123.]

AYES.

[6.30 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Ellis, R. G.

McLean, Major A.

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

Elveden, Viscount

Macmillan, Captain H.

Albery, Irving James

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Macquisten, F. A.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

Everard, W. Lindsay

Malone, Major P. B.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Margesson, Captain D.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

Fermoy, Lord

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Atholl, Duchess of

Fielden, E. B.

Meller. R. J.

Atkinson, C.

Fleming, D. P.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Ford, P. J.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Balniel, Lord

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Frece, Sir Walter de

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Murchison, C. K.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

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

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Nelson, Sir Frank

Bennett, A. J.

Goff, Sir Park

Neville, R. J.

Berry, Sir George

Grace, John

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Gretton, Colonel John

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Nuttall, Ellis

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

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Oakley, T.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Oman, Sir Charles William C

Blundell, F. N.

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Pennefather, Sir John

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Hammersley, S. S.

Penny, Frederick George

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Hanbury, C.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Brass, Captain W.

Harland, A.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Harrison, G. J. C.

Philipson Mabel

Briggs, J. Harold

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Pielou, D. P.

Briscoe, Captain Richard George

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

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hawke, John Anthony

Power, Sir John Cecil

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Preston, William

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

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Buckingham Sir H.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Radford, E. A.

Bullock, Captain M.

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Ramsden, E.

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Burman, J. B.

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

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Remer, J. R.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Rentoul, G. S.

Campbell, E. T.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Cassels, J. D.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Ropner Major L.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hume, Sir G. H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hurd, Percy A.

Rye, F. G.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Salmon, Major I.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Samuel, A. M.(Surrey, Farnham)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Jackson, Lieut.-Cone. Hon. F. S.

Samuel, Samuel (W'd worth, Putney)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Clayton, G. C.

Jacob, A. E.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Sasson, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Savery, S. S.

Cochen, Major J. Brunei

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Cooper, A. Duff

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Cope, Major William

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Shepperson, E. W.

Couper, J. B.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Knox, Sir Alfred

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

Courthope, Lieut.-Col, Sir George L.

Lamb, J. Q.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Smithers, Waldron

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Crook, C. W.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Stanley Lord (Fylde)

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Loder, J. de V.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Looker, Herbert William

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Lumley, L. R.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

MacAndrew. Charles Glen

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

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

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Eden, Captain Anthony

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Macintyre, Ian

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. South)

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

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Tinne, J. A.

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Waddington, R.

Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and:

Watts, Dr. T.

Womersley, W. J.

Major Sir Harry Barnston.

Wells, S. R.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

NOES.

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

Harney, E. A.

Rose, Frank H.

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

Harris, Percy A.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Ammon, Charles George

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Scrymgeour, E.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Scurr, John

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayday, Arthur

Sexton, James

Barnes, A.

Hayes, John Henry

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barr, J.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, G. H.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Sitch, Charles H.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Broad, F. A.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Bromfield, William

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Bromley, J.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snell, Harry

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Charleton, H. C.

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

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Clowes, S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stamford, T. W.

Cluse, W. S.

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, Campbell

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Compton, Joseph

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

Taylor, R. A.

Connolly, M.

Kenyon, Barnet

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

Cove W. G.

Lansbury, George

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.).

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lawson, John James

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

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lee, F.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Dalton, Hugh

Livingstone, A. M.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lowth, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Day, Colonel Harry

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Duncan, C.

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

Viant, S. P.

Dunnico, H.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Mackinder, W.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Warne, G. H.

England, Colonel A.

March, S.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Maxton, James

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

Fenby, T. D.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Forrest, W.

Montague, Frederick

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gillett, George M.

Morris, R. H.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Gosling, Harry

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

Whiteley, W.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Oliver, George Harold

Wignall, James

Greenall, T.

Owen, Major G.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Paling, W.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Groves, T.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grundy, T. W.

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

Riley, Ben

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil

Ritson, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Mr. Godfrey Collins and Sir R.

Hardle, George D.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Hutchison.

CLAUSE 2.—( Continuation of increased medicine duties. )

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

I do not wish to trespass on the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this matter, and I, therefore, address myself to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think hon. Members recognise the constant attention which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving, but the point I am about to raise, which concerns the form of this Clause, is one for the Financial Secretary. It is not a new question, and, although I cannot fix the date, I seem to remember that it was raised before. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a rule of taxation that people should know from the Act of Parliament, exactly what they have to pay and on what they have to pay. That is an elementary canon of taxation. This Clause is about the worst example of legislation for taxation by reference that it is possible to find. My plea, in a sentence, is that the Financial Secretary between now and next year should see whether it is not possible to bring in a new Clause setting out clearly to the taxpayer what he is expected to pay on and abandoning this Clause. This Clause looks harmless, but it is a most complicated taxation instrument, involving historical research which is certainly entertaining, but which must be a great hindrance to the quick calculation of what is due from a particular taxpayer. The Clause says:

"The additional duties of excise imposed by Section eleven of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, upon medicines liable to duty shall continue to be charged, etc."

It would seem that nothing could be simpler than that wording, but the first thing one does is to turn to the Act of 1915, Section 11 of which says:

"In addition to the duties of excise payable under the Medicines Stamp Act, 1802, the Stamp Act, 1804, and the Medicines Stamp Act, 1812, and any Act amending those Acts there shall be charged …. additional duties."

The duties were, I think, doubled by that instrument. Thus we are referred from the Act of 1925 to the Act of 1915, and in the Act of 1915 we are invited to turn our attention to the Act of 1802. I have read that Act, which orders that a certain number of duties shall be payable, and theses are set out in a schedule. The Act says that articles in the schedule shall be liable to tax provided

"nothing hereinbefore contained shall extend …. to any drug or drugs named or contained …. in the Book of Rates subscribed with the name of Sir Harbottle Grimstone, Baronet, mentioned and referred to by the Act of Tonnage and Poundage made in the twelfth year of the reign of King Charles the Second or in the other Book of Rates intituled ' An Additional Book of Rates of Goods and Merchandises usually imported.' "

and so forth. So we have gone back through five stages to an Act of Charles II, all because the Treasury has never under any Government considered it worth while—this increase was passed in time of war—to give the necessary time and attention to a plain statement of what articles are taxable and what are not taxable. Most of the articles in the Schedule do not, I imagine, exist to-day, but they have almost a political flavour at the present time, as will be judged when I mention a few of them. The Schedule refers to all foreign medicines except drugs. The list of articles to be taxed starts with "Asiatic Bilious Pills," "Austin's Chalybeate Pills," "Arnold's Pills," and " Addison's Re-animating European Balsam." Then there is an item, taxation on which would, I am sure, be resisted by my hon. Friends above the Gangway, namely, "Clyde's Balsam." We have our own little trouble, for a tax is levied upon "Guest's Welcome Guest and Powder," and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor himself might feel some interest in the item—

Is the hon. and gallant Member in a position to say that in 1915, when Section 11 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, came into operation, these particular medicines were then subject to tax?

As far as I know, that is so. One of my points is that it is impossible to tell from the Statute whether or not the Schedule stands. I am coming to an amending Schedule in a moment, and I will refer no further to this except to say that there is a " Jones's Rheumatic Tincture," and there is a tax on "Wheatley's Ointment and Fluid." The Act of 1812 revises the Schedule, and that is the last provision I can find. It may be that other Amendments have been passed, but there is not a word of them in this Bill, nor in the Act of 1915, and I do not know how the ordinary taxpayer is to find out exactly what he is liable to, except by reference to the Statute referred to in the Clause. The Schedule to the Act of 1812 is much the same, although some of the items have disappeared, but "Austin's Pills" remain, and "Wheat-ley's Ointment and Fluid" are there. I wish to ask the Financial Secretary if it is not possible between now and next year—I do not ask more than that—to look into this question and to give us in the Bill a plain Clause, setting forth plainly what taxes there are and on what commodities they are raised, in place of what I venture to call one of the worst examples of legislation by reference that is to be found amongst our Statutes.

I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) on the great erudition which he has displayed on this very abstruse subject. The tax on patent medicines goes back to a very hoary antiquity, not, I think, to the days of tonnage and poundage, but to the days immediately preceding the American War of Independence, when Parliament was faced with the necessity of finding new sources of revenue, and the first legislation on the subject was passed in 1783. Since then there have been repeated cases of amendment of legislation, and I admit that it is not very easy for anyone to summarise the principles on which the duties are imposed. Speaking generally, there are three tests of those preparations which are liable to the duty. Firstly, they must be advertised or, in other words, recommended as a specific for some illness or disease. If you say "So-and-so's preparation cures headache," the preparation is liable to duty, but if you say "Such-and-such an ointment is good for the skin" it does not come within that definition that it must be recommended as a specific. The second test is whether it is secret; and the third test is whether it is proprietary. Under the proprietary test are included most of those preparations which came under the old Patent Medicine Duty.

Are these medicines also subject to the 33⅓ per cent. duty as fine chemicals under Part 1 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

The right hon. Gentleman has just said he only levies the Medicine Tax when the prescription is secret. Then how does he levy the Fine Chemical Tax without knowing the ingredients?

The Fine Chemical Duty would not be levied qua secret medicine, but if the producer of a secret medicine chooses to buy fine chemicals which have to pay a tax, of course, in the preparation which he sells there is an ingredient on which the Fine Chemical Tax has been paid. But these duties, as a matter of fact, do not interfere with the sales. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that all this legislation should be codified. That is a matter which I should like to look into, but I do not think that primarily it is one which concerns the Treasury. It is rather a matter for the Ministry of Health. In 1914 there was a Select Committee which inquired into the whole of these subjects, and nothing was done as a result of their report, but, although it may be inconvenient to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his thirst for information, not to be able readily to find a definition, I do not think it is inconvenient in practice, and, after all, there are many more complicated forms of revenue collection which are based on a far more scattered legislative code than this particular Patent Medicine Duty. For instance, our Customs legislation has not been codified since 1876, and the innumerable people interested who have to pay Customs Duty have a far greater task, if they want to go back to the statutory power under which they are taxed, than have those who are liable to Patent Medicine Duty.

I think, in view of the fact that it is working smoothly, the Committee will not see any cause to resist this Clause standing part of the Bill. The duties were doubled in 1915 as a War Measure, and having yielded £334,000 a year on the half rate, they are now giving a yield of £1,355,000. Therefore, the doubling of the rate has produced for us a yield about four times as much. I think that shows that it is a very useful tax from the revenue point of view. It is not pressing hardly on any section of the population, and the producers of these medicines presumably are turning them out even on a larger scale than before the tax was imposed, and, therefore, I hope the Clause will be allowed to stand.

I do not know why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seems so averse to giving a promise to look into the codification of this Patent Medicine Duty legislation in the course of the next year. I understood that he did not think there was any necessity for it, the reason being that other parts of the Customs collection were in an even worse state of muddle than this.

This is Excise, but the right hon. Gentleman's defence was that the Customs were in a muddle, which is an entirely inadequate reason for not dealing with this matter. It is really time that both were cleared up, and surely it is not a very difficult matter, although it might involve a certain amount of labour. It has nothing to do with the Ministry of Health. The Patent Medicine Committee, which sat some time back, was occupied, not with fiscal questions, but with quite a different category of propositions, as to whether these secret preparations should be sold at all, and whether all secret preparations should not be made public. I had some difficulty in following the right hon. Gentleman on that point. It seemed to me that, if their recommendations were adopted, he would have entirely to change the basis on which the duty was levied, because, he said, one of the tests was whether or not it was a secret remedy. If the recommendation of that particular Committee were followed by the present Minister of Health, he would have to recast his duties, or else give them up, and I do not know which he would do.

Nor could I follow the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the 33⅓ per cent. duty, which is a matter of some importance. As I understood him, if an English patent medicine manufacturer imports fine chemicals, subject to the duty, he obviously pays the 33⅓ per cent. and the Patent Medicine Duty. But if I import a foreign patent medicine, which includes these fine chemicals, I pay only the Patent Medicine Duty, because you do not know what the patent medicine includes, as it is a secret. If that be so, you are giving an advantage to the importation of foreign patent medicines over British-made patent medicines. There are a large number of American patent medicines or patent mixtures being imported into this country. I know one, for instance, which I took this morning, and there apparently—I do not know what its constituents are exactly—you give an advantage to the importer of that preparation as compared with the British manufacturer of patent medicines. If that be the case, that must surely be remedied, and the right hon. Gentleman, whose party is so much concerned with protecting British industries, surely cannot leave even a small loophole like this, which is really giving a bonus on foreign patent medicines. I, therefore, suggest that, in the interval between now and the next Finance Bill, the right hon. Gentleman should appoint an expert Committee of the Treasury and the Ministry of Health to investigate this complex question.

The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that one of the reasons why the tax should be imposed was because the composition of the patent remedy is secret. As a matter of fact, the composition of most of these remedies is perfectly well known.

I said that there were three tests, and that the one in regard to secrecy was one of the alternatives.

I wanted to point out that the composition of most of these remedies is perfectly well known. They are generally simple in composition, and they really exist largely from the fact that they are largely advertised, and, therefore, the more the right hon. Gentleman went on with his statement, the more I was convinced that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) was right in asking that the whole matter should be codified and brought up to date before the next Finance Bill is introduced. I agree with the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) that patent medicines are not the concern, and should not be the concern, of the Ministry of Health. They might, perhaps, be the concern of a Ministry of Ill-Health, if such a Ministry were established, because it is very improbable that they are an advantage to the community in general, but, at any rate, it would help matters forward to get it more systematised and to get it reduced to something like a reasonable and intelligible code. It might perhaps lead to more attention being paid to the demerits of some of these productions, one of which, I was sorry to hear, the right hon. Member for Carmarthen used this morning.

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

CLAUSE 3.—( Customs Duties on motor cars, musical instruments, clocks, films, etc. )

7.0 P.M.

I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I made a statement as to what I would be willing to admit in the discussion on the first Amendment to this Clause. It has been the custom of late years, on Clauses of this nature, which excite general interest and controversy, to allow a general debate on some Amendment, by consent of the Committee, in order to meet the convenience of the Committee. The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), would seem to be an opportunity for allowing such a debate. The only question raised by that Amendment is the duration of the proposed duties, but, if it meets with the convenience of the Committee, I should be willing to allow on it a general discussion on the whole of the duties as well as on their merits and their duration. If that be so, the same discussion would not take place again on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I do not know whether that will meet the convenience of hon. Members.

I think the Committee will be very much obliged to you for the statement you have made, and, so far as my colleagues are concerned, it meets with our entire approval. Of course, we understand that there will be no duplication upon the different Amendments.

One thing that you said was that the first Amendment raises the question of the duration of the duty. If I may submit, it raises the question of the date of the imposition of the duty.

I understand that general remarks must be confined to the first Amendment, but points of detail on the other Amendments will be allowed.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out the word "July," and to insert instead thereof the word "January."

The duties which we are now about to discuss are, of course, frankly Protectionist. Together with the duties on hops and the duties on silk, artificial or otherwise, those duties, being Protectionist, constitute a direct infraction of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister at the opening of this Parliament, when he said:

The motor-car industry has flourished extraordinarily under its year of Free Trade. Just as the Financial Secretary for the Treasury has been informing us how the taxation of patent medicines sent up the production of patent medicines so that the tax when doubled produced four times its original revenue, so we find that Free Trade, so far as the motor-car industry is concerned has done it a world of good. The production of motor cars in Great Britain has really risen in a most remarkable fashion in the last few years. In 1922, 45,000; 1923, 67,000; in 1924, 107,000. That is the account of a flourishing industry, an industry which, according to the tenets of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, should be the last to call for protection. But this is the industry specially selected for protection. There is another remarkable fact. English manufacturers actually increased their share of the whole of the cars sold for the home market from 62 per cent. in 1923 to 70 per cent. in 1924 in spite of the tariff barriers coming down, so that now they are supplying well on to three-quarters of all the cars sold for the English market. Foreign competition does not seem to have damaged the industry but rather to have stimulated it. It is not merely the home market. Take our export of motor cars. You will find that in the eight months since the repeal of the McKenna Duties we have exported 9,793, and in the corresponding period of the previous year we only exported 3,970. We have very nearly increased three-fold the export of British cars owing to the reduction in the protective duties.

Take the profits of the motor firms. There, too, we can see whether they are a suffering industry. I find from the "Times" that the net profits of 11 of the principal motor firms have increased in the following manner in the last three years: 1922, £287,000; 1923, £655,000; 1924, £930,000. There you see the net profits constantly increased in a way which might be well envied by many other industries in this country to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the percentage of the total capital employed? "] If you invested your money in 1924 and wished to sell out at the present time, six months afterwards, your capital would have increased by 23 per cent. The capital in some of these concerns is, of course, very largely watered. I know it to my own expense, and I think it will be a very long time indeed before you find on the ordinary shares of many of those flourishing motor companies any dividend paid. I think reconstruction will be essential before you get the industry into condition to meet the slump which occurred in 1920. This industry undoubtedly is recovering, and has done well under Free Trade, and now we find it selected as one of the illustrations of the protective tariff and a Protection pledge.

Many people said last year: Why sacrifice £3,000,000 or £2,750,000? Why sacrifice this revenue? Who stands to benefit? What is wrong with it? The motor trade like to have these duties. Nobody suffers from them. Why should you not continue them, or reimpose them as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing this year? I will give the reasons why. We ought to oppose protective tariffs of all kinds, but more particularly in the case of a flourishing industry. The vice of a tax of this kind is that the community, the taxpayers as a body, the consumers of cars, do not realise what they are paying. The tax which is going to be paid under this scheme by people who buy and use motor cars in this country is not £3,000,000 a year. The tax they pay will be far more than that, more than double it. We are told that already, in 1924, 70 per cent. of the cars used by people in this country were produced in this country and only 30 per cent. imported. The object of a protective tariff is to raise prices. I remember so many Debates on Protection in which the point was quite clearly made by hon. Members who desired Protection that if a protective tariff did not raise prices there would be no point in it.

The object of a protective tariff is to afford shelter behind the walls of a tariff where an industry can grow up and sell goods at a price remunerative to the industry without the danger of their prices being cut by foreign competition. If you have a protective tariff laid on with £3,000,000 a year, which is ostensibly paid by users of cars to the Treasury, it does not represent all that is paid by users of cars. The rest is paid as a private tax going into the private pockets of the protected manufacturers in this country. What it amounts to I should not like to say. We know that 84 per cent. in the case of tea is produced inside the Empire, and the small amount coming from China does not affect the price. You have here 70 per cent. produced inside and 30 per cent. produced outside. You cannot say what it will be, but certainly one or two millions in addition to the three millions will go as a result of these protective tariffs into the pockets of the private manufacturers in this country. The way in which the value of the shares, both ordinary and preference, in motor car companies have moved since the Chancellor reproduced this taxation is evidence of the increased dividend earning capacity of the protected private enterprise.

The real evil of these experiments in Protection is that there is no end to them. We are faced now with an endless series of industries which will make out a case for Protection every bit as good as that of the motor manufacturers. I come from a district where, practically, two-thirds of the manufacture of pottery in this country finds its centre. In North Staffordshire two-thirds of the pottery made in this country is produced. In many branches of that industry in the last two years people have been working short time. That industry is suffering from the competition of Belgium, Germany and Czechoslovakia as it has never suffered before. How long are we to go on seeing other industries protected, and ourselves remain unprotected? How long are the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and myself to go on facing constituents, every one of whom would benefit by a protective tariff? Why do we do it now? Because Members of this House of Commons, as I hope we all realise, represent the public interest, and not a sectional interest. It is so easy to make out a case for the protection of the motor-car trade, the pottery trade, the silk trade, the lace trade, the glove trade. What a case could be made out by the Labour party for getting every industry in the position of a sheltered industry! Every industry wants to be a sheltered industry—men and masters—and it is only by standing up for the public interest, for the consumers of the country, for the general interests of the country, that we can face this sort of demand.

There is a limit to human virtue. Every industry that gets Protection makes it more difficult to prevent that Protection from being extended to other industries. If we in the House of Commons—I do not care what our party labels are—are to come forward and look after the interests of one particular section, we may be re-elected and make our seats perfectly safe, but if that time is coming in the House of Commons, I hope I shall no longer be a Member. We have got to resist that sort of thing. You make it more difficult for us, and no one knows it better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He knows how difficult it is to maintain the interests of the public, the freedom of trade on which this country has built up its great name. He knows how easy it is to destroy it. He in this Budget, and particularly in these taxes, is dealing us the worst felon blow of all. I know it is difficult to make out a case against them, but let us see where we are going; let us remember that going down the hill of Protection is as easy as going down the hill of inflatory currency. They are both easy to start, but impossible to stop, and when you get to the bottom you will find your country and Empire finally destroyed. [ Interruption. ] We shall be in the position of China—

We shall be in the position of China in the old days, when they lived by taking in each other's washing, and our great cotton, steel and coal industries will cease to be the mainstay of Great Britain.

On the last occasion the Budget was discussed, I was not present in the House of Commons when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it his pleasant duty to make a somewhat detailed personal attack upon my consistency in this matter. I, therefore, feel obliged on this occasion to intervene, having had time in the interval to have searched all the records to which he apparently referred. The right hon. Gentleman in that speech made the following remarks:

"Then, although his leaders had changed their positions and were now opponents of the duties, he became one of the strongest supporters of the duties. He vindicated them year after year; year after year he voted for them; year after year they were challenged in the House and he sustained the case for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1923; col. 1230, Vol. 183.]

Will the Committee believe it to be a fact, which I have ascertained, that at no time either in the Government or out of the Government have I vindicated these duties? In no single Division have I ever voted for them, and on no single occasion have I ever made a speech in this House in their favour?

Will the right Bon. Gentleman deny that for five years he was a Member of the Government which imposed these duties?

There the right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate again. I was not a member of the Government which imposed these duties. I opposed these duties when he was a member of the Government. Really, the right hon. Gentleman's inaccuracies pass all bounds. I have never voted for them. I have had the Division list looked up, and in no single Division list is there a vote by me.

From the year 1918 to the year 1922 the right hon. Gentleman was a member, as I was, of the Coalition Government under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The policy of that Government was to impose, year after year, these duties, and they were continually so imposed. Neither did the right hon. Gentleman do anything to oppose them. Whether he intentionally kept away from the Divisions, I cannot say.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the total inaccuracy of his statement. He cannot get away from the statement, which is entirely inaccurate, not to say untrue. It is perfectly true, and I have never denied, that I was a member of that Government. What I have denied is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that I "became one of the strongest supporters of the duties." What evidence has he of that? That I merely did not oppose them. You may have been a member of the Government during the War or after the War, but because these duties went on did not make one a strong supporter of them. The right hon. Gentleman said I vindicated them year after year. What evidence has he? I never vindicated them. He said:

"Year after year he voted for them."

Has the right hon. Gentleman looked up the Division lists, and, if he has, what right has he to make that statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

If the right hon. Gentleman did not vote for these duties— he being a Member of the Government which carried them through the House-it was only because of his slackness of attendance.

The right hon. Gentleman's psycho-analysis will not get away from the fact that he made an inaccurate statement, for which it would be more in accordance with the precedents and customs of this House, if he got up and apologised. He went on to say:

"Year after year they were challenged in the House, and he sustained the case for them."

If that means anything, it means I spoke for them in the House. I did not speak for them in the House. I may not have spoken in the House because I had a bad throat or for any other reason, but the fact is I never spoke for these duties in the House. Really, the right hon. Gentleman in his position has no right to make statements of that kind against an ex-colleague unless he has real evidence. Every statement the right hon. Gentleman made is, in fact, entirely inaccurate.

I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, but we are in Committee, and, perhaps, it may be more convenient to deal with the matter now. Let me say, that if I have made a statement which was, in fact, inaccurate, that he voted year after year for these duties, and that it is not the case that he attended in his place to vote for these duties, I should withdraw, and certainly do withdraw that statement, and I make the right hon. Gentleman a present of any advantage of the fact that, being a Member of the Government supporting these duties, he did not attend in his place and vote for them. But the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in his statement or suggestion that he absented himself from those Divisions while a Cabinet Minister in the Government because of some deep, conscientious feeling against these duties. The statement made at the Election in 1918 by his leader, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in conjunction with Mr. Bonar Law, specifically dealt with the principle of the safeguarding of industries and various other aspects of the policy then, and the right hon. Gentleman fought on that platform. If I have erred at all in the exact technical form, I make the withdrawal certainly, but the whole spirit of the position was that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government and a Member of the Cabinet which, year after year, was forcing these duties through the House of Commons, when he was one of the principal Ministers concerned in the Committee in regard to the framing of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which was an extension of this principle, and an extension into a much more questionable area. Therefore, if I owe the right hon. Gentleman any withdrawal, as to whether he voted in this Division or that Division, I have done him not the slightest injustice with regard to the actual merits of the position he adopted.

If the right hon. Gentleman's mind, since he crossed the House, is so fundamentally confused that he can see no difference in the principle of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the McKenna Duties, it is no use my carrying on the argument. It is really childish to talk like that. The Safeguarding of Industries Act is a purely temporary measure to deal with depreciated currency and dumping, and has no more relation to the McKenna Duties than the Dingley tariff. I am prepared to take my responsibility for the Safeguarding of Industries; Act, as I have at three elections, and on many platforms; but the right hon. Gentleman tries to ride off on an entirely false issue. Nor would I suggest that there was same deep-hidden motive in what I did. I am merely stating the facts. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my speech I was going to deal with the reason why I took on these duties a somewhat different view, I candidly say, in that year, when a colleague of his, from what I do on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman knows I am not afraid of sustaining a debate on this or any other subject, but I would like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman himself, in one of his arguments, defended himself against the charge of inconsistency on the ground that these duties were not protective duties but revenue duties. If that be so, with what is he charging me? We are both of us Free Traders. He is quarelling with the gentlemen below the Gangway and not with his old Free Trade colleagues.

As a matter of fact I cannot accept that view of these duties. These duties were introduced as a war measure. They were introduced, not for revenue purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to state the other day, but for the specific purposes of saving shipping and preventing purchases that the country at that time did not require, and to a minor extent for safeguarding the exchange. I opposed them then, because I was convinced that these duties would not effect their object, and the fact that prohibition was afterwards introduced showed that I was quite right in my contention. There is no shortage of shipping now. There is more shipping afloat than ever, and great quantities are made up. The right hon. Gentleman has no difficulty in maintaining his exchanges, neither can anyone pretend that an American motor-car is an article of luxury, or anything more than a means of locomotion for business people and people of moderate means. The cheap motor-car to-day is not a luxury article at all.

Conditions have changed altogether. Let me go back to 1916, when I joined the Government. I am sorry to be forced into these reminiscences. From 1916 to 1918 was the War, and nobody was going to make any alterations then. After the War we had a great many more important questions to solve than this question. The right hon. Gentleman was then a Liberal and a Free Trader. He never offered to resign the high offices that he held. Let me quote what he said on the general question of tariffs in 1923. I will not take him back to Dundee in 1908, although he made remarkable speeches and said then: greater burden? After all, whatever ho may find it convenient to say, a duty of 33i per cent. on a foreign motor car is a protective tax unless it is balanced by an Excise tax. No amount of juggling will get over that. If he puts on an Excise tax, then the protective tariff will disappear, and that is why he has put on an Excise tax in his Silk Duties. The McKenna Duties are protective, and while they will not produce all the evils of a general tariff, they will pro tanto produce as much evil as a protective tariff can. On the same occasion the right hon. Gentleman said: tion of the War, and should be abolished as soon as possible after it. They were abolished by the right hon. Gentleman who was Chancellor of the Exchequer under the late Government. He took that step and nothing terrible happened. People who complained most doubled their output since. The small car industry of England to-day stands more prosperous and more efficient and higher than any small car industry in the world. It has made progress and need fear no competition.

Surely, if anything is bad for industry, if anything can be worse than having a Free Trade or a tariff system, it is a system which is one year Free Trade and one year tariff. I can understand the conflict of affairs in a Free Trade or a Protectionist country, but one cannot possibly carry on any industry in a country alternatively Free Trade or of tariff. That is why I think the right hon. Gentleman is so wrong, the step having been taken and the trade having accommodated itself to the new conditions, to suddenly reintroduce a tariff which is not accepted by general consent. [ Interruption. ] No, certainly not. Neither would the Liberal party agree that, if they had the opportunity, they would not once more reverse this decision. This industry, apparently, is to be made a see-saw in politics.

The right hon. Gentleman justifies his policy in a Budget of £800,000,000, of which £3,700,000 is for these taxes. There is an enormous lack of porportion in the economic vision of anybody who, in a Budget of this magnitude, talks of this amount as being revenues of importance. This kind of finance, of little fiddling duties of £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, the reimposition of all these little complications which were all swept away by Mr. Gladstone's successive Budgets of 50 years ago, is one of the most retrograde steps ever taken. It is entirely contrary to the practice and principles of all sound finance. It is expensive in collection, troublesome to industry and trade, and financially it is scarcely worth while. If this is not the thin end of Protection, then it has no meaning at all. I fail to understand how the Prime Minister justifies it with the pledge that he gave at the last Election, under which large numbers of members of my party, and large numbers of Free Traders all over the country supported his party in what they looked on as a national crisis of a serious character. You cannot really destroy public faith in this way; it is a very serious thing to do. If the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues had changed their minds and frankly said so, they would be entitled once again to take the verdict of the country which has rejected this policy. Its introduction by motorcar, by banjo, by lace curtains, by silk underwear, undermining thus the great fiscal system of this country, is not a manner to my mind in which a Government possessing a great majority, against which we can only protest, should deal with subjects of this kind.

Let me say a word about the film industry. The film industry in this country is going through an enormously difficult time. The British film industry is being strangled, almost squeezed out of existence. Yet it has an importance which is not entirely economic, and it is not without grave risk that the whole film industry of the world to-day is in the hands of America. Throughout the British Empire, in India, in our great Dominions, it is not British films, not home scenes or acts, or deeds of men of these islands which are presented, but the American gunmen, whom they confuse naturally with themselves, and the Empire falls into the background. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman—and no one is more competent to take a big view on these subjects and on the vital importance of propaganda—lias examined the proposed re-imposition of duties on films coming into this country. If he would consult those engaged in the production of films, he will realise what a great additional handicap it is on an industry which already, through physical conditions, through the climate of this country suffers very heavily. I would like to point out how it works. Take the import duties on raw film. Raw film is not a luxury; it is the foundation of the whole film business of this country. It is imported only from France and Belgium, and therefore the dollar exchange argument does not come in. There will be no revenue as the market price in England renders it impossible for any manufacturer to pay the duty unless he is prepared to make a loss on every foot of film which he sells. I understand there is only one company manufacturing raw film in England, and one result of this duty will be to give that company a virtual monopoly of the trade in England. With a duty of 5d. per foot on negatives a foreign owner can print up to five copies and send them to England instead of the negative without increasing his duty payments at all. If an Englishman wants to produce a film he has got to pay for the raw film as much as his foreign competitor can send in five copies of the negative for. This is what is actually done when only a few prints are required for the English market.

If the right hon. Gentleman goes into the matter he will find that this is what happens. After the McKenna Duties were put on in 1915 the price was one and two-thirds of a penny. On the 1st August last year, after the McKenna Duties were removed, the price was '7 of a penny. A duty of one-third of a penny per foot would mean a duty of 50 per cent. on the retail price of raw film in this country. Surely that cannot have been carefully considered by the experts who advised the right hon. Gentleman. It is a duty of 50 per cent., and yet we are told that it is not a protective duty. Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to me a protective duty which goes higher than 50 per cent.? The Tariff Reformers in the days of their main propaganda used always to speak of a 10 per cent. duty. I think I shall soon be compelled to join their party in order to get some kind of Free Trade in this country, because every duty now proposed is a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and if we go on including by degrees everything in a. tariff either for revenue purposes or for the purposes of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, we shall soon get to the position of having everything subject to a duty of at least 33 per cent. ad valorem. We should certainly do better if we had a duty of 10 per cent. all round, which was the old Tariff Reform proposal. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly said the other day that, of course, the industries to benefit by these duties would not benefit to the same extent if there was a general tariff. That is quite true, but I do not think it makes the position any better; on the contrary, it makes it rather worse. We are selecting specially favoured recipients for the benefit, people who are to put their hands into the pockets of the tax payers of this country.

What has been one of the main objections to a protective tariff from the time of Cobden and Bright and Adam Smith? It is that it allows a private individual to sit at the Custom House and collect, not for the national benefit, but for his own benefit, taxes which the public have to pay. Everybody is not to be allowed to collect; only those engaged in these few and mostly quite absurd industries. Take the musical instruments schedule. What an absurd schedule it is! Then there are watches! Really, when the schedule was first drawn up it was ridiculous, but the idea of perpetuating it solemnly, in the face of the world, as the first essay of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing a tariff is really fantastic. Mr. Bonar Law rightly said that he would never accept these duties as the foundation of a tariff, but see what we have got to accept now. This is the most freak part of the whole of this freak Budget, and we shall certainly resist it to the best of our humble ability.

I, personally, feel my withers entirely unwrung by the fact that while I was not subject to the same freedom as I am to-day, and when the question was not before the House in any shape or form— when the thing was in an entirely different position from what it is at the present time—that at that time I did not take any violent and active part in order to prevent the re-imposition of duties, which, at the time when they were imposed, I had warned the Government they would find it extremely difficult to remove. It is extraordinary how little credence was given to one's words at that time. I remember very well that on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill of 1915, when Mr. McKenna was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I said:

I am very sorry that I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech, because I was led in consequence of his statement into a withdrawal of a statement of fact which I made; and having since had the opportunity of informing myself a little more fully on the point, I find that no such withdrawal, either in the spirit or in the letter, was called for from me. The right hon. Gentleman's record upon this matter is well known. When these duties were imposed during the War by Mr. Asquith's Administration, he opposed them on general Free Trade lines, and he read out to us just now the very prescient words which he uttered on that occasion—how he feared that after the War these duties would not be repealed, as was then promised. His prophetic vision on that occasion did not carry him so far as to see himself for four years after the War engaged in the steady enforcement of these duties year by year. But such is the fact. The right hon. Gentleman has led us to believe that all the time he was a member of the Coalition Government he was writhing under the fact that these duties were being imposed and that he absented himself designedly from the Divisions which took place.

I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not say designedly—I never thought about any design, I merely stated the facts.

Yes, the records have been looked up, and I am informed that I never voted in a single Division, but if I had it would not make much difference.

That was the particular point the right hon. Gentleman took me up on, not on the broad justice of my comment on his attitude, but on the meticulous examination of the statement I made. If the right hon. Gentleman in the short time available since he spoke had consulted the records of 1921 and 1922 he would find that he voted in favour of the Second Beading of the Finance Bills of those two years, and both those Finance Bills included the McKenna Duties. What doctrine is it that is being laid down—that a Cabinet Minister, one of the most influential Members of the Government, is to be entitled year after year to give his vote for a Finance Bill embodying a particular tax, and then afterwards to come forward and say that he disapproved of it all along and that he never supported it in any way?

It is not really a great point, but what the right hon. Gentleman said was not that I voted on the Finance Bill containing the McKenna Duties—probably no Cabinet Minister could have voted against it—but that I voted for these duties, which would give the impression to people outside that when there was a Division on these duties I particularly voted for them. He said I spoke for them, that I was one of their chief supporters, that I sustained the case in debate. What impression is he trying to create? The impression, surely, that I had taken an active part in this House, and possibly out of it, in arguing for these duties which I am now opposing.

That is the general impression which I consider is rightly drawn from the attitude and record of the right hon. Gentleman, and when I say he voted for these duties I am actually justified, not merely on the ground that he was a Member of the Government, an active Member of the Government which was imposing them, but he actually voted for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill which included those duties, and, therefore, he did vote for those duties, and, therefore, I withdraw my withdrawal. I withdraw it entirely. As to the right hon. Gentleman's attitude upon these duties, he really must not pretend to the House that all the time he was a Member of the Coalition Government he was a most austere and impeccable champion of extreme Free Trade doctrine. Nothing of the sort. He was, more than anyone else that I know of, the Liberal connected with that Government who took a part in developing the case for a certain exceptional treatment of particular aspects of the Free Trade problem. One or two of these pearls have been preserved. Here is the right hon. Gentleman on the great steel industry. He said: —

Those are great examples of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman's mind was moving, and in face of them, coupled with the fact that on two occasions he voted for a Finance Bill of which these duties formed an integral part, he cannot make it a grievance that I should refer to these matters. I referred to these matters because the right hon. Gentleman himself had introduced a personal criticism of my record, and I thought it was only fair that a similar scrutiny should be applied to him. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, or with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first on this subject, that the effect of the re-imposition of these McKenna Duties is going to raise the cost in this country, or is going to be detrimental either to the general consumer in the main or to the industries specifically concerned. So far as the general consumer is concerned, the circumstances of the motor industry are very special. It is an industry that is developing at an enormous rate. The use of motor cars is extending in every part of the country, and in many classes of life and industry. I was told there were 90,000 more motor vehicles on the road in the last year than there were in the preceding 12 months. [An HON. MEMBER: "A dying industry!"] I have never called it a dying industry. It is an industry which is greatly expanding. It was helped, no doubt, by the McKenna Duties. It was checked and chilled, no doubt, by the removal of the McKenna Duties. But whether helped or whether hindered, it continues to expand, and it will continue to expand. If no McKenna Duties had been removed last year, and if none were reimposed this year, the motor industry would continue to expand.

Let us look and see whether the reimposition of the duties is going to be followed by an increase in the price charged to the consumer. Of course, when you come into the region of forecast, one man's statement may be as good as another's. But let us look at some of the facts which have occurred since the duties were reimposed. Vauxhall motors, one of the most important firms, have published the following statement: substantial figures—10 per cent. or 15 per cent. Crossley motors, another great firm, made a similar announcement on the 19th of last month.

An HON. MEMBER: Put a heavier tax on.

I am dealing with the facts. That is a fact. If people merely indicate an intention, that is one thing. When they offer to sell an article at a reduced price, that is another. Then the makers of the Ariel Car announce that the Ariel Occasional Four-Seater will be reduced from £198 to £168 as from 11th May. That is a very big reduction. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not 33 per cent."] Why should it be? My hon. and gallant Friend is a little adrift. Because a duty has been imposed on foreign imports of 33⅓ per cent. the Free Trader would normally argue that an increase of price of 33⅓ per cent. would take place in the home market, but what has occurred in this case is that there has been no increase of price. I am just endeavouring to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman a little instruction. On the contrary, there has been an important diminution of £30 on a car which does not exceed £200 in value. There are a very large number of statements by different motor firms. This is a very typical one from the chairman of a company. position of these duties has been promised, over the whole area of British motor-car production, there has been a substantial diminution among the leading cars, and particularly in the smaller and cheaper kinds of cars where the competition is very great. That at any rate is very satisfactory. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying, as far as we have gone, that the consumer has suffered in no way by what has happened.

Now the question is whether the industry will benefit. I have no doubt it will. As I pointed out earlier in the discussion, if you select four or five trades and give them the advantage of a 33⅓ per cent. tariff, while at the same time you do not propose a tariff all round so that they might have to share this advantage with every other trade in the country, and consequently diminish their advantage, pro tanto, with every extension of the principle you will confer a very great advantage upon the industries, and I have no doubt they will employ increasingly larger numbers of British labour, and particularly that kind of labour, in the engineering trade, which has (been harshly treated by the great turn of world events. They have less reward for the skill which has been put into their training and long apprenticeship than many other less skilled occupations. To that very class of skilled engineers and artisans it will bring an added measure of employment. If I see that the consumer is not injured, and if the industry is not injured, I am certainly not going to break my heart because an extra measure of employment will be given to this class of our skilled artisans and engineers, who more than any other class need that encouragement and employment. If you look at other aspects of these McKenna Duties—I will not deal with films, because there is an Amendment relating to them, but take the question of clocks and watches. In the seven months following the repeal of the McKenna Duties the import of clocks and watches increased by 294 per cent. over the imports in the seven months preceding. That is a very remarkable fact. Take musical instruments. In the seven months after the repeal of the duties, no fewer than 11,553 pianos were imported, compared with 2,190 in the seven months before. These are very striking figures. I cannot, myself, believe that any serious basic interest of this country, moral or material, would have been injured if these duties had been in continuous existence, if the Revenue had been profiting by them, and if for that period the home industry manufacturing these articles had received the protection which these duties afford.

I regret to have to be forced to examine in detail the fiscal arguments in relation to these duties because really they rest, as the House knows quite well, upon a historical basis. They were imposed by a Liberal Prime Minister and a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were continued by a Liberal Prime Minister in a Government which consisted, to the extent of nearly a half, of Liberals. They were taken off last year by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as I have often said, as a move in the political game. He sought to obtain the support of the Liberals for his Budget, and to make strife between them and the Conservatives, as the result of which their destruction would be consummated. Now we stand here and we feel justified in reimposing these duties in exactly the same form, simply undoing what was done last year and no more. I do not consider that that raises any fiscal issue at all. It is a pure question of revenue and giving effect to the clearly expressed will of the. people at the election. But if we are to deal with the fiscal issues, I say that on the fiscal issues involved you could hardly choose a worse case on which to employ the Free Trade argument, because as Mr. McKenna said, all these duties fall within the area of luxury production.

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken, in language to which he endeavoured to. impart the accents of extreme solemnity, of a Government breach of faith, of a breach of public faith—of the pledge of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is impossible for any Government, for any great Parliamentary majority, to have acted with a more scrupulous sense of regard for its pledges in connection with the controversy between Free Trade and Protection than this administration has done. It is quite true that there is a number of small items upon which there are differences of opinion on various grounds. There is the safeguarding of industries policy. There is the Silk Duty, imposed for revenue purposes and with a countervailing Excise, in connection with which the Liberals have put down an Amendment advocating the dropping of the countervailing Excise. There is the group of McKenna Duties, which have been a feature of every Budget for several years past, and which were removed last year by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in the circumstances I have mentioned: these are all imposed on revenue grounds, and have been part of the effective fiscal system of this country.

On these incidents and small items in our vast system of revenue and finance, it has been sought to found a charge of breach of faith, and an attempt has been made to build up a whole structure of argument to the effect that Free Trade is in danger, that a vast fiscal departure is being undertaken by the Government in violation of their pledge. It is absurd; and let me say this: When right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in 1923, used their party voting strength of 160, which they had obtained in defence of Free Trade, for the purpose of putting a Socialist Government in office, they abandoned their power, they destroyed their power. At this moment there is only one thing that stands between them and a complete general Protectionist tariff in this country, and that is the pledge of the Prime Minister, endorsed by the party at whose head he stands. There is not the slightest doubt of that, and I think it ought to be remembered, before these taunts of breach of faith are thrown across the House, that it is simply on the good faith of the party, and on the punctual and faithful fulfilment of the pledges which it gave to the constituencies at the Election —it is on that and that only, and not on any strength of the party opposite, nor on any conviction of the Labour party, that the Free Trade system of our country at the present moment stands.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us, apart from the pledge, would he be prepared to introduce a general tariff?

I say perfectly clearly that I am opposed to a general tariff. There is not the slightest secret about the fact that at the 1923 Election I fought the principle of a general tariff. My right hon. Friend does not need to be informed of that from any quarter. It is because that principle of a general tariff no longer forms, at the present time, part of the programme of this party, and because the absence of a general tariff from that programme is binding upon this party—it is because of that that I consider we are perfectly free to examine these subsidiary proposals in a reasonable spirit, without their raising the great issues of Protection and Free Trade.

I have only one word to say upon the Amendment before I sit down. The Amendment seeks to postpone the operation of these duties for six months. I can understand anyone being opposed to these duties; I can understand anyone being in favour of them; but that anyone should wish to prolong this gap of uncertainty, to keep this interval during which the commodities which are to be the subject of the duties can be dumped in this country at a rate out of all relation to the natural flow of supply and demand, beyond the 1st July next, is beyond reasonable comprehension. The Amendment itself simply says, "Let us prolong this period in order to enable the greatest amount of dislocation to be caused to the home trade by artificially stimulated imports; let us facilitate the largest possible measure of dumping that can be induced from foreign quarters."

We have elected to discuss on this Amendment the general issue which has been discussed again and again in this House, and I have given a perfectly frank answer, which I consider has covered the whole of the issue, without involving the great question of Free Trade and Protection, of the reinstatement of these duties for the reasons which have been given. So far as the specific Amendment is concerned, it is hardly possible for an Amendment to have been put upon the Paper less conceived in the interests of the country, and more certain to bring about dislocation of trade and injury to the fortunes of the country, whether it be regarded from the point of view of the most ardent Free Trader or of the most ardent Tariff Reformer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has imported an unusual amount of heat into the speech which he has just delivered. Possibly that may be explained by the state of the weather, but I think it is much more likely to be due to a consciousness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that he was attempting to defend a very weak case. Nothing could better illustrate that than the concluding observations of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend. I venture to say that it is an insult to the intelligence of the Members of this Committee, all of whom are supposed to know something about the methods of Debate and the Rules of Order and procedure, to place upon our Amendment the interpretation which has been placed upon it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When we move to reduce a Vote because we are not satisfied with the amount which it is proposed to devote to the particular purpose in question, no sensible Member of the House of Commons would charge us with any responsibility for the literal interpretation of that Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the form of the Amendment now before the Committee is the only way in which we could at the beginning raise a discussion upon this question. If he has looked at all the Amendments on the Paper, he knows that there are many others which are opposed altogether to the reimposition of any one of these duties. It is mere quibbling on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and is, as I have said, virtually an insult to the intelligence of the Committee to formulate such an objection to the Amendment which we have moved.

Those who were in the House last year, and heard the speeches delivered in support of my proposal to repeal these duties, must have been not only amused but entertained by the reference of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the marvellous expansion of the industry during the past 12 months. The Prime Minister himself was one of the Jeremiahs who prophesied the immediate doom of the motor industry when it could no longer rely upon protective tariffs, but would have to rely upon its own initiative and enterprise. Millions of men would be thrown out of work.

I know the right hon. Gentleman did not make that statement, but I only want to point out that mem- bers of his party did, and the responsible spokesman, speaking officially, prophesied an increase of 200,000 unemployed as a direct result of the repeal of those duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that there are 90,000 more motor cars on the road to-day than there were 12 months ago, and that so prosperous and profitable is the trade that the Vauxhall Motor Company and the Crossley Motor Company are able to reduce the price of their motors. I think these were rather unfortunate illustrations given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke of these great companies. What happened? Take the Crossley Motor Company, which had been enjoying a 33⅓ per cent. tariff for 10 years. How did it prosper under the protection of that tariff? I can remember a few years ago, about the time of the Armistice, that the ordinary shares in the Crossley Motor Company were standing at 26s., but gradually owing to "the crippling and chilling influence"—I am using the phrase of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of the McKenna Duties that company, in harmony with practically every British motor manufacturing company, went from bad to worse. The manufacture of motor cars in this country was practically suspended during the War.

Now I come to the case of the luxury cars put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Crossley Company began after the Armistice to make these cars, for a year or two the ordinary shares stood at 26s., but gradually that company went from bad to worse, and their shares at the time these duties were repealed last year were standing at about 5s. 6d. to 6s. That was the experience of the Crossley Company. I will take another case. For some reason or other when these duties were originally imposed there was no tax upon imported commercial motor vehicles, and what happened? I contrast the prosperity of a well known firm engaged in making not luxury motor cars but wholly commercial vehicles with the firms enjoying the protection of a 33⅓ per cent. tariff. I will mention names.

Take the case of Dennis Brothers, who have a very high reputation as manufacturers of commercial motor vehicles. What did they do? Unlike Crossley's, Wolseley's and Austin's, and all the other big "luxury" motor manufacturing firms, who were going down year after year until they became practically insolvent. Dennis Brothers never paid a dividend of less than 12 per cent., and their ordinary £1 shares are standing in the market to-day at 47s. It is quite true that there has been a "chilling and crippling influence," and that influence was the delusion of the maintenance of the McKenna Duties in the years following the War, for that deluded British motor manufacturers into a false sense of security. If these duties had not been in existence, what would have happened? The Prime Minister appealed to captains of industry generally last week to show more initiative, and put 10 per cent. more brains into the organisation of their businesses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned certain advertisements which had been appearing in the newspapers announcing reductions in price. Why? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. It was because during the last 12 months these firms had been thrown upon their own resources, and they had adopted better and improved methods of organisation, with the result that they are now able to produce at a cheaper rate and at a lower price, and that is the explanation.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he began to subscribe to the doctrine that a protective tariff did not increase the price of an article in the home market? What happened 12 months ago? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not read some of the advertisements which appeared in the newspapers then, not showing reductions of 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., but reductions in price of 25 per cent., and in some cases a little less. The Chancellor of the Exchequer advanced the astoundingly foolish argument that if the duties had not been repealed last year the state of things in the motor trade would have been better to-day than it is. How does he know? The right hon. Gentleman said anybody is entitled to have an opinion upon a thing which nobody can prove, but why did he not explain that the increase in the number of motor cars last year was far larger than in any previous year, and that is the answer. An ounce of fact is worth a pound of the right hon. Gentleman's ridiculous nonsensical theories.

Even if the price of motor cars goes down, may I use an argument which has a certain resemblance to that put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, although it has a great deal more substance? Suppose the price of motor cars goes down, does that prove that the consumer has not paid the tax? Not at all. In the motor industry improvements are constantly taking place, and in any circumstances with what is practically a revolution in the manufacture of these things taking place every year it is likely there will be some reduction in price. Our point, however, is that prices are kept up because of the existence of these taxes. Why does the manufacturer of motor cars want a tariff? He can only want it because he hopes to get an advantage from it, and he can only get an advantage by getting more profit out of the sale of his motor cars. The right hon. Gentleman asked, "Is he likely to benefit?" Most certainly he is.

If the motor car trade and the trade in other articles which come under these duties are going to benefit by the imposition of these duties, why does the right hon. Gentleman restrict that benefit to these trades and these trades only? The right hon. Gentleman has said that in 1923 he was opposed to a general tariff. Who expects the right hon. Gentleman to be of the same opinion in 1925 as he was in 1923? The right hon. Gentleman said that he might still oppose a general tariff. It is only a difference of time and a difference of degree. If he is going to put a tariff, as he is doing in this Budget, upon something like a dozen different articles, how long is it going to take him at that rate before he gets his general tariff? In the course of, I believe, the first speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered in his present office, he said that if you impose a tariff under the Safeguarding of Industries scheme upon more than a small number of articles, you have broken the Prime Minister's pledge.

That was its effect. I am not quoting the exact words, but I have no doubt whatever as to the effect, and reference to the report of the speech will prove that I am right. It is the thin end of the wedge. There is no difference except in degree. Hon. Members opposite know that. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated his accusation that I repealed these duties last year because I wanted to get the support of the Liberal Members of the House of Commons. On another occasion in reply to a similar charge by the right hon. Gentleman I said something to the effect that I could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman was incapable of believing that anybody could be actuated by any other feeling than playing the political game. Now may I retort, and with some justification, upon the right hon. Gentleman and say, that he is re-imposing these duties this year in order to ingratiate himself with the Tariff Reform propagandists in his party? They looked with a good deal of suspicion upon his appointment. He had to give recognisances for his good behaviour. Therefore he proposes the reimposition of these duties.

A more gross perversion of historic facts was never uttered than his account of the history and inception of those duties. Mr. McKenna never said that these articles were luxury articles in the sense of being permanent luxuries. They were luxuries at the time that the duties were imposed. Why did Mr. McKenna pledge himself, as he definitely did, that these duties would be repealed when the War was over? I will come to the Foreign Secretary before I sit down. He is in the same boat. Only two years ago, Mr. McKenna wrote a letter which was read to this House by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), in which he expressed his great regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now the Prime Minister, had not fulfilled the expectations that these duties would be repealed as soon as the War was over.

It was no political game we played last year. The previous election had been fought upon the question of a general tariff. I can speak for myself, at least, that in my election I opposed not merely a general tariff, but a partial tariff. Our party were pledged to the hilt to take the first opportunity of repealing these duties. That was why we did it. It is an unfounded and baseless insinuation for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that I was actuated in what I did last-year with any other motive than the motive of fulfilling an electoral pledge and the carrying out of a policy which I have advocated consistently during the whole of my political career.

The right hon. Gentleman quoted certain figures in regard to the increases of imports since these duties were repealed 12 months ago. Will he kindly tell me when he was converted to the opinion that imports are an injury to the country which imports them? I remember, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember, that he made a great speech in the Free Trade Hall in Manchester on the eve of the General Election of 1923. It was regarded by the Free Traders as being one of the most brilliant expositions of Free Trade principles which had ever been delivered from a public platform. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman at very great length defended imports as being a benefit to the country which received them. Now, he is quoting imports of clocks and watches. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer go still further and repeat the statement of ignorant Tariff Reform propagandists, by saying that every one of the clocks and watches imported into this country has thrown a British workman out of employment? Why did not he say that? An ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. There has been this increase in the imports of clocks and watches during the year since the McKenna Duties were taken off. What has been the effect upon employment? In the last month when the duties were operative, the amount of unemployment in the watchmaking and clockmaking industry was 13 per cent. By this enormous increase in imports during the year—every watch and clock imported throwing a British watchmaker and clockmaker out of employment—we find that unemployment declined from August, and in November it stood at 9·8 and in December 10·6. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman get back to his sounder theories, and abandon such a foolish contention that the increase of imports is a disadvantage to the country which imports them?

Let me refer to the motor trade. I am justified in emphasising this point, because it was the great objection which was urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite against the repeal of the duties last year. It was said that the repeal of the duties would increase unemployment. Take the motor trade. In August, the month of their removal, the percentage of unemployment was 10·2; in December it had dropped to 7·5. In December, 1924, the number of unemployed in the motor industry was 15,309, as compared with 19,433 in the previous year. These are facts which are worth all the rhetoric of the right hon. Gentleman. I wish he would deal a little more with the facts and give us less of his knowledge of the English dictionary. Is there anyone who was a member of the Government which imposed these duties originally who was not pledged to the assurance that they were to operate only during the War, and while the conditions which had made it necessary to limit imports remained? These conditions have now all disappeared. The present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he was Chancellor of Exchequer deliberately changed the date from the lapsing of these duties from August to the end of April and he did that because he said—I am not using his exact words—that he wanted to mark in a special way the temporary character of these duties.

Now the right hon. Gentleman has not urged this quite so much to-night. He evidently wanted to placate any possible suspicion of discontent among the Protectionists behind him, but previously his great point, when defending these duties, has been that they brought in revenue. As I have often said before, if revenue be the only thing which he wants, why does he not go to an industry which will give him much revenue? What is he going to get out of this? A paltry million pounds. But I doubt if he will get that, especially with regard to the piano trade. German pianos were imported in very large numbers after the War when they were cheap. They are dear to-day, and therefore it is likely that, with the imposition of these duties, there will be a very considerable falling off in the importation of foreign pianos, and the right hon. Gentleman's revenue will surfer accordingly.

There is no justification in the right hon. Gentleman's contention that he is doing this for revenue. What is he doing in other parts of the Budget. He is giving away £1,000,000 to the sugar growers and to certain fruit growers in certain parts of the Empire he is giving another £1,000,000 as breach of promise damages to the Dominions because of the non-carrying out of the Resolutions passed at the Imperial Conference. Then there is the matter which has been referred to so often this afternoon that I almost hesitate to repeat it. If it is revenue that he wanted, why did he reduce the Income Tax? That is £27,000,0000. It is straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman wants it is part of the Proectionist policy.

The right hon. Gentleman was very-indignant at what he infers was some-charge of breach of faith made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), whose speech. I had not the good fortune to hear. He was very indignant that anyone should cast the slightest aspersion upon the good faith of the Prime Minister. This is becoming a rather serious matter. There is no use of the Prime Minister going about the country preaching sermons about peace on earth and good will to men, which is a most admirable sentiment, unless we are going to get a straight deal in the House of Commons. One part of the Prime Minister's' pledge has been repeated. Let me go further, and quote something else he said. I remember that it was delivered in the Debate on the White Paper in reference to the Safeguarding of Industries proposal a few months ago. The Prime Minister was more emphatic then. He said:

I think now I have touched on all the points that were made in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. These duties will be reimposed now, but we regard them as being contemporary with the lifetime of the present Government. They will have a long run, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not if the Chancellor of the Exchequer remains in his present position and pursues the policy which he is now following. They are going to have a long run. Are they? How many times can the present Government survive the indignity of funking a challenge to fight an election in an industrial constituency with which the right hon. Gentleman himself had some acquaintence? I am perfectly willing that the right hon. Gentleman should continue in the illusion that he and his Budget are popular. He spoke the other day about the great silent support there is for this Budget. The only support I can find for his Budget is silent support. It is a Budget which has certainly not aroused enthusiasm in the country. The country regards the proposal to impose such duties as these as being the back way to the establishment of Protection and as a violation of the pledges given by the Prime Minister to the country at the time of the last election. For these and other reasons we shall oppose them at every stage during the progress of the Finance Bill.

The analytical and sometimes vituperative methods of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken always form an attractive feature of our Debates. I cannot think, after having listened most carefully to the speech which he has just delivered, that he has largely advanced the arguments either for or against the duties now under discussion. If we want to raise a cheer from hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who still retain apparently an affection for the aged shibboleth of Free Trade, which we do not profess ever to have had, we have only to mention, when we are dealing with motor cars, that no fewer than 90,000 more were placed on the streets of this country last year. Immediately they are filled with the thought of the prosperity of the motor industry. I remember that the late Prime Minister, in speaking on the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne, referred to the boom in motor cars. I think he called it an indecent boom. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made a somewhat similar remark two or three weeks ago.

I do not think anyone will deny that the British motor trade, such as it is to-day, is going through a period of pretty fair prosperity. But that requires a little analysis. In the first place, the period referred to by the late Prime Minister when he talked of the indecent boom, was the time just following our annual motor show. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the trade knows that it is at that period of the year when all the firms are booming their wares on the strength of the orders that they have taken at the show. It is upon the orders taken at the show that they base their annual output. But to talk of that, and the fact that 40,000 orders were taken by the Morris Company when they had actually budgeted for 75,000 prior to the removal of the McKenna Duties, as showing a magnificent sign of progress in this country—to do that without looking a little deeper into what the industry means in the world at large, is utterly futile. As has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer very plainly, we are in this country just on the eve of a motor era. We are going to have motors here in such numbers as are to be found in France, Italy and the United States. At the present time there are 1,222,000 motor vehicles registered in this country, of which nearly one-third are motor cycles. We are the only country to have motor cycles in any considerable quantity, the reason being that other countries can sell motor cars at prices at which we sell motor cycles.

9.0 P.M.

There are no more than 500,000 pleasure motor cars in this country. There are 18,000,000 in the United States. You must get 20 cars where there is only one to-day, before this country has reached a position parallel to that of the United States. What I ask myself is this: Why should not British working men, backed by British capital, supply the vast demand which is rapidly coming in this country for cars? Why should we allow ourselves to be swamped by the cheap motor cars from abroad? The reason that foreign cars are cheap is obvious. In America to-day the production is so vast that the makers can send over here the numbers that we require at utterly uncompetitive prices without having the slightest effect on the profits that they are making. [HON. MEMBERS: "At high wages."] Yes, at high wages. You could do the same here if you had the same production. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite appreciate this fact: There are 14 motor-car firms in the United States which last year produced more cars than all the British firms together. When I heard the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs make the remark that as soon as the McKenna Duties were removed up went the exports, I was amazed. What were our exports last year? 11,042 cars were imported into France. Of that total, only 24 were British. At exactly the same time as we were putting 90,000 cars on the road in this country, France exported very nearly 40,000, of which over 6,000 came to this country.

Let me deal with the effect of the McKenna Duties before and after removal. In the six months before removal 5,600 completed cars came into this country. In the six months subsequent to their removal 9,500 came into this country. What was the good of letting those cars come in here when we might have made them ourselves? The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said, "We have the world beat as far as small motor cars are concerned," by which he meant what I call the road louse of 10 or 12 horse-power. Why has that type of small car developed to such an extent? Why has it gained such a hold in this country? Because it is the only kind of car which can be produced at a price competitive with far higher-powered cars from the United States. Take the Dominions, all of which I know well. You will see there only one British car to 100 foreign cars. In this country at the present time less than 40 per cent. of the cars are British, but 95 per cent. of the cars in the United States are American cars, and over 90 per cent. of the cars in France are French. In Europe the only British car you see is the travelling Rolls-Royce.

A right hon. Gentleman opposite asked why the Crossley Company were doing so well. It was because in the interim of one year they improved their machinery and were able to reduce prices because of that particular method. A great point made by all the opponents of the McKenna Duties was that prices were immediately reduced when the Show came on. But they forgot that prices have been brought down at every Show. Although they are not doing anything very much in the way of output, compared with the world output, British makers are increasing their output, and are able, because of the greater demand, to reduce prices. You will get a reduction of price at the next Show; that is certain. What was not stated was that although British prices were reduced, there were three French firms which, having reduced their prices in June, reduced them again at the Show, subsequent to the removal of the McKenna Duties, and that seven British firms went smash shortly after. I could give the names to the House, but shall not do so, as one of the firms has been reconstructed. These are facts and an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. Nor did the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the Ford Motor Company purchased land at Dagenham and drew up designs for a great factory there for the production of Ford cars in this country, and though they retained the land they gave up all idea of building there when the McKenna Duties were removed.

Why were so many firms almost on the verge of bankruptcy three years ago? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that question? I wonder to what extent he has followed the motor-car trade? I cannot believe he knows anything whatever about it. Three years ago nearly all our big firms were on the verge of bankruptcy, and that for three reasons. One reason, which should be better known to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, was the moulders' strike, which held up the getting of castings for the manufacture of cars, and when it was proposed to get mouldings from Belgium, the men here refused to deal with them. Then it is expected that our trade should go ahead. The second reason was the boom year of inflation, during which many of these firms were overcapitalised, and the third was that in 1923 there was a greater production of motor cars in America than America could consume, and she sent them over here at even worse competitive prices than those which normally obtain, and our firms, which had not got into their stride again after the War, were unable to compete. I could go on giving arguments to show why firms on this side are desirous of having the duties reimposed.

We have heard how three or four firms reduced prices and the foreign firms put them up. Only one foreign firm out of the 70 or 80 which have agencies here increased its prices, and that is the Isotta-Fraschini firm, which produces a car parallel to our Rolls Royce. It was £1,350, and after the remission of the duties it was increased to £1,550. But that is not going to hurt the poor working man, and if these more expensive cars were kept out, so much the better. I would like to deal with the question of these expensive cars. At the last motor show there was a big foreign car which, again, was the parallel of our Rolls Royce. A fortnight before, there had been a motor show in France, where the Rolls Royce Company sold four chassis—there is a heavy duty in France against such cars—but in the same period at the show here the foreign company sold 44 chassis. I cannot follow the arguments of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite though I appreciate the fact that, as Free Traders, they do not like any interference with their old-established ideas. I know that they criticise my leader and charge us with a breach of faith in regard to this matter, but, as far as I am concerned, as a back bencher, so far from regarding this proposal as a breach of faith, I am discontented with it, because I have always been a Protectionist, and I never blink the fact. I cannot understand why you should go on trying to play at Free Trade in a world which is wholly Protectionist, and for my part, the sooner we are able to go to the people and clear that pledge out of the way, the better it will be for us.

The right hon. Gentleman has said it is a new theory that increased imports will not do good. Is he anxious to see the time when we shall have such an influx of imports that we shall not need to manufacture anything whatever ourselves? There is another cry—that the consumer always pays the tax. If that be the case, what worries me is why all these other nations have not given up tariffs long ago. I do not wish to intervene further in the Debate, but it is very difficult to sit here and listen to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who obviously have no knowledge of the situation, endeavouring to convince, not the Members of this House, but the people outside to do something which is against their own interest. For my part I admire the valour of ignorance, but when ignorance is so colossal it is mere vanity.

At last we have had one honest speaker from the Conservative party who admits that the McKenna proposals are protective in character.

I said I was discontented on that point, because the proposal was not Protectionist, and I am a Protectionist.

The hon. and gallant Member regards this as a step forward, and he said he was discontented with his leader because it did not go far enough. I think that is a correct account of what he said. I am beginning to be rather bewildered in the House of Commons. I have been accustomed to give a certain interpretation to the English language. I read the promise of the Prime Minister in which he used explicit language and in which he said that he was not going to introduce Protection in any shape or form unless under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Protection is now being introduced in more than one way in the present Budget, and I fail to see how the right hon. Gentleman can possibly maintain that he has kept the pledge which he made on more than one occasion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down appeared to be speaking plain English and I am accustomed to give one interpretation to English. I have not been long a Member of the House of Commons, and either I have mistaken the hon. and gallant Gentleman through my ignorance or else the language used in the House of Commons bears a different interpretation from the language used outside.

We are told that the reimposition of these taxes is necessary in order to give a preference to the home industry and that by putting this 33⅓ per cent. on motor cars, accessories and other articles we are not going to increase the price to the consumer but we are going to help the industry. In regard to what has been said on the subject of imports, I would refer hon. Members to the figures for the four months ending 30th April in the years 1923, 1924 and 1925, respectively. The number of touring cars imported in the four months ending 30th April, 1923, was 7,536; in the four months ending 30th April, 1924, 4,037, and in the four months ending 30th April, 1925, 11,188. Let us take the corresponding export figures. The number exported in the four months ending 30th April, 1923, was 582; in the four months ending 30th April, 1924, 2,594, and in the four months ending 30th April, 1925, 5,762. That is to say, a greater increase has taken place in exports than in imports during that period. The value of the imports in touring oars increased between 1923 and 1925 by £928,225 and in the corresponding period the value of the exports increased by £1,158,711. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who Has just sat down has been trying to explain that we are not selling our cars in France, Italy or the United States, but we must be selling them somewhere. They are exported from this country at an increasing rate every year, and the value of the exports has Increased within that comparatively short time by the large sum I have mentioned, so that our motor industry seems to be the last thing which requires protection of any kind. The motor industry, like others, when it has to stand on its own feet, carries out the advice of the Prime Minister and uses its brains as it should, and does not depend on protection from the Government.

We are told that the price of cars are going to be reduced. Take the case of the Morris-Cowley car. The Morris-Cowley firm was going to be ruined by the withdrawal of the McKenna Duties. What was their output before those duties were withdrawn? It was something between 500 and 600 cars a week, but almost immediately after the withdrawal the output was increased to 1,000 cars a week. Great progress had been made, and the firm contemplated reducing prices. The price of 100 guineas, which they contemplated, would have brought the car within the reach of a very large public. How was that made possible? How could they produce a car like this and sell at this price? Simply because they adopted better methods of production and of distribution. Why is it that we do not find British cars in various countries abroad? Simply because we do not adopt ordinary business publicity and advertise and push them in other countries. Take, for instance, Palestine. There are hundreds and scores of hundreds of cars being used in Palestine every day. It is worth while selling even a few hundred cars, and it would be of advantage to the trade of this country to do it, but there is scarcely a single English car in use at the present time in Palestine.

Mention has been made of pianos. There was a conference at Llandudno, which happens to be, not in my constituency exactly, but in the county which I represent, on 30th May, in connection with British industries, and there it was stated that the British piano industry has regained something like 90 per cent. of its pre-war business. The German piano industry, which sold a large number of pianos in this country, now exports to us less than 50 per cent. of what it exported before the War. The British piano industry took a vote as to whether or not they should apply to be placed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and they voted against it, deciding that the position of the trade did not justify them in asking to be put under that Act. If we are going to adopt protective duties of any kind, let us help trades which require it, and these trades do not require it. The promise was made that these duties were to be imposed merely for the duration of the War. They have been withdrawn, and why, in order to obtain the very small revenue that will be obtained, they have been reimposed, it is impossible for me to understand, unless it be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) stated, had to do something to placate the Tariff Reformers and the Protectionists who are supposed to be his supporters, and who are sitting behind him.

The hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Sir A. Bur-goyne) made a jibe at this side, and suggested that we were hide-bound Free Traders who were afraid to depart from our shibboleths, and who were not prepared to listen to arguments. I am a Free Trader who would be very pleased to hear an argument from the other side, and I could talk for the next hour, if I were allowed to ramble all over the face of the earth and make unsupported assertions, as that hon. and gallant Member did. Had he remained in his place, I would like to have given him a few of the reasons why I cannot support these proposals of the Government. For instance, for the past five or six years the workers of this country have been told from platform and press that what this country needed more than any other thing was to get prices down. We were urged to produce more and consume less. The hon. and gallant Gentleman actually wanted to blame the iron founders for the depression in the motor industry rather than look at the real cause of that depression.

I am suspicious of the logic of people who say to me: "Reduce your wages to cheapen the product," and who, at the same time, say to me: "Put a tariff on, increase the price, and keep out the foreign goods." I am a trifle suspicious of the men who say they are awfully sorry for those who are out of work, and that a tax on a car costing £l,500 does not affect the man who is out of work. Would it not give him work making a car at £1,500 just the same as making what he calls a "road louse," which was, to me, a new name? Would it not give him just as much work? There are hundreds of men living in the Bilston Division who are very much concerned about this question of reimposing the McKenna Duties. When the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to take them off, these men were asked to petition against taking them off, on the ground that it was going to throw them out of work, but the men said: "We do not want to petition, but we will have a ballot." The firm did not want them to have the ballot, but the men had the ballot, and they have had more work than they were having when the McKenna Duties were on.

Now we come to another very interesting situation, and a little bit of honesty in politics, I think, might pay. The hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury tried to explain that the motor industry received the major portion of its orders at the show, and it is equally true to assert that the major portion of the motor cars that are turned out in this country are turned out in the period from immediately after the show to about May in the following year. But last year, when the opposition was being created against the repeal of these duties, the agitation was carried on at a time when the men who knew all about the motor car industry knew that it was a slack period, and the mere fact of suggesting, said they, that these duties should be taken off was throwing thousands of men out of work every week. Indeed, the ridiculous assertion was made by some that if these duties were repealed millions would be thrown out of work.

There is another very strong reason why I cannot vote for the re-imposition of these duties. Less than two months ago we were busily engaged passing an Act to get us back to gold—not that we had ever left it, but to get back to pre-War parity. We were told from the other side of the House that getting back to pre-War parity would enable this country to purchase more cheaply in every market in the world. Shortly after that, I was having a chat with a Member of the Government, and I just ran over the difficulties of the iron and steel trade and he suggested to me that that would have made a splendid Tariff Reform speech. My remark to him was, "Yesterday your people were busily engaged in making it possible for foreigners all over the world to send their goods here at lower prices. To-morrow you will be engaged in wanting tariffs to keep those cheap goods out." That does not suggest to me that hon. Gentlemen apposite have a monopoly of logic, and for that reason I cannot support the Government in wanting to re-impose those duties.

If the Government were in earnest about wanting to get 20 cars where we now have one, they would start at the other end and reduce the tax on cars. You are not going to get 20 cars where you have one so long as you keep your horse-power tax on and make it prohibitive for the small man to run a car at all. As a matter of fact, it crossed my mind that the last thing this Government want is 20 cars on the road where there is now one, one of the reasons being that it would be so jolly uncomfortable for them and their pals with me and my pals bumping into them or taking up the road they want to occupy, and they are going to see that the road louse will not get a chance of biting their Rolls-Royces. If they wanted to make work for the engineer engaged in producing British motor cars, they would first of all reduce the tax and then they would refrain from taking any steps likely to keep up the price of the car up in this country. They are not doing that. They continue with the tax and, they are taking a course- of action which will certainly increase prices. I always like to hear members of the employing class telling us what splendid, public spirited chaps they are. If they did not go on reiterating it, some of us would not believe it. Now they are coming forward and telling us that if you put an import duty on that will raise the price of the imported car, they will not take advantage of it. Why, their whole existence consists in taking advantage of everybody; they cannot live without it. Since when have they given up the doctrine that it is right to take advantage? The one thing that is good for this country has been to take advantage of everybody. Now they ask us to believe they are really in earnest this time. They are so touched by the poverty of the British workman that they put on a tariff that will reduce prices to the stage at which even I could have a car—but I am afraid I will want them given away with a pound of tea before I can afford it. They say a tariff will not increase prices. I thought it was a commonly accepted assertion now that the object of a tariff is to increase the price. The object of the tariff is to keep out the other car. It can have no other object. The object is when the Ford comes over here, to make the Ford so expensive by putting on a tax on the basis of horse power so that the people of this country will not use Fords.

The Government gave us what they think is a good reason for their attitude, that it is their endeavour to find work for workmen in this country, forgetting that this country is dependent upon its exports for its existence under present circumstances. I heard somebody whispering that we pay for these imports by our exports. I want to put that the other way round. We get paid for our exports by imports. I wish to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite how they expect to get paid for any exports whatever if they are going to prevent goods coming into this country? There is certainly not enough gold on the earth readily accessible to pay for one year's trade of this country. Inside one year, inside a few months, if you are not going to allow goods to come into your country—and that is the object of the tariffist—you would have all the gold you possibly could obtain, and then your trade would be at a standstill and you cannot do any more. I do not consider it an injury for goods to be sent here. I would welcome them being sent here even in the quantities projected by the hon. Gentleman who believes it would be a misfortune, providing the sending of them here did not injure those who send them and they were here for the use of the whole of the community. The goods that come here are only an injury to the workers because they come to a limited class and the workers do not get an advantage. Just have a look at the picture the hon. Gentleman tried to create. If those wicked "Bolshies" would only create enough wealth to keep everybody here in comfort, we would all be very much worse off. I cannot accept arguments like that. I am prepared to put up with the gibe of being hidebound, but I am going to fight against those protective duties.

This particular subject has now been debated on several occasions by the present House of Commons, and as a new Member I have been waiting with interest till the moment arrives when we can hear from an authorised Member of the Government a reply to the arguments which have been urged from this side of the House or, as I am reminded, a reply from any Member of the party opposite. I am not going to talk in general terms on Protection or Free Trade except to say this, that in the opening speech made this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who represents certain interests in the potteries, an interjection was thrown out from the other side of the Committee to the effect that he was uttering what are old shibboleths. I am only going to say that, when Free Trade was a new and vigorous creed, doctrines which are now urged on the opposite benches were worn out and discredited. I am further interested in this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I regret, is not in his place, is a representative of a Government which depends for their support to a large extent on those who are interested in the trade of the country, and we have had from the beginning assurances that this Government regard as one of the gravest questions which they can consider the well-being of British trade. They reply on hon. Members below the Gangway who in this House specifically represent great trade interests, and who are, I suppose, extreme examples of what the Prime Minister meant the other day when he referred to the muted strings.

What I wish to say at the moment is, that the course the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government took in running away from the Debate on the Second Heading of the Finance Bill has precluded us from raising certain questions, one of which was incidentally referred to by the hon. Member who has just sat down, dealing with these measures which the Government might have taken legitimately to help trade, and, in particular, to help the motor industry, but which they have not seen fit to do. Instead, they have raised this very controversial issue. The matter of the Government pledges on this matter has been referred to already to-day, but I want to add two remarks. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have justified the action of the Government on the ground of the large number of hon. Members opposite who, during their election contests, pledged themselves to, or made speeches in favour of the reimposition of these duties. I am going to put this point. Does any hon. Member opposite really contend that in the circumstances of the last election the reimposition of the McKenna Duties was really an issue that was put to the electors? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes.'] If they do, do they believe that, comparing that election with the election of 1923, that issue was raised as clearly at the last election as it was in the preceding election? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If they do, then why, in Heaven's name, do they not get up sometimes and say so, and try to argue for these things that are now being done?

The other point is the defence made by the Prime Minister himself in the Debate which was closured the other day. Now we all know the right hon. Gentleman's reputation, and we all rejoice in it, but I claim that, like the Prime Minister, I have a singular simplicity and clarity of soul, and, that being so, I find it very difficult to follow the line of argument urged in defence of this course of action, and I am very hopeful, before this Debate concludes, that will be explained to me, amongst other points. What the Prime Minister said in this House on the 25th May was:

I will refer for one moment to another matter. As I said, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed a very great opportunity of doing a real legitimate benefit to the motor car industry on the lines that were indicated by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker), that is, by altering the method of taxation and doing away with the horse-power tax. That, of course, it is not in order to discuss now, but I will take another case. Take the cinema case. What is going to be the effect of the tax on cinema films, and how is that tax going to discriminate in its effect between one kind of film and another kind of film? For example, there is a cinema film being displayed in various theatres, or palaces, as I think they are called, in London at the present moment. It is called "Sinners in Silk." That is the kind of film, no doubt, where the hero, who is beset by temptations and difficulties, hews his way through to his final salvation, much in the way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer hews his own career. But on a film of that kind, which is very costly to produce, and which earns an enormous revenue to this country, the tax is an infinitesimal part of the cost of production. On the other hand, the imposition of the tax per foot on imported films is going to prevent the importation, in fact the taking of a large number of educational films which would otherwise find their way into this country, and not only is it going to do that, but it is going to prevent the sending to this country of a great many films of that kind which were taken, and which were developed by traders in this country, and which will now be sent elsewhere. This is so much the case, that I am informed that two societies which deal with this matter have passed resolutions deploring the imposition of this tax. One of them is the Photographic Dealers Association of Great Britain and Ireland—[ Interruption ]—not a body to excite contempt and laughter. After all, they are people engaged in a perfectly legitimate trade. They have sent, I am told, the following resolution to the Board of Trade and to the Finance Department of the Treasury:

The main contention I want to advance to-night and to which I do want some reply, is that from first to last we have never had a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from his colleagues on the merits of these duties. What has been the Chancellor of the Exchequer's method? He listens to the debates, he puts his hands in his pockets and takes them out again, turns from side to side, converses with his colleagues, and gives every indication of a troubled mind and, let us hope, of a reawakening conscience, but he never really replies on tie merits of the case. When he does get up, in an ebullient, resilient, and buoyant fashion, he first of all begins by quoting the past performances or the past utterances of carefully selected opponents. He has done that several times. He has occupied half an hour or an hour of the time of this House in doing that. But when it is all said and done—and we all enjoy the show as a performance—the argument fines down to the one we were accustomed to in our boyhood of pointing the finger at our opponent and saying "You're another!" It is not a serious contribution to the question.

The right hon. Gentleman started, in his actual Budget speech I think, by attacking the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) for taking these taxes off last year. In fact he began as long ago as 17th December last year, when he referred to it as a wanton act. He followed that up in the Budget speech by again attacking the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench for what he had done. As far as one can see the only argument advanced in those speeches and in to-day's speeches for reimposing those duties was that he was going to put them on because the right hon. Gentleman had taken them off and for no other reason.

The only occasion on which I can remember that he did really advance some argument, and that was an argument repeated by the Prime Minister on the 25th, was when he quoted the speech of Mr. McKenna when these duties were originally put on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted these words from the Budget speech in that year of Mr. McKenna:

I only intend to intervene for a few moments, and I hope we are about to take a Division on this matter. I wish, first of all, to associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in stating that we are acting in good faith in the imposition of these McKenna Duties, and I welcome the opportunity of stating it publicly. In one feature of the duties, the duty on motor cars, I support the re-imposition of the duty on the whole of the motor car. I suggest that to eliminate the tyres and the inner tubes from a motor car does not make the duty properly applicable and the purposes for which the duty is imposed really applicable in its fullest form. What is the position in respect of motor cars? The position is this, that over £20,500,000 worth of foreign tyres and tubes came into this country between the years 1920 and 1924, and that there were losses to the extent of £1,750,000 to those who made tyres in this country.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that tyres should be included. If so, it would be imposing a charge which, as a private Member, he is not entitled to do.

I must bow to your ruling. Of course I do, but your decision, Sir, reduces my speech to a minimum. It is impossible to my mind to effectually apply the duties in respect of motor cars unless you include tyres within it. It is a very great hardship on the working men of this country when we consider the enormous numbers who are unemployed as a result of the omission of this duty on tyres.

I must congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken on his courage in breaking the silence among; members of the party supporting the Government. One of our great difficulties in this Debate is that, except for the appointed spokesmen on the Treasury Bench, and an occasional faint "Hear, hear," from one of the Whips, there is absolutely no one supporting this Budget from the Government side of the House. The real inwardness of the Budget cannot be understood unless we can hear the reasons for which it is being supported by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. The moment one of the bolder spirits gets up to explain his reasons, we begin to understand the great force of the case against the Budget.

And he is ruled out of order, although I am not aware of any Standing Orders which forbids anyone in this House to propose taxation on a foreigner. The real point on this aspect of the case is, Where do we stand with the Prime Minister's pledge? Exactly how much did he intend; and how much is he going to be allowed to retain of the pledge? My view of his position is that he will not be allowed by those who sit behind him to carry out the policy he wishes. We have had a speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Sir A. Burgoyne) and others who are frank Protectionists and want Protection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Of course they want Protection, and they are supporting these duties because they are opening the door for Protection. They do not make any secret of it.

If we could stand by what the Prime Minister had said and could say that it is going to be observed literatim et verbatim we should have some confidence, but every day we see the door forced more widely open, in spite of what he has said. I have read a great many of the Prime Minister's speeches, and I am well aware that ever since the McKenna Duties were removed he has complained about their removal. Though I do not recollect that he put it in any official pronunciamento before the Election that he intended to retain them, I think a study of his speeches would show that he himself regarded their removal as a mistake. But he did say there was only one avenue by which those people who sought protection could get it, and it is idle to pretend that this is not Protection. If an Import Duty of 33⅓ per cent. is not Protection, what is Protection? Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well when they say that it is a revenue duty and not a protective duty that they are really abusing terms which are perfectly well recognised. We understood that the only avenue to Protection was to be through the Safeguarding of Industries procedure. At first the intention of the Government clearly was to give us a Bill, and we ourselves would have laid down the conditions to be fulfilled by any industry which was to secure a duty. That procedure was abandoned, and I think there was a good deal to be said for abandoning it. I was not one of the strong critics of the Prime Minister when he said the duties should be imposed in a Finance Bill. He said, "The applicant for a duty will have to go through the mill, will have to satisfy conditions to be laid down under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure." The President of the Board of Trade, who is a far more worthy, I was going to say "eloquent," but that is not quite the word—I do not mean anything offensive— who is a far more effusive and exuberant though not so convincing a supporter of tariffs as the Prime Minister, came forward and said, "Here is a White Paper, and here are the conditions. We are going to remit applications to a Com- mittee, and if they satisfy the Committee, then the duty will be put into the Finance Bill."

We find now that although these applicants go before the Committee and do not satisfy the conditions at all, they are still to get the duty. On Thursday we are going to hare a duty proposed on behalf of people who, in the opinion of the Committee, failed to satisfy the conditions laid down in the White Paper. First, there is the ordinary safeguarding procedure; second, people who fail to satisfy the Committee still get duty; and now there are the McKenna Duties. It is only by the mercy of God that straw hats and plate glass are not included in the tariff. They were originally proposed by Mr. McKenna but for some reason they were dropped. There never was an odder collection of objects to receive the benefits of a tariff. There is no justification or logic for them. The hon. Member who has just spoken is perfectly right. If you put a protective duty on the motor car, how can you avoid putting a duty on the tyres? If you are going to put a protective duty on the Ford car that a farmer uses, why should you omit the duty on the lorry that he also uses. There is no logic in it at all. Certain favoured industries are going to be picked out and given an opportunity to collect duties and taxes on their own.

They will furnish a precedent which it will be impossible to resist when other industries come forward to claim the McKenna Duties. If the steel industry or if the makers of electric light bulbs or any other of the numerous clamant industries which want to get something out of the consumers of this country come forward, what possible case in logic have you for resisting their claims? [HON. MEMBERS: "None!"] Exactly, you have none, and the hon. Member for Aylesbury is supporting this because he knows it is opening the door and that he will get his way and get his general tariff. It is a very fine distinction between saying you are not in favour of a general tariff and will not impose it and presenting the advocates of a general tariff with every argument for getting their way—the thing is so fine as to be almost a trespass beyond the bounds of propriety.

When these duties are imposed, and when little industries are able to exploit the consumer, they will be used by hon. Gentlemen opposite as an argument. They will say, they have said, "Why should you give motor cars a tariff and refuse it to something else? Why should you give clothes or pots and pans a duty and refuse it to agriculture?" The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) will go down there and say, "Why should you refuse it to—" what is the particular industry there, boots or furniture, I have forgotten what it is? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oysters!"] No, not that. I have read his speeches, and I recollect him as one who is continually following the practice of Tariff Reformers of going to a locality and promising that the particular industry

of that locality should get the special advantage of the tariff. The duties in detail we can deal with later when they arise on the various Amendments, but the general case against them, I contend, is unanswerable. They are Protective duties. It is a breach of the pledges given, as they were understood by everybody, and it is in fact, and is intended to be, a forcing open of the door by means of which, in a very few years in my judgment, a general tariff will be imposed on the consumer.

Question put, "That the word 'July' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 144.

Division No. 124.]

AYES.

[10.5 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

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

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Albery, Irving James

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

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

Craik Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

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

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Atkinson, C.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Holt, Captain H. P.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Baltour, George (Hampstead)

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Balniel, Lord

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

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

Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

Huntingfield, Lord

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Hurd, Percy A.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Hurst, Gerald B.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Bennett, A. J.

Ellis, R. G.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Berry, Sir George

Elveden, Viscount

Jacob, A. E.

Betterton, Henry B.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Everard, W. Lindsay

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Blundell, F. N.

Fermoy, Lord

Knox, Sir Alfred

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Fielden, E. B.

Lamb, J. Q.

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Fleming D. P.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Brass, Captain W.

Ford, P. J.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Briggs, J. Harold

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Loder, J. de V.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Looker, Herbert William

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lord, Walter Greaves-

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

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Lougher, L.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Bullock, Captain M.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Lynn, Sir Robert J.

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Burman, J. B.

Gee, Captain R.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Goft, Sir Park

Macintyre, Ian

Butt, Sir Alfred

Grace, John

McLean, Major A.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Campbell, E. T.

Gretton, Colonel John

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Cassels, J. D.

Grotrian, H. Brent

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

Malone, Major P. B.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Margesson, Captain D.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hammersley, S. S.

Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hanbury, C.

Meller, R. J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Harland, A.

Merriman, F. B.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Clarry, Reginald George

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

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Clayton, G. C.

Hawke, John Anthony

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

Couper, J. B.

Henderson, Capt. R R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Murchison, C. K.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Bye, F. G.

Tinne, J. A.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Salmon, Major I.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Neville, R. J.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Waddington, R.

Oakley, T.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Pennefather, Sir John

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Penny, Frederick George

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Watts, Dr. T.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Shepperson, E. W.

Wells, S. R.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Philipson, Mabel

Smithers, Waldron

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

Pielou, D. P.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Price, Major C. W. M.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Womersley, W. J.

Radford, E. A.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Ramsden, E.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Renter, J. R.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Major Cope.

Ropner, Major L.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Harney, E. A.

Rose, Frank H.

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

Harris, Percy A.

Scrymgeour, E.

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

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Sexton, James

Ammon, Charles George

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hayday, Arthur

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayes, John Henry

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Barnes, A.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Barr, J.

Hirst, G. H.

Sitch, Charles H.

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Briant, Frank

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Broad, F. A.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Bromfield, William

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Buchanan, G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stephen, Campbell

Clowes, S.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sutton, J. E.

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Taylor, R. A.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kelly, W. T.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Kennedy, T.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Compton, Joseph

Lansbury, George

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

Connolly, M.

Lawson, John James

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cove, W. G.

Lee, F.

Thurtle, E.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lowth, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Dalton, Hugh

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

Viant, S. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Day, Colonel Harry

Mackinder, W.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Duckworth, John

MacLaren, Andrew

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Dunnico, H.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

March, S.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Maxton, J.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

England, Colonel A.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Fenby, T. D.

Montague, Frederick

Whiteley, W.

Forrest, W.

Morris, R. H.

Wignall, James

Gibbins, Joseph

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

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Gillett, George M.

Murnin, H.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gosling, Harry

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Palin, John Henry

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Greenall, T.

Paling, W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Windsor, Walter

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

Grundy, T. W.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

Riley, Ben

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ritson, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Mr. Warne and Mr. Allen

Hardie, George D.

Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Parkinson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after the word "twenty-five," to insert the words

"until the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six."

This is in line with the proposal made by the present Foreign Secretary when Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1920. In introducing the Budget then, he said he proposed this date in order to emphasise the temporary nature of these duties. I rather expected the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get up and accept this right away, as an earnest that, after all, he is not a whole-hearted Protectionist, and to make these duties of yearly effect, so that we should have to get the consent of the House each year.

There might be some case for this Amendment if it could be said that the McKenna Duties were any longer in an experimental stage, but, as the Committee well knows, they have been discussed year after year until the subject has now become threadbare. It is quite true that in every Budget we do keep one important source of indirect taxation on an annual basis, but that is for a very definite reason, namely, to enable us to discuss the whole question of indirect taxation on the Ways and Means Resolution. Apart from that one Resolution, there is no necessity for keeping other Customs Duties on an annual oasis, because the fact that they are on a permanent basis in no way impedes the House of Commons in raising the question of their abolition when we come to the annual Finance Bill. In answer to this particular proposal, I think I need only say that, since the late Chancellor of the Exchequer told us this afternoon that he removed these duties in obedience to a popular vote, we can say that we are re-imposing them in response to a far more overwhelming demand on the part of the country. When the country again expresses its opinion, if that opinion be contrary to the verdict to which we are giving effect to-day, it will be quite time for the Government who succeed us again to deal with the matter in accordance with the threats of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to consider the matter again.

I am amazed to hear the right hon. Gentleman claim that the country at the last Election gave a majority in favour of these duties. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in his party are capable of applying the simple processes of arithmetic, they can find put that the number of votes cast for Members who oppose these duties was greatly in excess of the number in favour of Members who support them—if they do support them, for, with two honourable exceptions, there has been no Member in the Committee to-day who has had the courage to get up and say that he supported these duties at the last Election. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that there is not one hon. Member on that side who has had the courage to say frankly to the Committee that he got up in his constituency and advocated the re-imposition of these duties. [ Interruption. ]

The hon. and gallant Member has convicted me of a dereliction of duty. The Financial Secretary did stray from the very narrow question whether these duties are to be annual or permanent, and I ought to have rebuked him. I cannot, however, allow the matter to go further.

I remember very well the understanding that was come to, and I apologise, but I was led astray by the very astonishing statement of the Financial Secretary. I think the Debate, in view of what has occurred, has come to a rather untimely end, for, apparently, there was every hope of someone rising. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has seen with some alarm the flat disobedience on the part of his subordinates to the orders that have been circulated, although, perhaps—I will stick closely to the point—one might ask those hon. Gentlemen who were so willing to contribute to the Debate a moment ago whether they will explain vocally to the Committee that they themselves promised the permanent re-imposition of these duties.

I venture to say that even the hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir G. Strickland) will not feel justified in getting up and explaining to us what he said in his constituency. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said it is only usual to keep one annual indirect tax in the Budget, but I do not think that statement is founded on fact, because in the first two Clauses of the Finance Bill we have the Tea Tax and the tax on medicines, and both of them are annual taxes, and therefore there is no justification for that statement. Since the, War we have had Chancellors of the Exchequer representing all sorts and conditions of parties, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has usually been conspicuous as a member of the party which happened to be on the winning side. This tax was put on and taken off, and it has been proved that the taking off of this tax was a very good thing. Now, however, it is being reimposed, and we do not even know whether the prophecies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are going to prove true.

Under these circumstances, is it too much to ask that the right hon. Gentleman should justify what he has said in regard to this Budget? Why should the Government put this thing upon us? What is the good of saying that this question may be dealt with by a private Member proposing the new Clause at the end of a long discussion, when he would be met by a chorus of, "Divide, divide," attended by all the insuperable difficulties which a private Member must meet. It

is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to justify the course of action which he has taken. I think this Amendment is one which ought to commend itself to the Government, and if these great benefits to clock, watch, gramophone and motor car manufacturers are so great as has been represented, what an opportunity there is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer a year hence when he can spread his nets and his trenches and exclaim that he has captured "the twin objectives." I claim that this Amendment ought to commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope the Government will adopt it.

If this tax was a protective tax or was meant to be a protective tax that would be a very good argument for making it permanent. No matter whether you have a free trade or a protective system, at any rate you want a system which is consistent. The Government have expressly stated that this is not to be a tax for protective purposes, but merely for revenue purposes, and that seems to me to be a very strong argument for the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsidering this question.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 253.

Division No. 125.]

AYES.

[10.25 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Forrest, W.

Kelly, W. T.

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

Gibbins, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

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

Gillett, George M.

Lansbury, George

Ammon, Charles George

Gosling, Harry

Lawson, John James

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Lee, F.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Greenall, T.

Livingstone, A. M.

Barr, J.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Lowth, T.

Batey, Joseph

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lunn, William

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Groves, T.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Briant, Frank

Grundy, T. W.

Mackinder, W.

Broad, F. A.

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

MacLaren, Andrew

Bromfield, William

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

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Buchanan, G.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

March, S.

Charleton, H. C.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Maxton, James

Clowes, S.

Hardle, George D.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Cluse, W. S.

Harney, E. A.

Montague, Frederick

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Harris, Percy A.

Morris, R. H.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

Compton, Joseph

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Murnin, H.

Connolly, M.

Hayday, Arthur

Oliver, George Harold

Cove, W. G.

Hayes, John Henry

Palin, John Henry

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Paling, W.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Hirst, G. H.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Dalton, Hugh

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Ponsonby, Arthur

Day, Colonel Harry

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Potts, John S.

Duckworth, John

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Dunnico, H.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Riley, Ben

England, Colonel A.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Ritson, J.

Fenby, T. D.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rose, Frank H.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Taylor, R. A.

Whiteley, W.

Scrymgeour, E.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Wignall, James

Sexton, James

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Thurtle, E.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Tinker, John Joseph

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Sitch, Charles H.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Want, S. P.

Windsor, Walter

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Wright, W.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Warne, G. H.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Stamford, T. W.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.

Stephen, Campbell

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Barnes.

Sutton, J. E.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

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

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Albery, Irving James

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Jacob, A. E.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

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

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

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

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Atkinson, C.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Xing, Captain Henry Douglas

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Eden, Captain Anthony

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Ballour, George (Hampstead)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Balniel, Lord

Elveden, Viscount

Lamb, J. Q.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Everard, W. Lindsay

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Loder, J. de V.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Fermoy, Lord

Looker, Herbert William

Bennett, A. J.

Fielden, E. B.

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Berry, Sir George

Fleming, D. P.

Lougher, L.

Betterton, Henry B.

Ford, P. J.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Lumley, L. R.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

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

Fraser, Captain Ian

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Frece, Sir Walter de

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Blundell, F. N.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Macintyre, Ian

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Galbraith, J. F. W.

McLean, Major A.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Macmillan, Captain H.

Brass, Captain W.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Briggs, J. Harold

Gee, Captain R.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Goff, Sir Park

Malone, Major P. B.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Grace, John

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Margesson, Captain D.

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Gretton Colonel John

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

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

Grotrian, H. Brent

Meller, R. J.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

Merriman, F. B.

Bullock, Captain M.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Burman, J. B.

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

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A (Brecon & Rad.)

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

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hammersley, S. S.

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hanbury, C.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Campbell, E. T.

Harland, A.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Cassels. J. D.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Murchison, C. K.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hawke, John Anthony

Nelson, Sir Frank

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Neville, R. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Henderson, Capt. R. B. (Oxfd, Henley)

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

Chapman, Sir S.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

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

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Oakley, T.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Oman Sir Charles William C.

Clarry, Reginald George

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Clayton, G. C.

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

Pennefather, Sir John

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hohler. Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Penny, Frederick George

Couper, J. B.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Holt, Captain H. P.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Philipson, Mabel

Crook, C. W.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Pielou, D. P.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Huntingfield, Lord

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Hurd, Percy A.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hurst, Gerald B.

Radford, E. A.

Ramsden, E.

Smithers, Waldron

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Watts, Dr. T.

Remer, J. R.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Wells, S. R.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Ropner, Major L.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

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

Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Rye, F. G.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Salmon, Major I.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Wise, Sir Fredric

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Womersley, W. J.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

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

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

Tinne, J. A.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Shepperson, E. W.

Waddington, R.

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

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

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Major Cope.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Warrender, Sir Victor

I beg to move, in page 2, Column 1, to leave out lines 11 to 15 inclusive.

In discussing the question of the McKenna Duties as applied to motor cars, I would ask the Committee to consider it from the point of view of the industries affected. As has been stated in Debate, the removal of the McKenna Duties last year did no injury to the motor trade. That argument has not been dealt with in any degree by anyone of the few hon. Members who have spoken from the benches opposite. It is impossible to gainsay the official figures on the subject. If you take exports you find that they have increased. For the four months ended April, 1923, they were £251,000 in value; for the four months ended April, 1924, they were £750,000 in value; and for the four months ended April, 1925, after the removal of the McKenna Duties, they reached the figure of £1,410,000. Similarly, the parts went up in value from £307,000 for the four months ended April, 1923, to £585,000 for the four months ended April, 1925. But at the same time the imports went up to £2,133,000. Was that good or bad for trade? Of course, it was good for trade. It brought more cars into the country, it was good for auxiliary trades, it encouraged more people to buy motor cars, and the result is to be seen in the increasing orders which are going into every factory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked just now of a check and a chill. If it is a check and a chill for the trade to go up by 50 per cent. from the time that the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer took off the duties, I do not know in what way the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give any impetus to this industry. I can only imagine that this is an exercise in a curiously distorted form of vision. When you see figures going up you talk of a check and a chill, and when, in discussing other figures which will be greeting us in the course of the next few days from Ayr Burghs and Eastbourne the figures are going the other way, perhaps you will find them extremely exhilarating. From the point of view of these industries is the protection necessary? By every conceivable standard by which you can judge—

It would be of immense assistance to the Committee, I am sure, if the hon. and gallant Member would indicate what is the Amendment he is proposing.

The right hon. Gentleman will realise what is the Amendment, It is the Amendment in my name.

If the hon. and gallant Member is speaking to the Amendment on the Paper in his name, he is entirely out of order. I understood that he was speaking to a manuscript Amendment which he had handed to me.

I am very sorry. You called on me. I thought you were referring to the Amendment on the Paper, but I will speak on the other Amendment if you wish.

The hon. and gallant Member must now continue his arguments on the subject to which he has addressed himself.

The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet is to leave out lines 11 to 15 inclusive, and I think he must now confine himself to that Amendment. He had handed in an Amendment in manuscript of a more limited character, but as he has begun an argument which is relevant only to the larger proposition, he must continue it.

I am very sorry that there should have been any misunderstanding. I understood when you, Sir, intervened, that you wished me to move only the Amendment to leave out from line 13. However, I will proceed with the Amendment on the Paper.

From the point of view of the industry itself, the first thing to consider is whether this protection is or is not necessary. Whether you take the standard of the value of the cars exported or of those sold in the home markets or the figures of unemployment in those industries, along with the comparable figures in other industries of the same class, you will find no justification for the special favours which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to grant to the motor-car industry. The figure of unemployment in the motor-car industry in June, 1924, was 7 per cent.; in August, 1924, after the removal of the duties, it had risen to 10.2 per cent. In September, immediately afterwards, it rose a little further to 11.1 per cent. owing to the propaganda conducted by the motor-car companies, but in the following month it rapidly fell and in February, 1925, reached its lowest point, namely, 7.2 per cent. The average for all the other industries concerned rose from 9.4 per cent. in June, 1924, to 10.8 per cent. in September, 1924, and then when the figure of unemployment was falling in the motor-car industry it rose in all the other industries in the country from 108 per cent. to 11.6 per cent.

We find, therefore, that judged by the unemployment standard or by the standard of trade, this industry is one of the last that should have any claim to exceptional treatment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself says it is developing at an enormous rate, and it has been developing at this rate irrespective of duties. What justification can there be for singling out this industry for a measure of protection? If there were some justification owing to distress in the industry or foreign competition, there is only one channel by which that protection should be afforded. The Prime Minister during the Election said clearly that the only channel through which protection would be afforded would be the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and he made no exception whatever in favour of the McKenna Duties. It is no answer to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer guarded himself in his constituency.

The hon. and gallant baronet is going into a discussion on a principle. He should confine himself to the effect of the duty on motor cars and accessories.

I was arguing from that that the effect of putting on these duties would be a breach of the pledge which the Prime Minister gave to the country at the Election. The Chancellor claimed great credit that the Government have refrained from going very much further. I cannot discuss whether they should or should not, because I should be out of order, but he said: "Only the Prime Minister's pledge stands between us and a general tariff," so that he claims great credit for fulfilling part of the pledge. He says: "The part of the pledge we have fulfilled is far greater than the part which we have left unfulfilled, and, therefore, you must forgive us this little dereliction in the case of motor cars." But if this is the case against the duty from the point of view of the protection of this particular industry, let us consider it from the point of view of the auxiliary industries, the garage proprietors, the people employed in garages, the people employed in the distribution of oil, petrol, and spares, and all the ancillary industries which depend on the motoring industry. To them, indeed, the reimposition of these duties must inevitably come as a check and a chill. Whatever the effect of the removal of the duties on the manufacturing industry may have been—and I think I have dealt with that adequately—it is quite clear that the effect of putting these duties back must inevitably check and chill the whole of the development of the motor trade at large.

There is a point of view which hon. Members hardly ever discuss, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never discussed at all when he has been arguing the case for these duties, and that is the point of view of the consumer. [ Laughter. ] An hon. Member is convulsed with merriment at the thought that the House of Commons should concern itself with the point of view of the consumer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the industry is developing at a great rate, and, as a matter of fact, these motor-car firms find it difficult to supply the demands which they meet in the home market. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman could read out these pronouncements by various firms assuring their customers that there will be a reduction of prices, but they naturally do not say how long these new prices to which they refer in these circulars will continue, and we know very well—we had experience last year when these duties were removed—the kind of propaganda at which the motor trade is so adept, but I think the consumers of this country will take the assurances which the Chancellor read out to-day with a pretty large grain of salt. In the long run the effect of these duties must inevitably be to raise the price to the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman considers that these cars are pure luxuries, but, as a matter of fact, the cars whose price will be raised by these duties are, for the most part, the very cars which are used for the poorest people in the country, and used very largely in business and in commercial and professional life. Then the Chancellor declared that these duties are intended for revenue purposes. He cannot deny that they have a protective effect, and that a duty of 33⅓ per cent., without any countervailing Excise, must inevitably be a protective duty, but he does say that his principal object is to obtain revenue. It is well known that this is the Very worst way in which you can raise your revenue.

The hon. Baronet is still dealing with the question of principle, and he must confine himself to the effect of the proposed duty on motor cars.

The effect of the proposed duty on motor cars must inevitably be to raise the prices. Therefore, whether the purpose may be protective, as I believe, or revenue, as the Chancellor suggests, the effect must be the effect which was intended by Mr. McKenna when these duties were put on in 1916. The effect was not either the effect of Protection or revenue in the first place. The effect was the restraint and restriction of trade in order to stop trade in those cars to save shipping space, and that workmen and craftsmen in this country should be taken off trades of this kind, which were purely luxury, and put on to making munitions and work essential for the War. If these duties are passed now the effect will be to cramp and restrict the motor trade. A great many hon. Members opposite who represent agricultural districts must look at this question mainly from the agricultural point of view. Those cars which will be affected by this tax are very largely used by farmers and those who gain their livelihood by agriculture. They will be among the consumers most hardly hit by the reimposition of those taxes. The Government has no agricultural policy unless it is in the Pedigree Animals Bill and the Agricultural Returns Bill and what we find in the Budget, and we get a distinct handicap placed on the agricultural people by the McKenna Duties. It seems to me, regardless of the Prime Minister's pledges, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown those duties as a sop to the Protectionists behind him. I think it is an unwanted sop. Members for country constituencies on the other side of the House must know how these duties are resented by farmers all over the country. There is not a farmers' union in England or Scotland which is not strongly opposed to those duties. No intelligent Protectionist could defend those duties. Mr. Bonar Law said that, from the standpoint of the Protectionist pure and simple, they were indefensible.

The hon. and gallant Member persists in reverting from the particular to the general.

What Mr. Bonar Law said was with regard to the question of the motor-car. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to take into serious consideration whether he could not at any rate omit from those duties motor-cars which are so essential to farmers.

May I ask you, Mr. Hope, whether in putting the Amend- ment there will be a safeguard? One of the ensuing Amendments is in my name—

I will put the Amendment in this way: "That lines 11 and 12 stand part of the Clause."

I am afraid I cannot accept the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I have not the slightest intention of travelling over again ground which has been already covered. It would be entirely contrary to the very good-tempered and practical spirit in which we have conducted our business this afternoon, if, after we have had a general Debate on the whole question of the McKenna Duties, with special reference, necessarily, to motor cars, we should renew that Debate, produce all the statistics again, argue again about the effect on unemployment, and the price of cars. We have had discussion on the general principle, and now the question is whether, if the McKenna Duties are to be reimposed, as the Committee have decided, we are to reimpose them on all the other subjects except these.

Several Members from above the Gangway and below the Gangway spoke, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, on the general issue, but there was no reply from the Front Bench.

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to see that that is quite an irrelevant remark, because it was understood that on the first of these Amendments there should be a general discussion of the principle. The discussion has centred round motor cars, and there ha6 been a Division, and the Committee have settled it. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes a long speech which would apply equally to three or four Amendments. I am sure it would be contrary to the wish of the Committee if I were to plunge into a discussion on this. I have not the slightest intention of doing so. It is only necessary for me to say that the idea of agriculturists in this country at the present time needing foreign cars is a pure delusion, when they can purchase an Ariel car for £168, instead of having to pay £198, as they did. I am not going into the merits of this discussion, or to dilate upon the needs of agriculturists for foreign motor cars rather than the equally good and cheap British-made cars. All that has been debated, and all I can say on this occasion, on behalf of the Government, is that we cannot accept the proposal the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made.

I must say I am disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman. I have always admired his debating skill, and I should have thought on this one specific point before the Committee he would have been able to put up a defence. So far as I can see, the only defence he has been able to give is that the imposition of a duty brings down prices. If he believes that the imposition of a duty brings down prices, I am surprised he does not propose a general tariff. There is a sort of idea that motor cars are. a luxury, and that, therefore, it is quite right to limit the supply of them; that the motor car is a thing which can be done without, and is the privilege of the 'few. Unfortunately, that is only too true.

11.0 P.M.

The motor oar in this country has, at any rate up to the last year or two, been regarded as a luxury for the upper classes. There has been no greater cause of discontent than that the motor car has been regarded as a, symbol of wealth and monopoly. It is quite a different thing in America. The motor car is almost as general there as the bicycle. It is used everywhere by the ordinary working man to go from his home to the factory and, far from it being a cause of class conscious bitterness nothing has more contributed to social contentment and good feeling than the general use of the motor car by all classes of the community. Anything that tends to increase the price must accentuate the existing differences in this country. This applies particularly to motor bicycles. The motor bicycle in many parts of the country is helping to solve our rural transport difficulties. People are living out in our country districts in contact with rural life and they are enabled to do so because the motor bicycle can be garaged in a small shed. A man can thus work in a factory and live in the country. The bulk of our motor bicycles are constructed in our own country and our exports are far larger than our imports. In the four months ending 30th April, our exports of motor bicycles amounted to £637,000, while our imports for the same period only came to £17,000.

The very fact that there is a free market prevents the formation of combines or trusts. There is a small regular importation of motor bicycles from America which not only keeps prices down, but keeps our manufacturers efficient. The progress made by the manufacturers of motor bicycles has been remarkable, because they have been stimulated by the fear of a certain number trickling through untaxed. Once you remove the fear of that competition, the tendency will be to bring the various manufacturers together to form rings and keep up prices. It is not only bad for trade, but it will stop the tendency for the motor bicycle to become a thing of general use by all classes of the community. The same applies to the small car. A good case might be made for taxing the large expensive car, costing about a thousand pounds and which is a luxury, but more and more the small car is the thing that is noticeable. Go on any of the main roads on a bank holiday like Whit-Monday, and you will see streams of small cars coming along the road performing the needs of the ordinary citizen as a means of conveyance. One of the great things at the present time is the importation of a cheap French car, called the Citroën—

I think the hon. Member is now speaking rather to the Amendment his colleague on his right (Captain Benn) has in hand.

I am talking generally about the taxing of motor cars, and I maintain that the importation of the French Citroën car has brought a certain class of car within the means of a very large part of the population and has been one of the great stimulants that has undoubtedly revolutionised the organisation of the Morris-Cowley firm. The Morris-Cowley firm, threatened by this competition, have been forced to bring their prices down, and bring them within the means of the pockets of working men. As a matter of fact, this has not been the

only effect, because with the improvements in methods and the reorganisation of the factory it has been possible to open up a very large field of export for the small car, and if the improvement goes on this country will be able to compete with the whole of the world in the manufacture of the small sporting car as defined by the standard of the Morris-Cowley and one or two other makes. It is a retrograde policy to treat the motor car as a luxury and to subject it not to a small tax of, say, 5 or 10 per cent., but a tax of 33⅓ per cent. It is not only an infringement of Free Trade, but it is specifically an injury to the community, because the motor car would provide a solution for the problem of how to deal with cities which are becoming so large that they are a danger to health and a handicap to the settlement of the housing question. If the small motor car is brought within reach of the pockets of ordinary citizens, it will enable populations to move out. For that reason, and on the narrow issue, also, that motor cars are not a luxury but are becoming a necessity, I support the Amendment.

I have a question to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer about accessories, and I would like guidance from the Chair as to whether I should ask the question now—it is a question as to the rules governing taxation and drawbacks on accessories—or whether I should put down an Amendment to the First Schedule?

There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with accessories in general, but if it is a question of detail, it might be more relevant to the Schedule.

I think, in any case, the better way would be to wait for the Amendment.

Question put, "That lines 11 and 12 stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 146.

Division No. 126.]

AYES.

[11.8 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Banks. Reqinald Mitchell

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

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Albery, Irving James

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

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Balniel, Lord

Bennett, A. J.

Betterton, Henry B.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R. Skipton)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

Ormsby Gore, Hon. William

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Pennefather, Sir John

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Hammersley, S. S.

Penny, Frederick George

Brass, Captain W.

Hanbury, C.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Harland, A.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Briggs, J. Harold

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

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hawke, John Anthony

Philipson, Mabel

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Pielou, D. P.

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Buckingham, Sir H.

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Bullock, Captain M.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Radford, E. A.

Burman, J. B.

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

Ramsden, E.

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Bees, Sir Beddoe

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Campbell, E. T.

Holt, Captain H. P.

Remer, J. R.

Cassels, J. D.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

Ropner, Major L.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Chapman, Sir S.

Huntingfield, Lord

Rye, F. G.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hurd, Percy A.

Salmon, Major I.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hurst, Gerald B.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P-bl's)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Clarry, Reginald George

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Clayton, G. C.

Jacob, A. E.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Cope Major William

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Couper, J. B.

Kidd, J- (Linlithgow)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Courtauld, Major J. S.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Shepperson, E. W.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

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

Knox, Sir Alfred

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Lamb, J. Q.

Smithers Waldron

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Curtis-Bennett Sir Henry

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Dalkeith Earl of

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

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Loder, J. de V.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Looker, Herbert William

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Lougher, L.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Lumley, L. R.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

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

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Thompson Luke (Sunderland)

Eden, Captain Anthony

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Macintyre, Ian

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

Elveden Viscount

McLean, Major A.

Tinne, J. A.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Tichfield Major the Marquess of

Everard, W. Lindsay

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Malone, Major P. B.

Waddington, R.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Margesson, Captain D.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Fermoy, Lord

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Fielden, E. B.

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Fleming, D. P.

Meller, R. J.

Watts, Dr. T.

Ford, P. J.

Merriman, F. B.

Wells, S. R.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

William, Herbert G. (Reading)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

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

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Galbraith, J. F. W

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

Wise, Sir Fredric

Ganzoni, Sir John

Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

Womersley, W. J.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Gee, Captain R.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Goff, Sir Park

Murchison, C. K.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Grace, John

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Greene, W. p. Crawford

Nelson, Sir Frank

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Neville, R. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gretton, Colonel John

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

Major Sir Harry Barnston and

Grotrian, H. Brent

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

Major Hennessey.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

Oakley, T.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

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

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

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

Hardle, George D.

Rose, Frank H.

Ammon, Charles George

Harris, Percy A.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Scrymgeour, E.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barnes, A.

Hayday, Arthur

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Barr, J.

Hayes, John Henry

Sitch, Charles H.

Batey, Joseph

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hirst, G. H.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Briant, Frank

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Broad, F. A.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Snell, Harry

Bromfield, William

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Buchanan, G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Charleton, H. C.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stamford, T. W.

Clowes, S.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stephen, Campbell

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sutton, J. E.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kelly, W. T.

Taylor, R. A.

Compton, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Connolly, M.

Lansbury, George

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Cove, W. G.

Lawson, John James

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

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lee, F.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Livingstone, A. M.

Thurtle, E.

Dalton, Hugh

Lowth, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Viant, S. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Duckworth, John

Mackinder, W.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Duncan, C.

MacLaren, Andrew

Warne, G. H.

Dunnico, H.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

March, S.

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

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Maxton, James

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

England, Colonel A.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Fenby, T. D.

Montague, Frederick

Whiteley, W.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Morris, R. H.

Wignall, James

Forrest, W.

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

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Murnin, H.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gibbins, Joseph

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Gillett, George M.

Owen, Major G.

Williams, T (York, Don Valley)

Gosling, Harry

Palin, John Henry

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Greenall, T.

Paling, W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Windsor, Walter

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wright, W.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Groves, T.

Potts, John S.

Grundy, T. W.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

Riley, Ben

Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir R.

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

Ritson, J.

Hutchison.

The next two Amendments in the Paper, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair)—in page 2, line 12, column 1, after the word "tricycles" to insert the words

"(but excepting motor cars imported for use in a profession or business and which are shown by the purchaser to be necessary to the pursuit of the profession or business concerned) ";

and in page 2, line 12, column 1, after the word "tricycles" to insert the words

"(but excepting motor cars, motor bicycles, or motor tricycles imported for the use, in pursuit of his professional activities, of a registered medical practitioner) "—

are out of Order at this stage. I think they should come as new Clauses.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, column 1, after the word "tricycles," to insert the words

"(but excepting motor cars of a value not exceeding two hundred pounds and motor bicycles or motor tricycles of a declared value not exceeding fifty pounds)."

This is a very simple Amendment, and it is not necessary to explain it at great length. All the unanswered arguments that have been put in reference to the motor-car apply here also, and it might afford the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to approach the subject in detail, instead of by general evasion. The special purpose of the Amendment is to exempt the cheap car and cheap motor bicycle, and I commend this proposal to hon. Members on the Labour benches as being in the interest of the artisan class. I do not say that the very poorest people are able to afford these things, but we should like to see the time when the proportion of cars to population approaches something like the United States figure. Anyone who has been out into the country on a Sunday morning, and has seen members of working-class families packed into their motor cycles and side-cars will appreciate the enjoyment that these things bring. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer hitherto has been based on luxury—the revenue tax on the luxury article—and I do not see why he should not accept this little Amendment, which would only excuse from the duty the small type of car used by the poorer man for recreation, which is really an essential part of the social life of our poorer, or middle, or lower middle classes, as they are variously called, according to the strange distinctions which we make. I beg to move, and I commend the Amendment most cordially to the right hon. Gentleman.

I think my hon. and gallant friend may be assured by the figures which have already been quoted m the debate about the reduction in the price of motor cars, particularly the cheaper ones, following the Budget announcement. I gave as an illustration the Ariel car, which has been reduced from £198 to £168, and so forth. Then there is the question of motor bicycles and tricycles. In regard to motor bicycles, we hold the leadership of the world, and whether under the McKenna Duties or the régime of the right hon. gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) equally the British motor bicycle has gained and maintained its preeminence and therefore no advantage or disadvantage to them is involved in the present proposals. My hon. and gallant friend proposes that motor cars of a value not exceeding £200 and motor bicycles and motor tricycles of a declared value not exceeding £50 should be exempt from the duty but he makes no suggestion as to accessories or parts out of which these articles are formed. Consequently, this Amendment would admit the complete assembled motor bicycle while the importation of parts and accessories would be brought to an end and the trade would be done elsewhere. I reject this Amendment on the broad general principle that there are no signs whatever, having regard to competition in this country between motor car firms and manufacturers of motor bicycles, that there will be any increase in the cost price of these articles to the consumer during the next few years. That being so, it seems to me quite unnecessary that we should alter the McKenna Duties by giving these special exceptions. These much-discussed McKenna Duties are becoming sanctified by the lapse of time during which they have been an essential part of our political furniture, and it would be a very great mistake, while preserving the McKenna Duties, to alter any of those well-known features and lineaments which have endeared them to successive Parliaments and administrations.

I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer supported his argument that the proposed re-imposition of the duties has brought about the cheapening of cars, by quoting the price of the Aerial cars, which has been reduced from £198 to £168. That reduction comes rather late in the day, for we had reductions in the prices of small cars following upon the Budget of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). The Aerial car is, therefore, late in the day, following the reductions made by other makers who were influenced by the Budget of my right hon. Friend. I suggest that the reduction in the price of the Aerial car and other cars could go much further. It is with a view to helping the movement for a considerably cheaper car that we on these benches whole-heartedly support the view that the motors mentioned should be entirely exempted from the tax. The right hon. Gentleman has been cooing like a sucking-dove about this issue, but the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Sir A. Burgoyne) did not express any sort of sympathy with regard to the small car and the motor bicycle upon the road. They were road hogs from his point of view. They encumbered the road and made themselves a nuisance, I suppose, from the point of view of those who use the bigger cars. That statement of the hon. Member will be remembered against him for a long time to come. He spoke of these motors, many of them run by working people and people of slender means in the terms to which I have referred. When the roads are kept up, not merely by the money raised by motor taxation, but by money raised by the general community, we feel it very objectionable that that sort of attitude should be adopted by the hon. Member in regard to the small cars. If for no other reason, I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to deal with some of the refractory members of his own party, that it would be advisable to give the smaller car a better chance than is likely to be given under these proposals.

I congratulate the hon. Member on having broken the moody silence which has been hanging over these benches. I am glad that he is taking some interest in the question of whether working men are going to have their motors or motor bicycles made cheaper or dearer. The utterance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now has deepened the mystery and made confusion more confounded. Apparently his principle is that if you put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent. you immediately reduce the price of an article from £198 to £165. Why he does not put on a duty of 150 per cent. in that case I cannot understand. What a state of mind some people have fallen to in order to produce such an argument as that. The right hon. Gentleman would not deny in his more serious moments that he was humbugging the House The imposition of a duty must tend to raise prices. That has never been denied in the whole Tariff Reform controversy. If prices go down in spite of a tariff, it is not an indication that it is the duty that has caused the price to fall, but merely that the price would have gone down much further had there been no duty. It would be well if hon. Members who have no knowledge and experience of a controversy in which I was engaged would read some of the elementary handbooks in reference to the economics of this subject which were issued about 1910. I do not want to keep the House up all night.

I must apologise, but the obviously absurd economic proposition made by certain Members took me away from the few words which I was going to say on the subject of motor bicycles. We have had no answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to why they should not be exempted. His only reply was that we had a supremacy in motor bicycles over all comers. That seems a most curious reason for putting on an import duty. The greater the supremacy the greater the glory, the higher the tariff. This is the most extraordinary and ludicrous paradox that has ever been arrived at. Motor bicycles should not be classed as luxuries. They should not be classed merely as an instrument of pleasure attached to a sidecar in which the rider takes the lady of his choice out for an evening. They have really become an article of locomotion for working men in the country, even for agricultural labourers. I have in my own employment, two men who drive motor tractors, who have motor bicycles in which they come to their work.

Those who know what happens in the country know that motor bicycles have become a very important factor in mitigating the housing shortage which exists in many parts of the country. There is no difference to-day from that point of view between the motor bicycle and the bicycle, and therefore you might as well put a duty on bicycles as on motor bicycles. The right hon. Gentleman cannot plead the sanctity of an edifice, which was built during the war and is only 9 years old. This is an ancient country with a great old constitution going back many centuries, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we cannot disturb this jerry-built villa put up to meet a temporary emergency in war time. We cannot alter a gargoyle or a front door or a back kitchen. The right hon. Gentleman should be able to remodel the structure if he set his mind to it. If he applied his great artistic skill, which we all know, he should be able to paint it outside and inside. He could do something beautiful and could remove some of the back premises which sadly want re-modelling.

The right hon. Gentleman is building on a rather precarious foundation for the taxation of motor cycles.

I was just concluding. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could very well accept the Amendment without injuring the revenue, and he would be conferring a great boon on many thousands of deserving people.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 239.

Division No. 127.]

AYES.

[11.38 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Riley, Ben

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

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Ritson, J.

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

Hardie, George D.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Ammon, Charles George

Harris, Percy A.

Rose, Frank H.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barnes, A.

Hayday, Arthur

Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir John

Barr, J.

Hayes, John Henry

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Batey, Joseph

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Sitch, Charles H.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hirst, G. H.

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Briant Frank

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Snell, Harry

Broad, F. A.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Bromfield, William

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Buchanan, G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stephen, Campbell

Clowes, S.

Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)

Sutton, J. E.

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Taylor, R. A.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kelly, W. T.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Compton, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Thomson, Treveiyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Connolly, M.

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

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

Cove, W. G.

Lansbury, George

Thurtle, E.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lawson, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lee, F.

Viant, S. P.

Dalton, Hugh

Livingstone, A. M.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lunn, William

Warne, G. H.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Day, Colonel Harry

Mackinder, W.

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

Duncan, C.

MacLaren, Andrew

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Dunnico, H.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

March, S.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Maxton, James

Whiteley, W.

Fenby, T. D.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Wignall, James

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Forrest, W.

Montague, Frederick

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Morris, R. H.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Gibbins, Joseph

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

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Gillett, George M.

Murnin, H.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Gosling, Harry

Oliver, George Harold

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Greenall, T.

Owen, Major G.

Windsor, Walter

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Palin, John Henry

Wright, W.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Paling, W.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Groves, T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Grundy, T. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert

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

Potts, John S.

Hutchison.

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Butt, Sir Alfred

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

Albery, Irving James

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Campbell, E. T.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Alien, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Cassels, J. D.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Elveden, Viscount.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

England, Colonel A.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Chapman, Sir S.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Balniel, Lord

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Barrett, R. W.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Fermoy, Lord

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Clarry, Reginald George

Fielden, E. B.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Clayton, G. C.

Fleming, D. P.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Betterton, Henry B.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Cope, Major William

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

Couper, J. B.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W

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

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Brass, Captain W.

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Gee, Captain R.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Goff, Sir Park

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Briggs, J. Harold

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Gretton, Colonel John

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Grotrian, H. Brent

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

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

Bullock, Captain M.

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

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

Hammersley, S. S.

Hanbury, C.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Harland, A.

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Meller, R. J.

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

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

Merriman, F. B.

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

Hawke, John Anthony

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Shepperson, E. W.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

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

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

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

Smithers, Waldron

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Murchison, C. K.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Holt, Captain H. P.

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Neville, R. J.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Hume, Sir G. H.

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

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Huntingfield, Lord

Oakley, T.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hurd, Percy A.

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Jacob, A. E.

Pennefather, Sir John

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Penny, Frederick George

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

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Tinne, J. A.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Knox, Sir Alfred

Philipson, Mabel

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Lamb, J. O.

Pielou, D. P.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Price, Major C. W. M.

Watts Dr. T.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Radford, E. A.

Wells, S. R.

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

Ramsden, E.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Looker, Herbert William

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

Lougher, L.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Wise Sir Fredric

Lumley, L. R.

Remer, J. R.

Wolmer, Viscount

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Womersley, W. J.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Wood Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R. Ripon)

Macintyre, Ian

Ropner, Major L.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

McLean, Major A.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Rye, F. G.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Salmon, Major I.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Malone, Major P. B.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Major Sir Harry Barnston and

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Major Hennessy.

Margesson, Captain D.

On a point of Order. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was an impression—I do not say it was an understanding or an arrangement—that we were not going to sit late, at any rate, in the early days of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, and I would like to ask the Chancellor or the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to carry on this Debate much longer.

I was not aware of any understanding of that kind, and had I been asked at the beginning, I think I should have given the answer that is always given on the first day of the Finance Bill Debates, namely, that we must be guided by the progress made. I do rot think the progress has been unsatisfactory, but I think that before we rise we should finish the so-called McKenna Duties, that is, Clause 3. I propose not to go further to-night. We will start on the Silk Duties to-morrow.

Are any new Government Amendments going to be handed in 2 Will the right hon. Gentleman say that no new Government Amendments are going to be handed in dealing with that part of the Bill which we shall be discussing to-morrow?

I do not see how that is relevant to the proceedings tonight. The Prime Minister has just said that we do not intend to start on the Silk Duties to-night, but I do not anticipate that any Amendments of a far-reaching character will be proposed. It might conceivably be found convenient to make some minor Amendment, but nothing to raise any issue of principle at all. I should, however, prefer to deal with that matter when we open the Debate tomorrow.

I presume that the ex-Chancellor may be taken to have formally moved to report Progress, so that we are discussing the general course of the Debates on the Amendments. Is it not a fact that it would be grossly inconvenient for Members to continue the Debate tomorrow if the Government in the meantime is handing in Amendments which Members will not see?

I beg to move, in page 2, column 1, to leave out lines 13 to 15, inclusive.

In view of the statement made, I will not detain the Committee for more than a moment, but I would briefly urge that this taxation is bad in principle, that it is bound to increase the price of the commodity, and that it must tend to decrease rather than to increase the amount of work in the country.

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. It seems to me that it would mar the whole-symmetry of the policy which we are pursuing of restoring the McKenna Duties intact. We know all there is to be known about them. We know the effect they play in the revenue of the country. I have said already to the Committee that if we were dealing with the merits ab initio of the scheme of taxation on luxury or quasi-luxury commodities undoubtedly the schedule which you would draw up would be different, and might include other commodities. We have taken the position of simply undoing the decision the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer took last year. That is our position, and therefore I cannot accept an Amendment which would alter the tariffs.

What is the sanctity of these precious duties? This Committee exists for the purpose of examining in detail and revising if necessary the duties and the answer is no answer to say what I have written I have written. We have to consider these things on their merits and on its merits there is a good deal to be said on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member above the Gangway (Mr. T. Williams). What is the practice of the Customs authorities? I am told that this duty on accessories is a very wide-spread net. I thought it meant a motor car with its horn, its lamp and so forth. But I understand that anything which can be held to be an accessary to motor cars the onus is on you to prove that it is not going to be used on the motor car. It is a tax upon engineering products which may be used in a large number of other ways and I want to know what the practice of the Customs is. Supposing a man imports a case of spanners and the spanner is of a size or shape that might be used in connection with a motor car, has he to pay a tax and then claim or draw back. Take another case, for example, leather that is used ordinarily for covering motor cars, what is the position of a man who imports a motor car and uses artificial or real leather for covering. Is that dutiable unless it can be proved that it is not going to be used on motor cars? Take lamps. There was an inquiry into the question of electric bulbs some years ago, and the Committee examining the question declared that the electric lamp was under the control of a ring of people in this country who were exploiting the consumer. I think they applied for a special duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and I am told that they protected themselves—if I am wrong, no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me—by a number of law cases, but I am given to understand that the time has now arrived when they have lost an appeal in some court, and that they are faced with a legitimate foreign competition which is going to put a cheap electric bulb at the disposal of the consumers of this country. Now, along comes the right hon. Gentleman, and says that an electric bulb is an accessory of a motor car, and I want to know to what extent the importation of electric bulbs is affected by this duty on accessories.

It is affected to exactly the extent that any particular form of electric bulb is an accessory to a motor car.

I am hoping the Chancellor will give me the courtesy of something more full by way of reply than a mere impromptu interjection, the correctness of which, I believe, is at present being challenged by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. These are very important matters, because I do not believe that most people understand in the least, when they hear of the taxation of motor cars, that the tax is really imposed on all these things that are alleged to be possible accessories, and I do not think most people understand that the onus of proof is on the importer. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can make a reasoned reply to arguments which, I suggest, deserve some consideration, I think the sense of the Committee, whatever may be the effect of the influence of the Whips, will support by a majority this Amendment.

12 M.

There is no difficulty in practice at all. It is not as if we were doing anything new. These duties, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), have been in operation in this country ever since they were imposed by His Majesty's Government in 1915, and the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) reimposed them every year after 1918. They have always been worked on the basis that the accessories of motor cars were liable to be taxed equally with motor cars, and it is evident that, if you are going to tax motor cars, ipso facto you tax the accessories which make up the motor cars. Otherwise, you would be imposing the duty in a most lopsided fashion. No difficulty has been experienced in practice. It is true that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith has, apparently, only just discovered how it works. Although for the last ten years he has made most eloquent and impassioned speeches on the subject, he has only just found out how it works, but it is perfectly simple. Any accessory of a motor car is taxed, and in judging whether or not an article is an accessory of a motor car, the test is: Can it be used for any other purpose except in the assembly of a motor car? A spanner, for instance, would not be judged as an accessory unless you could prove that the only conceivable use to which that spanner could be put would be to inspan or to outspan some particular part of a motor car. Similarly, in the case of electric bulbs, if you can prove that a particular bulb can only be made for the fitting and equipment of some particular car, then it would be liable to duty because it would be a part of the motor car. But if it can be shown that it has an alternative use, and the onus of showing this where the presumption was adverse would lie on the importer, it of course would be exempt from the tax. This sounds complicated and of course there is a vast mass of complication in connection with the Customs service, but as a matter of fact it does not cause any complication, and we are not making the slightest departure from our practice in the last ten years.

The Chancellor's speech proves the necessity of going into this matter of accessories. Mr. McKenna introduced his duties to save space and never had in mind the component parts of a motor car. A duty of this kind has, however, to be interpreted by the officials, who cannot give too liberal an interpretation to an Act of Parliament. In the course of this interpretation the accessories to a motor car have come to be taxed. It has caused a great deal of friction, yet the right hon. Gentleman refuses to consider any Amendment to improve the administration. I have always found Chancellors of the Exchequer willing to accept amendments to taxes which interfere with legitimate industries. This duty is handicapping the industry engaged in the repair and alteration of motor cars. Eight throughout the country there is growing up a very large industry in all our towns, whose business it is to repair motor cars of every kind. Owing to the working of this Act of Parliament buyers find themselves forced to pay duties on all the component parts. It is an unnecessary interference with industry and an unnecessary charge on motor users. Now that an attempt is being made to make this duty permanent it is time to consider altering the tax on accessories which is not in accordance with the spirit of the original Act of Parliament and is certainly a hindrance to trade.

I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise at the reluctance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this very helpful and improving amendment so generously moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The Chancellor advanced only two arguments against it. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman was very much drawn to the purpose of the Amendment, and would have liked to accept it, but he found two obstacles. In the first place, he said importing these accessories would upset the balance of the duties; but when the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) moved an amendment just now to let in motor cars under a certain value the right hon. Gentleman said, "If you did that you would have a large number of motor cars assembled outside this country and the people of this country would be deprived of the benefit of the work of assembling those parts into complete motor cars." If that be true, the converse is true. If you permit these accessories to come In free of duty, you will stimulate the trade of assembling motor cars in this country, and that will be extraordinarily helpful and go a long way towards mitigating the evil consequences of this duty as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman's second argument was that these duties had been introduced so many years ago that we had grown accustomed to them. I would remind him that they were introduced as temporary duties. It is true that the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) continued them after the war, but they were always defended then on the ground that they were purely temporary duties.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument does not apply to this specific Amendment. It is a general condemnation of the tax as a whole, which we dealt with on the first Amendment.

Might I submit to you, Sir, without any desire to challenge your ruling, that I am endeavouring to reply to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that these duties should not be altered because they had been imposed in this form every year since 1916, until last year. Surely I am entitled to reply to that by saying that every year when they were imposed we were given the assurance that they were purely temporary duties? Having been able to show the right hon. Gentleman the weakness of the only two arguments he addressed to1 the Committee, I would appeal to him to reconsider his decision and accept this Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman charged me with never having been familiar with the working of the Act. Of course I am not actually under the harrow, but I have many friends who are committing the crime of importing things into this country, of carrying on foreign trade, and they tell me that the difficulties are very real. If the Chancellor will read the first schedule of his own Bill he will see that it contradicts what he has said in debate. He said a thing was open to be taxed if it was "solely" used for motor cars, but the words in the schedule are "mainly" used. There is a very great difference between "solely " and "mainly" and I invite the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain the discrepancy.

If the article is mainly used, the presumption is that it is dutiable, and if it is not imported for a dutiable purpose then relief can be obtained.

How wise it is that this rule of silence should be imposed, because when we do get explanations we get contradictions. First the right hon. Gentleman says it must be solely used, and now he says it must be mainly used.

No. The tax is imposed when the article is used for the car. The tax is claimed when it is mainly used, and the exemption is given when it is not mainly used.

That means to say that, contrary to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said before, the man who imports a thing which the Customs officer cares to say is mainly used for a motor car has to pay duty, and go through all the delay and expense of claiming a drawback, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would not have to do that unless it was solely used for a motor car. That means that it will be open to the Customs official to demand from a man who imports, say, spanners—I give that as an example again—that he shall pay duty or make an affidavit that the article is not to be used for a motor car. That is a very great hardship, and it is not met by a short speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer which turns out to be inaccurate. It can only be met by some Amendment of the Bill, and it is in the interest of those who are trying to carry on their trade under conditions of very great difficulty that I support this Amendment.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 120.

Division No. 128.]

AYES.

[12.12 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

Fraser, Captain Ian

Murchison, C. K.

Albery, Irving James

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Nelson, Sir Frank

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

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Neville, R. J.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Gee, Captain R.

Oakley, T.

Balniel, Lord

Goff, Sir Park

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Gretton, Colonel John

Pennefather, Sir John

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Grotrian, H. Brent

Penny, Frederick George

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Betterton, Henry B.

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

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Philipson, Mabel

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

Hammersley, S. S.

Pielou, D. P.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Hanbury, C.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Harland, A.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Radford, E. A.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

Ramsden, E.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hawke, John Anthony

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Briggs, J. Harold

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Brittain, Sir Harry

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Remer, J. R.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

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

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Buckingham, Sir H.

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

Ropner, Major L.

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Holt, Captain H. P.

Rye, F. G.

Campbell, E. T.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Salmon, Major I.

Cassels, J. D.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Huntingfield, Lord

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hurd, Percy A.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

Churchman Sir Arthur C.

Jacob, A. E.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Clarry, Reginald George

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Clarry, Reginald George

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Shepperson, E. W.

Clayton, G C.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Smithers, Waldron

Cope, Major William

Lamb, J. Q.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Couper, J. B.

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.)

Lloyd, Cryil E. (Dudley)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

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

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Looker, Herbert William

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Lougher, L.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Curzon. Captain Viscount

Lumley, L. R.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Dalziel, Sir Davison

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Macintyre, Ian

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

McLean, Major A.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Macmillan, Captain H.

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

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

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Tinne, J. A.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Malone, Major P. B.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Meller, R. J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Elveden, Viscount.

Merriman, F. B.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Watts, Dr. T.

Fairfax Captain J. G.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Wells, S. R.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Fermoy, Lord

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

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

Fielden, E. B.

Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Fleming, D. P.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Wolmer, Viscount

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Womersley, W. J.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Major Hennessy and Mr.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Margesson.

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

Harris, Percy A.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

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

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Rose, Frank H.

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

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Amman, Charles George

Hayday, Arthur

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barnes, A.

Hirst, G. H.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Barr, J.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Sitch, Charles H.

Broad, F. A.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Bromfield, William

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Buchanan, G.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Clowes, S.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Cluse, W. S.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stamford, T. W.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stephen, Campbell

Compton, Joseph

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sutton, J. E.

Cove, W. G.

Kelly, W. T.

Taylor, R. A.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Kennedy, T.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Crawfurd, H. E.

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

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Dalton, Hugh

Lansbury, George

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

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lawson, John James

Thurtle, E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Livingstone, A. M.

Tinker, John Joseph

Day, Colonel Harry

Lunn, William

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Duckworth, John

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

Warne, G. H.

Duncan, C.

Mackinder, W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Dunnico, H.

MacLaren, Andrew

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

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

England, Colonel A.

March, S.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Maxton, James

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Fenby, T. D.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Whiteley, W.

Forrest, W.

Morris, R. H.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gibbins, Joseph

Murnin, H.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Gillett, George M.

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, T. (York, Dan Valley)

Greenall, T.

Owen, Major G.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Paling, W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Groves, T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Windsor, Walter

Grundy, T. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wright, W.

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

Potts, John S.

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Riley, Ben

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Ritson, J.

Hayes.

Hardle, George D.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir A. SINCLAIR.

On page 2, column 2, to leave out lines 14 to 21, inclusive, and to insert instead thereof the words:—

"In the case of articles consigned from countries which levy upon similar articles exported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland an import duty equal to, or greater than, thirty-three and one-third per cent. ad valorem an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article, and in the case of articles consigned from countries which levy upon similar articles exported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland an import duty less than thirty-three and one-third per cent. ad valorem an amount equal to that percentage of the value of the article which is imposed in the country of origin upon similar articles exported thither from Great Britain or Northern Ireland."

This Amendment does not make quite clear what he means, but, in any case, it should be moved in the form of a proviso instead of in the form in which it stands on the Paper. It would come in at the end of line 24 as a proviso.

I would like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, whether you intend to call the Amendment in page 2, line 15, column 1, to leave out the words "Other than tyres."

May I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not move the Ways and Means Resolution in the form in which the Clause appears in the Bill because the right hon. Gentleman moved a Resolution of a much more general character, and he spoke of the revival of certain duties. I understand that in Committee we may move any Amendment which comes within the scope of the Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means. I would like to know in these circumstances why such an Amendment as that to leave out the words "Other than tyres" is not in Order?

If what the hon. and gallant Member has just stated is correct, two faults would not make the Amendment in Order. It is out of Order because tyres are specially excluded from this Finance Bill, and to impose a duty on tyres as suggested in the Amendment would be imposing a fresh duty.

Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Committee of Ways and Means had moved a wider Resolution is it not within the power of an hon. Member to move an Amendment to widen the scope of the Finance Bill, so long as he does not go outside the Ways and Means Resolution.

I think that point is covered by a provision in the Finance Act, 1915.

I beg to move in page 2, column 1, to leave out lines 16 to 18 inclusive.

I really do not know how to move this Amendment so that it will secure the approbation of the Treasury Bench. This Amendment is intended to relieve from taxation musical instruments such as gramophones and pianolas. In the first place I expect we shall be told that this Amendment is interfering and tinkering with the McKenna duties and therefore it must be rejected at all costs, because it would be considered almost sacrilege to make any such alteration. In the second place the Financial Secretary will probably inform me that the taxing of musical instruments does not increase their price and that it makes no difference whether we impose this tax or not so far as the purchasers in this country are concerned.

According to the new Free Trade, import taxes are always paid by the exporting country. Therefore, we need not bother. How to get round that I do not know, at this time of night. If we convince hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that by putting taxes on goods you make them dearer to the people who buy them they will tell us they do not want cheap musical instruments. There is, particularly on the benches opposite, a great reluctance to gramophones. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the the vow of silence which has been imposed upon our hon. Members opposite is proof that they dislike the habit of repeating their leaders' opinions. What we want on these benches are more and cheaper musical instruments, not merely gramophones, but every variety of musical instruments. We wish to see these instruments used for amusement as well as culture, brought within the ambit and capacity and purse of everybody in this country.

I cannot imagine why the present Government should put this ban on the amusements of the people. In my part of the country, in North Staffordshire, we pride ourselves on being the most musical part of Great Britain. Our choirs habitually beat the choirs from South Wales. Why should we be penalised for the sake of the Philistines opposite? I am afraid that these arguments are being addressed to deaf ears, but that is no reason why we should not make a protest, as dignified as the hour will permit, against the imposition in 1925 of a tax upon culture and upon the common people for the benefit of a fetish in the shape of the McKenna duties.

The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the Philistines. I am not very well acquainted with the exact meaning of the word in the sense in which he used it, but I am reminded that ihe late Lord Salisbury told a questioner on one occasion of the achievement of Samson, who slew many of them with the jaw-bone of an ass. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman could not hope to emulate that performance. The McKenna duties have already been accepted in principle, and we must ask for more definite arguments than have been adduced before we can accept the Amendment. It has been said that they were the issue at the election which preceded the Labour Government coming into office, and that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was justified in removing them. We had a far more emphatic mandate at the last election which justifies us in imposing them again. In the case of the duties on musical instruments, experience has shown that they have been beneficial in operation. In 1923 the imports of musical instruments amounted to £1,100,000; that was when the duties were in operation. After the relief came, they jumped to about double that amount. The last nine months since their repeal have shown an importation of over £1,600,000 —on a full year that would mean about £2,000,000. The consumer did not have the benefit of the reduction in the duty. The right hon. Gentleman said it was argued that import duties were paid by the foreigner, and he pathetically asked how he could get round that. He cannot get round facts. Take the case of un-branded pianos. The price before the duty was repealed was £75. The price now has fallen to £63, and the drop in the duty of 33¾ per cent, was only represented by 16 per cent, drop in the price of the article. That is a very hard fact to get round. The great object of imposing these duties is to produce a very valuable revenue and we certainly cannot accept the Amendment because we want the revenue of between £200,000 and £300,000.

The best words of the Financial Secretary have given away the entire show. He says they want these particular duties because they bring in revenue. I have always understood that the idea of keeping these articles out was to provide work for the people at home.

Exactly—not to provide work. I understood that this Government came in to provide work for the unemployed. Now the Financial Secretary has actually admitted that all they want is to make revenue.

When these duties were imposed Mr. McKenna said they were not to bolster up or demolish—I forget his exact words—free trade or protection. They were imposed for revenue purposes and if they have an incidental effect on employment it is all to the good.

I am afraid that explanation does not carry us very far. In this particular Clause the Government are out to provide revenue, not employment, and the revenue that is coming is to be used in many ways. One way in which it will be used will be to provide part of the interest to those who have invested in War Loan. The statement of the Financial Secretary is no explanation at all. He has failed hopelessly to meet the point. He spoke of Members opposite as Philistines We all know what happened to the Philistines. No matter what weapon was used, it certainly was not a musical instrument, by which they were slain, but we on these Benches look forward to the time when we shall politically slay the Philistines opposite. The musical instruments that are to be imported are not mentioned in the Clause. It has been suggested it might include bagpipes, but those are a home product. They are manufactured in Scotland, and consequently will not come under this particular duty. But there are other instruments. One is the saxophone. Is that to come under this Clause? Is the price of jazz to be increased? If so, the speeches of hon. Members opposite will be very much dearer, because, after all, they are only a jazz band on the loose. This musical debate seems to have brought it into the minds of hon. Members opposite that we on these benches are out for obstruction. I really want to find out exactly upon what articles the tax is going to be imposed. Is it to be imposed upon all articles that come in? I mentioned the saxaphone, and the Financial Secretary agreed that that was to be taxed. Is the ukelele to be taxed? Is the Jew's harp to be taxed? What particular instruments are going to be taxed? Let us have some statement regarding that, because, after all, if you are going out for revenue, we ought to know just exactly where we are and what we are going to tax. We ought to know exactly how it is going to increase the price, because, after all, the Financial Secretary admitted that when the McKenna Duties were taken off there was a reduction in price. He, of course, claimed that it was not so great as the McKenna Duties had been; that the amount of reduction did not; amount to the sum of the McKenna Duty that had been imposed previously. That was only in one short year. It may have been that certain importers in this country were retaining part of the saving that ought to have been passed on to the consumer. If that is so, competition sooner or later, even amongst the home producers, would have tended to bring the prices down still further and thereby give to the consumer probably the full extent of the saving effected by the removal of the McKenna Duty. The whole situation, as far as I can see it— [ Interruption. ] I want to say that we can get on better without interjections from any part of the House. If any hon. Member wants to speak, I am prepared to give way to him. I am only concerned in keeping this debate going until I can get a Tube in the morning, and I intend to keep it going if I speak until six o'clock.

If that be the only object of the hon. Member, I do not think he would be in order.

I quite understand that if I am out of order, and if I go beyond the limits of any recommendation, you will intervene, but as long as I keep within the limits and unless the Closure is moved, I will be perfectly in order in continuing the discussion. I submit that the McKenna Duties as being imposed now are not being imposed for any purpose other than to give some particular individuals behind the Front Bench the idea that these Duties are going to be a stepping stone towards Protection. Personally, I am not much concerned as to merits of Protection and Free Trade. It is a matter of indifference to me as long as the people of this country are getting full employment and full value for the work they are producing. I hope that in these musical instruments, at any rate, what you are going to tax, that you are going to see to it that the first concern is not to raise revenue as you have suggested but that your real purpose is going to be that in these industries in this country where workers have been employed in the manufacture of musical instruments, they will still get employment. If it is not going to be that purpose, then all your revenue-creating Duties will be absolutely pointless so far as they effect the workers of this country.

I want to say one or two words in reply to the mover of this Amendment. He began his remarks by a reference to the pledges given at the last Election. I think, as on a previous occasion, that if I follow the Government spokesman, I should be out of Order and I do not propose to do it. I want to refer to his two subsequent arguments. One was in the form of a statement when he said these were not Protective Duties. I wish to refer him to the two sentences uttered by his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, earlier to-day when he said that the Government were selecting four or five industries to whom they would give the benefits of the 33¾ per cent, tax and when he later referred to the protection which they were giving to certain industries. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to reconcile what he has just said with the statements previously made by his colleagues. Then may I address to him, with reference to this particular section of these Duties, the question which I put in a more general form early to-day: That is this. Will the right hon. Gentleman on the merits of the case and apart from election pledges on what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) did last year, try to prove to this House that this particular industry was in need of any form of Protection at all or that this is the most economical form of getting the revenue which he is seeking to derive from these Duties.

It seems to me that of all the series of McKenna Duties this one is the least defensible at the present time. During the War one quite understands that everything had to be excluded that was not essential for that purpose, but does the right hon. Gentleman seriously think to-day that the paltry revenue he gets from these particular Duties is worth all the inconvenience and loss of trade which follows in consequence? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to view in dismay the fact that during the short period that these Duties were removed by the late Government there was a considerable increase in the importation of musical instruments. Surely they were wanted, or they would not have come in, and when they came in they had to be paid for by other goods. Therefore, there was no loss of employment in this country. Experience of the past is of some interest in the matter. In 1840, when there was a duty of 20 per cent, on importation of musical instruments, a committee of inquiry was set up by the Government of the day. They took evidence in 1841, and called before them various gentlemen. One was a manufacturer of English musical instruments, and he urged that the duty of 20 per cent, then in force should be removed for the good of the home trade. He said, "we want our people educated in the use and employment of musical instruments, and for every one instrument that comes in you will sell two or three English instruments." He therefore urged that the committee should encourage importation of foreign pianos, because every foreign piano sold would lead to an increase of musical tastes of our people and all the more English pianos would be bought. He said that no one could beat the English manufacturer for turning out a good sound piano, and that manufacturer had no fear of foreign competition, provided there was a demand stimulated for musical instruments. That was the evidence given in 1841, which the Government of that day accepted, and they abolished the 20 per cent, duty on musical instruments.

The result was that the use of musical instruments was extended right throughout the country, and the importation of foreign articles made for an increased demand for our English articles which are superior, therefore the home trade was advanced. I submit that the same result would follow to-day, and it is altogether paltry and unworthy of the Government for the sake of a few thousand pounds to keep on these duties which are a tax on the joys and pleasures of the poorest of the poor, and do not do any good from the trade point of view.

I am surprised that the spokesmen of the Opposition should continue half-heartedly to keep up the pretence of these duties. Even while the Financial Secretary was speaking or just before he spoke one of his colleagues on the bench near me, unable to suppress any longer the feelings stirring within him kept on muttering "Help the British working man." What are the hon. Gentlemen opposite really feeling about these things? Unfortunately the Whips are on. I should like to know why there is no Excise Duty. I asked about that on the Financial Resolution and when the matter was discussed before, and I ask again whether the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to his statement? The right hon. Gentleman also said that Mr. McKenna imposed these duties with the object of obtaining revenue. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that I dealt with this argument in anticipation. Mr. McKenna imposed the duties for the purpose of restraining trade. That will be the object of these duties when they are imposed again. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that when the duties were taken off the consumer only got 16½ per cent, benefit. When they are put on again it is at least reasonable to suppose the consumer will be 16½ per cent, worse off and it is highly probable that he will be even worse off than that. Therefore, if we are actuated mainly by consideration of the point of view of the consumer I think we should certainly resist this unnecessary duty on musical instruments. The argument dealt with by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) who quoted the report made in 1841 is one which it is impossible to meet. It is an argument which is justified by the experience of the country since that date. The report was accepted and therefore I say finally that the pretence concerning these duties must be abandoned.

I have listened for the main part to-night to the most futile and footling Debate that has even taken place in this House. From beginning to end it will leave the working classes most of us in all parts of the House are supposed to represent just where they are. Here is this British House of Commons fooling around, arguing what somebody said forty years ago or somebody else said ten years ago, and whether the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) or the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is consistent or inconsistent. The last figures for unemployment show that there are 60,000 more unemployed last week than the previous week. Yet the only thing the British House of Parliament can do, with the coal-mining industry going from bad to worse, is to fool about, and discuss whether Tariff Reform or Free Trade is of any benefit to the British workmen. Neither of these theories has done anything for the British working man, and neither of them will do anything to-day or to-morrow. It is time this House left off fooling about with out-of-date theories, and set about to devise some means of bringing relief to the people of this country. It is a disgrace—

I would remind the hon. Member that the Amendment deals with gramophones.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I do so as a protest against the great waste of time and public money it is costing this country. The whole night up till now has been devoted to something which every man who is honest and every woman who is honest knows is absolutely of no

effect in helping the social life of this country to-day. Whether these duties are on or off there are unemployed by the hundred thousand. I am moving to report Progress because I think the time of the House ought to be taken up in considering what can be done to relieve the thousands of miners who are being thrown out day by day and the people who have been denied for years the right to earn their bread. I think it is a perfect scandal that the House should go on in this fashion.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 202.

Division No. 129.]

AYES.

[1.0 a.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hayday, Arthur

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

Hayes, John Henry

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Ammon, Charles George

Hirst, G. H.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Barr, J.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sitch, Charles H.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Broad, F. A.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Bromfield, William

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Buchanan, G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Stamford, T. W.

Clowes, S.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stephen, Campbell

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sutton, J. E.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Kelly, W. T.

Taylor, R. A.

Compton, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lawson, John James

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Livingstone, A. M.

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

Dalton, Hugh

Lunn, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Day, Colonel Harry

Mackinder, W.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Duckworth, John

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Warne, G. H.

Duncan, C.

Morris, R. H.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Murnin, H.

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

England, Colonel A.

Oliver, George Harold

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Owen, Major G.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Fenby, T. D.

Paling, W.

Wells, S. R.

Forrest, W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gibbins, Joseph

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Gillett, George M.

Potts, John S.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grundy, T. W.

Riley, Ben

Windsor, Walter

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

Ritson, J.

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

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rose, Frank H.

Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Maxton.

Harris, Percy A.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Clarry, Reginald George

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

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Clayton, G. C.

Albery, Irving James

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Briggs, J. Harold

Couper, J. B.

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

Briscoe, Richard George

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Balniel, Lord

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Buckingham, Sir H.

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Butt, Sir Alfred

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Campbell, E. T.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Cassels, J. D.

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Betterton, Henry B.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

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

Chapman, Sir S.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lord, Walter Greaves

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lougher, L.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Lumley, L. R.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Fermoy, Lord

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Fielden, E. B.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

Fleming, D. P.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Macintyre, Ian

Shepperson, E. W.

Fraser, Captain Ian

McLean, Major A.

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

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Macmillan, Captain H.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Smithers, Waldron

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Malone, Major P. B.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Gee, Captain R.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Goff, Sir Park

Margesson, Captain D.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Merriman, F. B.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

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

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Hammersley, S. S.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hanbury, C.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Harland, A.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

Nelson, Sir Frank

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hawke, John Anthony

Neville, R. J.

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

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

Tinne, J. A.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

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

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Oakley, T.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Pennefather, Sir John

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

Penny, Frederick George

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Holt, Captain H. P.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wells, S. R.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Pielou, D. P.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Centrl.)

Huntingfield, Lord

Price, Major C. W. M.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Radford, E. A.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Ramsden, E.

Wolmer, Viscount

Jacob, A. E.

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Womersley, W. J.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Ropner, Major L.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Lamb, J. Q.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Rye, F. G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Looker, Herbert William

Salmon, Major I.

Major Hennessy and Major Cope.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 90.

Division No. 130.]

AYES.

[1.8 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Butt, Sir Alfred

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Campbell, E. T.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Albery, Irving James

Cassels, J. D.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Alexander E. E. (Leyton)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Fermoy, Lord

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

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Fielden, E. B.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Fleming, D. P.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Chapman, Sir S.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Fraser, Captain Ian

Balniel, Lord

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Clarry, Reginald George

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Clayton, G. C.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Gee, Captain R,

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Cope, Major William

Goff, Sir Park

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Couper, J. B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Betterton, Henry B.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

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

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Gainsbro)

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hammersley, S. S.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Hanbury, C.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Harland, A.

Briggs, J. Harold

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.

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

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

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hawke, John Anthony

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

Eden, Captain Anthony

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

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

Smithers Waldron

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

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

Nelson, Sir Frank

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Holt, Captain H. P.

Neville, R. J.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

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

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Oakley, T.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Huntingfield, Lord

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Pennefather, Sir John

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Jacob, A. E.

Penny, Frederick George

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Pielou, D. P.

Tinne, J. A.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Power, Sir John Cecil

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Knox, Sir Alfred

Price, Major C. W. M.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Lamb, J. Q.

Radford, E. A.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Ramsden, E.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Looker, Herbert William

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Warrender, Sir Victor

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Lougher, L.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Watts, Dr. T.

Lumley, L. R.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Ropner, Major L.

Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Centrl.)

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Rye, F. G.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Macintyre, Ian

Salmon, Major I.

Wolmer, Viscount

McLean, Major A.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Womersley, W. J.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Wood, Rt. Hon. E.(York, W. R., Ripon)

Malone, Major P. B.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Merriman, F. B.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Shepperson, E. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr.

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

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Margesson.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hayes, John Henry

Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Ammon, Charles George

Hirst, G. H.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barr, J.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Broad, F. A.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Sitch, Charles H.

Buchanan, G.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Clowes, S.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Cluse, W. S.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stamford, T. W.

Compton, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, Campbell

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lansbury, George

Taylor, R. A.

Dalton, Hugh

Lawson, John James

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Livingstone, A. M.

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

Day, Colonel Harry

Lunn, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Duckworth, John

Mackinder, W.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Duncan, C.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Warne, G. H.

England, Colonel A.

Maxton, James

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

Forrest, W.

Murnin, H.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gibbins, Joseph

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gillett, George M.

Owen, Major G.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Paling, W.

Williams, T. (York, Den Valley)

Grundy, T. W.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

Potts, John S.

Windsor, Walter

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Riley, Ben

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Ritson, J.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Harris, Percy A.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Charles Edwards.

Hayday, Arthur

Rose, Frank H.

I beg to move in page 2, line 16, column 2, to leave out the words "thirty-three and one-third" and to insert thereof the word "five."

I do not want to keep the Committee more than a moment, but here is an Amendment that raises the clear issue as to whether this is a revenue or protective tax. If it is 5 per cent., it will act as a revenue-producing tax. It will not be enough to keep out the various articles included in this Schedule and will bring no revenue, which, we are led to understand, is the whole purpose of restoring these duties.

As has been stated several times to-day, the object of these duties is to obtain revenue. If we were to accept this Amendment that would not be obtained. It would cut down the amount to £359,000 in a full year. We have heard a good deal in the debate of inconvenience which would be caused and I cannot imagine that hon. Members opposite seriously suggest that it should be incurred for that amount. I cannot accept the Amendment.

I should have liked to say a word to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who is not now here, and moved to report Progress a short time ago. Although these things are not of prime importance, they are of importance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the hon. Gentleman's Government swept these things away, and what we are doing is to revert to that. The debate has been conducted without unnecessary speech, as is admitted by the

Prime Minister himself. This is our job, and it is a job conducted in harmony with the principles with which we and hon. Members above the Gangway are in agreement. The comments made were unnecessary.

The reason for the remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is that while we agree in a large measure with what has been said in a series of Debates, what we do feel is this: That a long Debate might have covered the whole range of the Amendments, and that one division might have been taken. There has been constant repetition of one or two arguments and, while we may not agree on the principle of Free Trade, there is certainly a very wide field of agreement regarding the continuance of pure repetition.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 195 Noes, 82.

Division No. 131.]

AYES.

[1.20 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Hennessy Major J. R. G.

Albery, Irving James

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Holt, Captain H. P.

Balniel, Lord

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

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Eden, Captain Anthony

Huntingfield, Lord

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Betterton, Henry B.

England, Colonel A.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Jacob, A. E.

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

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Fermoy, Lord

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Fielden, E. B.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Fleming, D. P.

Lamb, J. O.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Briggs, J. Harold

Fraser Cantain Ian

Looker, Herbert William

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Gadie Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Lougher, L.

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

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Luce, Major.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Buckingham, Sir H.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Gee, Cantain R.

Lumley, L. R.

Butt. Sir Alfred

Goff, Sir Park

Lynn, Sir Robert J.

Campbell, E. T.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Cassels. J. D.

Grotrian, H. Brent

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Macintyre, Ian

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hacking Captain Douglas H.

McLean, Major A.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

Macmillan, Captain H.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hammersley, S. S.

Malone, Major P. B.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hanbury, C

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Clarry, Reginald George

Harland, A.

Margesson, Captain D.

Clayton, G. C.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

Merriman, F. B.

Cope, Major William

Hawke, John Anthony

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Couper, J. B.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

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

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

Rye, F. G.

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

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Salmon, Major I.

Tinne, J. A.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Neville, R. J.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Oakley, T.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Watts, Dr. T.

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Shepperson, E. W.

Wells, S. R.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Pennefather, Sir John

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

Penny, Frederick George

Smithers, Waldron

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Wolmer, Viscount

Pielou, D. P.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

Womersley, W. J.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Radford, E. A.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Ramsden, E.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Viscount Curzon.

Ropner, Major L.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hayes, John Henry

Rose, Frank H.

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Barr, J.

Hirst, G. H.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Broad, F. A.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Buchanan, G.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Sitch, Charles H.

Clowes, S.

John, William (Rhondda. West)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Cluse, W. S.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Compton, Joseph

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Kelly, W. T.

Stamford, T. W.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Kennedy, T.

Stephen, Campbell

Dalton, Hugh

Lawson, John James

Sutton, J. E.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Livingstone, A. M.

Taylor, R. A.

Day, Colonel Harry

Lunn, William

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Duckworth, John

Mackinder, W.

Tinker, John Joseph

Duncan, C.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maxton, James

Warne G H.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Morris, R. H.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Fenby, T. D.

Murnin, H.

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

Forrest, W.

Oliver, George Harold

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gibbins, Joseph

Owen, Major G.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gillett, George M.

Paling, W.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Grundy, T. W.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Windsor, Walter

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

Potts, John S.

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Riley, Ben

Sir R. Hutchison and Sir Godfrey

Harris, Percy A.

Ritson, J.

Collins.

Hayday, Arthur

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

I beg to move, "in page 2, column 1, to leave out lines 19 to 22 inclusive."

This raises the question of the accessories and parts of musical instruments, and it has a distinct relation to the question of unemployment which was raised by an hon. Member just now. This particular proposal has a very direct bearing on unemployment in the East End of London. Nearly 80 per cent. of gramophone motors are imported from abroad, the bulk, of course, coming from Switzerland, where they are manufactured. The cabinets are made in the East End of London, and particularly in the constituency I represent. That locality has suffered very serious depression during the years that have followed the War, but some compensation has been found in the manufacture of these cabinet cases for holding gramophone motors. Hundreds of men have found employment in the manufacture of cheap, effective and well-made wooden cases, which have not only supplied the home trade, but also found an export trade as well. This not only gives employment to the actual men employed in the cabinet making trade also, but to all the kindred industries that hon. Members know so well, like the timber trade and the finishing trades. The polishing trade, for instance, has been very much depressed in the last year or two. These cases holding the gramophone motors have to be polished, and a number of men are employed in that way. Now the Government come along and tax by 33⅓ per cent. the instrument that makes the gramophone of value. It not only means that the industry would be injured, but the cost of this very popular and cheerful instrument, which may annoy hon. Members opposite by disturbing the peace of a moonlight night, will be increased to the ordinary man who cannot go to a theatre, cannot afford a piano, and looks upon a gramophone as a little luxury to cheer him up in these hard times. I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has done nothing for unemployment in his Budget, will consider carefully the putting of a tax on an industry that, owing to cheap untaxed gramophone motors, has been able to give a good deal of employment to a lot of men who have a very hard struggle to exist and to keep their factories going under the general trade depression. No industry has suffered more during the last three years than the cabinet making industry. This is the one bright spot on a hard pressed industry, and now the right hon. Gentleman is going to impose this tax of 33¾ per cent, on gramophone motors, which will put back again this particular industry concerned.

I really thought, when I listened to the hon. Member's speech, that Saul was also among the prophets, because, owing to the local interest in gramophone cases in his constituency, he seems to take a great interest in their continued production. I really could not quite follow the whole of his argument, because I should have thought, in view of the position of this industry, that he would have been very glad to sec it was going to enjoy some measure of assistance. Indeed, if it is going to be so much injured by the duties, it shows that these duties, in spite of what hon. Members say, are not protective, and that far from being protective, they are going to damage our industry. I do not think they can adopt both these arguments. As a matter of fact, the taxation of these accessories is necessary for the whole efficiency of our proposals. It is no good excluding the finished product and allowing the accessories to come in free from competition. There is a pro- vision in the Schedule for repayment in certain cases, and no difficulty has arisen under this particular provision in the past. Therefore we are obliged to keep the same provision here.

I think that is one of the first legitimate points that have been scored from the Government side to-night. The speech to which we have just listened has formed the best argument we could possibly have had for the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) some half-hour since. The right hon. Gentleman is dearly reduced to a state of exhaustion when he cannot follow the simplest propositions put forward. As his right hon. colleague thought fit a short time ago to give a little instruction to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), may I be allowed to disperse a little of the fog? My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) was not referring to the instrument iv the gramophone; he was referring to the case, and his argument was a simple one. As hon. Members, and especially those who represent constituencies in the East End of London, know perfectly well, over a large part of that area there are a great many trades which do depend upon imported articles, trades which make some article which has to be made to fit the requirements of the imported article. My hon. Friend was arguing for friends of his who make a section of the complete gramophone and depend upon the importation of the cheaper other parts. If you are going to prevent the importation of the parts, you are going to do away with the necessity for— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not make it here?"] One or two hon. Members have suddenly become vocal. If I were to follow the interjection I should have to stray from the point of this particular Amendment, which is the last thing in the world I want to do. I simply want to point out that the Financial Secretary has failed to see the very simple point put by my hon. Friend, which is that some of his constituents will be in grave danger of losing their employment if the effect of the tax is to keep out the imported gramophone motor. That being the case, I think we are entitled to a serious reply. My right hon. Friend will not misunderstand me if I say his reply was not serious, because he failed entirely to understand the point raised.

The point I wish to make is not particularly covered with the merits or demerits of this particular duty, but rather with the drafting of this particular Amendment, which I think is so obscure that I shall certainly join at present in opposing it as it stands. The preceding provision states that "musical instruments" includes gramophones. I think this in itself is a very far-fetched idea. But when you come to deal with accessories and component parts of musical instruments in the paragraph now under discussion, it is not there stated whether "accessories and component parts of musical instruments" does or does not include a gramophone, pianola and other similar instrument. I think the point ought to be made clear, whether in this paragraph the word "musical instrument" does include gramophones, as it does in the preceding paragraph. One would have assumed that musical instruments do not include gramophones, for I am quite unable to regard a gramophone as a musical instrument. When the Clause speaks of "other means of reproducing music" I doubt if music, as I understand it, is capable of being reproduced by a mechanical instrument at all. Sounds and noises may be reproduced, but whether they are music or not is a matter of opinion. It should be made quite clear that the accessories and components refer to the same accessories and components of the subject-matter. These things should be clearly drafted.

I have felt some difficulty in making up my mind whether I am more attracted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's humour or by his law. He gave us the play on the facts and the further play on the question whether musical instruments under Subsection (3) are confined to gramophones or pianolas, and whether that applies equally to Sub-section (4). I can only apply a layman's opinion to the drafting of the proposal. I will make inquiries before the Report stage and, if contrary to my lay opinion, the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are found to have some foundation. I can assure him that I will insert extra words, "including gramophones, pianolas and other similar instruments " in the Subsection (4).

Will the Chancellor answer the first part of the question, whether the words " any method of reproducing music " would include wireless headphones?

I do not think it has ever been considered in that way. I am sure these taxes have been imposed a great many years before broadcasting had made any appreciable progress in this country.

The Chancellor, in his reply, has adopted the conventional form of evading a reply by leaving the interpretation to his legal advisers, but no one is more qualified than he is to say how the difficulty arises. He will observe an exact analogy in the words

"motor cars including motor cycles and motor tricycles "

earlier in the Clause. If once you say that motor care include motor bicycles and tricycles, you get an extended meaning of motor cars, and the accessories could have been described as component parts of motor cars, and it could have stopped there. It is therefore a very arguable point to say that in the same way if you do not repeat the words "gramophones and pianolas" it is conceivable that t does not include them.

It will be carefully investigated by the draftsmen between now and the Report stage. Motor cars and their accessories and musical instruments and their accessories shall be considered, and we shall make it clear that the balance is held evenly and harmoniously between them.

If the Financial Resolution is unfortunately not harmonised, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a new Financial Resolution so that we may have another discussion on the matter?

I must think of the inconvenience of adding to the labours of the House by an additional debate.

The Chancellor has overlooked an important point. If the Amendments he suggests should involve an increased charge, they cannot be made on the Report stage. The Chancellor ought to have the attendance of his Law Officers. They may be in the absent squad, I do not know. I am not a lawyer, but if there is anything in the point and if the Amendment the Chancellor is going to make extends the scope of the duty and increases the charge it cannot be done on the Report stage.

Will a reply be given to the speech of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)? The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has raised an interesting point of drafting, but we

have been deprived of the reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough.

Are we bound to sit and listen to the discordant notes of hon. Members opposite?

Surely, we are entitled to a reply.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 81.

Division No. 132.]

AYES.

[1.50 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Albery, Irving James

Gee, Captain R.

Nall , Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Goff, Sir Park

Nelson, Sir Frank

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

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Neville, R. J.

Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Grotrian, H. Brent

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Oakley, T.

Balniel, Lord

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

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Hammersley, S. S.

Pennefather, Sir John

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Hanbury, C.

Penny, Frederick George

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Harland, A.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Betterton, Henry B.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

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

Pielou, D. P.

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

Hawke, John Anthony

Power Sir John Cecil

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Radford, E. A.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Ramsden, E.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Briggs, J. Harold

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Holt, Captain H. P.

Ropner Major L.

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

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Rye, F. G.

Campbell, E. T.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Salmon, Major I.

Cassels, J. D.

Huntingfield, Lord

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hutchison, G. A. CIark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Chapman, Sir S.

Jacob, A. E.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)-

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

Clarry, Reginald George

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Shaw Capt. W. W. (Wilts Westb'y)

Clayton, G. C.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Shepperson, E. W.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Lamb, J. Q.

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

Couper, J. B.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Looker, Herbert William

Smithers, Waldron

Courthope, Lieut.-Col, Sir George L.

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Lougher, L.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Lumley, L. R.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Stott, Lieut. -Colonel W. H.

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

Macintyre, Ian

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

McLean, Major A.

Stuart Crichton- , Lord C.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Macmillan, Captain H.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Eden, Captain Anthony

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Malone, Major P. B.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Everard, W. Lindsay

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Fairfax, Captin J. G.

Margesson, Captain D.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Fermoy, Lord

Merriman, F. B.

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

Fielden, E. B.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Tinne, J. A.

Fleming, D. P.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Fraser, Captain Ian

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

Warrender, Sir Victor

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Wolmer, Viscount

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Watts, Dr. T.

Womersley, W. J.

Wells, S. R.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Major Cope and Captain Viscount

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

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Curzon.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hayes, John Henry

Rose, Frank H.

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Barr, J.

Hirst, G. H.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Broad, F. A.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Clowes, S.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Sitch, Charles H.

Cluse, W. S.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Compton, Joseph

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Kelly, W. T.

Stamford, T. W.

Dalton, Hugh

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lawson, John James

Taylor, R. A.

Day, Colonel Harry

Livingstone, A. M.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Duckworth, John

Lunn, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Duncan, C

Mackinder, W.

Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Warne, G. H.

England, Colonel A.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Morris, R. H.

Fenby, T. D.

Murnin, H.

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

Forrest, W.

Oliver, George Harold

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gibbins, Joseph

Owen, Major G.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gillett, George M.

Paling, W.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Grenfell, D. R (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Grundy, T. W.

Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.

Windsor, Walter

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

Potts, John S.

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Riley, Ben

Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir R.

Harris, Percy A.

Ritson, J.

Hutchison.

Hayday, Arthur

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

I beg to move, in page 2, column 1, to leave out lines 23 and 24.

I consider this Amendment of very great importance. I do not agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Bow and Bromley, at least in regard to this Amendment, that it is of little importance, because I wish to throw myself with all enthusiasm into it, believing that it is very vital. It relates to clocks, watches, and component parts of clocks and watches. My first reason for asking the Committee to delete these words is that in my opinion, notwithstanding what has been said on the other side to-night, this is really not for revenue but protection. I am rather reinforced in that by a gift that I received to-day from a visitor I met in the House this afternoon, when he presented me with a book entitled "Mr. Gladstone—A Study," by Sidney Buxton, and it refers to the old protective system and particularly to clocks and watches, the very subject I am dealing with now. I am not going to say that jewellery and watches were the stone pillars of the old protective system that Mr. Gladstone swept away, but they seem to have been the mainspring of the system —a kind of pendulum by which the whole protective system was swayed. That is why I count this a very important Amendment. There were no fewer than eight of these protective duties on watches, and I should like to read in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the effect of these duties:—

The hon. Member appears to be going into the general economics of these duties. He must confine himself to the effect of the duty on clock and watches and component parts thereof.

I was coming from the general to the particular, and I think I can apply to clocks and watches not only that argument but another argument, used here to-night, because it illustrates a point made on the other side, and which I will make now only so far as clocks and watches are concerned. That is the argument that if these taxes were removed from watches and clocks we would not get the full benefit; that instead of getting the 33⅓ per cent, we would only get 16 per cent. In regard to clocks and watches, that bears out the contention that you have not only the consumer paying for the tax, but paying a large sum for the monopoly you set up. That, I think, is the answer to an argument of that kind. I do not speak as a doctrinaire Free Trader in regard to clocks and watches, or any of these subjects. On these benches we adhere generally to the principle of Free Trade. We are internationalists. We qualify our Free Trade only by this, that we seek to have labour conditions in all countries put on an equal footing.

The hon. Member cannot embark upon a general economic disquisition, any more than he can embark upon a general theological disquisition. He cannot bring himself in order by an occasional mention of clocks and watches.

I will bring myself in order by saying I have no fewer than three watches. One's feelings with regard to a watch relate more to its associations than to whether it is of home or foreign make. Mine have tender associations. One is a parental gift; this one has come down to me through generations; and this one was the gift of my first charge in the country. I want to say I have another watch here which was given me—

I appreciate the hon. Member's dialectics, but I must ask him to address the Committee seriously or discontinue his speech.

I had no intention of trifling with the Committee in any way, but I think it would be relevant to refer to this watch, which is a foreign one, and which I understand can be bought for 4s. 9d. I ask on behalf of Members on the Labour benches who cannot afford expensive watches that we may have this duty removed so that we may be in a better position. I apologise for having strayed from order. I have been speaking of clocks and watches. We are all under the influence of the hands of the clock, and I do not want to go on too long. I do not think I will be counted irrelevant if I say that one of my reasons for opposing at great length the Church of Scotland Bill was that I believe that in going back to establishment we are really putting back the hands of the clock.

If the hon. Member cannot address himself to the subject, I must ask him to resume his seat.

We could not accept this Amendment. I feel upon the whole, that in the whole range of these duties there is hardly an item which could have been selected which would be less favourable to the suggestion of exclusion which the hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to make out. The case of clocks and watches is very remarkable, and, from a Free Trade point of view, extremely disconcerting. After these duties were repealed last year, there was no proportionate diminution of price which reached the consumer, and there was an enormous increase of importation from abroad—it increased from £1,138,000 in the nine months preceding the repeal to £2,617,000 in the nine months after the repeal. But, side by side with this, there was a distinct rise in the price of all parts used. in clocks and watches. That rise amounted to 20 per cent, in the case of most foreign watches imported, and to 25 per cent, in the case of the French material. And while there has been an enormous increase in the finished watches imported, and practically no revision of price has reached the consumer, there has been an enhanced price in the charges which foreigners have made for all parts of watches and clocks. A new factory has been opened in Switzerland since the repeal of these duties last year for the sole purpose of assembling watches from parts which had hitherto been sent into this country. That constitutes a serious state of affairs. I do not want to press the argument in particular detail, but I am quite certain that if it was so pressed the whole aspect in regard to clocks and watches is extremely disconcerting from the Free Trade point of view. Since the announcement has been made that the duties will be reimposed, the Board of Trade have had reports that the American watch factories have received numerous orders for prompt delivery before the duties come into operation, but, on the other hand, we have information that several manufacturing concerns in this country which had reduced their employment have now increased it again in consequence of the possibility of doing a greater quantity of the assembling work. Of course, it is perfectly true to say that these foreign importations in ordinary circumstances are paid for by exportations, but that great argument no longer applies, owing to the fact that you have these great reparation difficulties resulting from the War, great indebtedness, which affects the position of the exchanges. In these circumstances you may have an importation which affects your own industries and which gives rise to 10 exportation in return. In all the circumstances, I hope we shall not be pressed to omit clocks and watches from this section of the McKenna Duties. Broadly speaking, I can only repeat what has already been said, that we are reimposing these duties, which for 10 years have been the law of the land, unaltered, and if there is any part that must be altered then the last part should be that which the hon. Member has proposed.

I was hoping that I should be able to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on making a speech without using the argument that these Duties had been in force for 10 years. But I am not able to do that. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to the arguments that have been used by the right hon. Gentleman. He has pointed out that when these Duties were removed last year there was a largely increased importation from abroad. Then he went on to say that since it had been, announced that these Duties were to be reimposed manufacturing concerns in this country have made arrangements for extending their operations. These are his reasons for reimposing these Duties. In that case the contention that they are revenue proposals finally and irrevocably falls to the ground.

The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that when the McKenna Duties were removed there was no revision of price to the consumer on these articles; that they remained pretty much the same as they were when they were in force. Now he comes forward and reimposes these Duties because, I take it, there was no revision in prices to the consumer. Is not that a case for the adoption of some other method? If none, or very few, consumers got any benefit of what should have been a reduction in price due to the removal of the Duties, is not that a case in which the Government should have gone after the profiteers in this industry who have been retaining in their pockets benefits which the consumer should have had? I should have imagined that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his great force in the past for attacking abuses, would at least have protested strongly against such an abuse of the consumer on the part of the manufacturers of this country, who were really getting benefits which should have gone to the consumer, benefits which were supposed to have gone and which were meant to go to the consumer. Now he says that because importers of clocks and watches have not passed on the reduction to the consumer you should reimpose the Duties. What guarantee has he that these reimposed Duties will not increase the price? And if so, then the consumer is going to pay a double McKenna Duty—the one which should have been removed, and was not, and the McKenna Duty you are now proposing to reimpose. The price of the article may therefore be increased, not by 33⅓ per cent., but by 62⅔ per cent. What guarantee has the consumer against that, or what guarantee has this House against that? Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us some assurance on this point I think it is the duty of every Member on these benches to vote for the Amendment and oppose the reimposition of these particular Duties. There is another point on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been more explicit. We have heard on several occasions that because a duty is to be imposed on a particular commodity imported into this country that certain arrangements are being made in that particular industry for the extension of factories and the employment of more men. As one who is interested in this matter of getting employment, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can name one district where there is a proposal to extend factories for the manufacture of clocks and watches.

That is the information I should like to have. Can you give me any information of a district where there is a proposal to extend the factory that will be used for the particular purpose of the manufacture of clocks and watches? Would he give us also the date upon which these firms proposed to extend it, if he has the information, so that we will know exactly whether the date is after his proposal to re-impose the McKenna Duties or whether these extensions were intended prior to the information about the Budget leaking out to the public, and thereby giving him the opportunity of saying that it was due to his proposal of re-introducing the McKenna Duties that these extensions were proposed and the possibility of further employment given. These are things that the House is entitled to know, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has made great play with that statement justifying the re-imposition of these duties along those lines. Before this House, or even before the country, could accept the re-imposition of the duties with any degree of satisfaction, the statement that he has made to-night ought to be more definite and more specific in its character than the one he gave when he replied to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I therefore hope we are going to have, either from himself or the Financial Secretary, some further explanation than we have already received as to the points that have been raised, so that we can have some material facts given to us and not merely the generalisations that we have already received.

I expected the Chancellor was going on to substantiate the hint he had given as to the great growth of the manufacture of clocks and watches in this country as the result of the imposition of the Duty, but he does not show any disposition to rise. I think he has been more helpful on this Amendment than on any other. This time he has condescended to give us a little information He has got some information from the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade, we know, is a Protectionist body. I would like to know whether they have provided him with all the figures or merely some of them. It is supplied by the President of the Board of Trade, who is himself a strong Protectionist. [ Interruption. ] If hon. Members would put their views into articulate language, despite the regulations under which they are working, we should know better how to deal with them. Has the Board of Trade told the Chancellor anything about the re-export trade on clocks and watches, because, although I have no precise figures, I am told by those engaged in the trade that there is a substantial business done by importing cheap ingredients of the clocks from abroad, where they are probably made better, and putting them into wooden cases or gold cases. They then form the bulk of a considerable re-export trade. If I am right, is the Chancellor satisfied that he is not doing something by the re-imposition of these Duties to kill this export trade, because, whatever he may say about the effect of reparations on the balance of our trade, the growth of our export trade is of great importance. Therefore, can he tell us something about the re-export trade that depends upon the free import of the works of these clocks from the countries which are past-masters in the manufacture of the same? My second point is this. He said the peculiar thing about the Duty was that when the Duty was removed the price did not fall. That I understood to be his argument Yet earlier in the day he has been most emphatic in declaring that the remission of Duties had endured to the benefit of the consumer. In this particular case I think there is more to be said for the tax as a revenue tax than in any other case, because I am told that not a single cheap watch or clock is made in this country at all. If that is the case the arguments about the remission of the Duty and the consumer of tea should apply with equal force to the remission of the Duty on clocks. The remission of the Duty on the only source of supply must endure to the benefit of those who consume the article. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admits this, because he says people are rushing in supplies to anticipate the incidence of this Duty. The plain fact about this Amendment is that this is a Duty levied upon a necessity of the working-class people. It is the cheap watch that is aimed at. It is only the expensive watch that is made in this country. The watch that is used by the

workers and the people of moderate means is the imported watch. The Amendment seeks to remove the tax on that, and for that reason I am going to support it.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 71.

Division No. 133.]

AYES.

[2.34 a.m.

Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Greene, W. p. Crawford

Penny, Frederick George

Albery, Irving James

Grotrian, H. Brent

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Pielou, D. P.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

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

Power, Sir John Cecil

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hammersley, S. S.

Radford, E. A.

Balniel, Lord

Hanbury, C.

Ramsden, E.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Harland, A.

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

Rice, Sir Frederick

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Hawke, John Anthony

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Betterton, Henry B

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Ropner, Major L.

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

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Henniker-Hugnan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Rye, F. G.

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Salmon, Major I.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Briggs, J. Harold

Holt, Captain H. P.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Scott. Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Shaw, Capt. W. W (Wilts, Westb'y)

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

Huntingfield, Lord

Shepperson E W

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

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

Campbell, E. T.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cassels, J. D.

Jacob, A. E.

Smithers Waldron

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Somerville A. A. (Windsor)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Chapman, Sir S.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Stanley Col Hon G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Knox, Sir Alfred

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Lamb, J. Q.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Clarry, Reginald George

Looker, Herbert William

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Clayton, G. C.

Lord, Walter Greaves.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Lougher, L.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Cope, Major William

Luce Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Couper, J. B.

Lumley, L. R.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Macintyre Ian

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

McLean, Major A.

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Tinne, J. A.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Malone, Major P. B.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Warrender, Sir victor

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Margesson, Captain D.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Merriman, F. B.

Watts, Dr. T.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Wells, S. R.

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

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

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Wise, Sir Fredric

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Wolmer, Viscount

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Womersley, W. J.

Fermoy, Lord

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Fleiden, E. B.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Fleming, D. P.

Neville, R. J.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Oakley, T.

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gee, Captain R.

Ormby-Gore, Hon. William

Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord

Goff, Sir Park

Pennefather, Sir John

Stanley.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Harris, Percy A.

Ritson, J.

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

Hayday, Arthur

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Barr, J.

Hayes, John Henry

Rose, Frank H.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Broad, F. A.

Hirst, G. H.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Clowes, S.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Compton, Joseph

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Sitch, Charles H.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Crawfurd, H. E.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Dalton, Hugh

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stamford, T. W.

Day, Colonel Harry

Kelly, W. T.

Sutton, J. E.

Duckworth, John

Kennedy, T.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Duncan, C.

Lawson, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

England, Colonel A.

Livingstone, A. M.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Lunn, William

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Fenby, T. D.

Mackinder, W.

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

Forrest, W.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gibbins, Joseph

Morris, R. H.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gillett, George M.

Murnin, H.

Windsor, Walter

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Owen, Major G.

Grundy, T. W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

Potts, John S.

Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Edwards.

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 25 to 43 inclusive.

It falls to me to move this Amendment, but I feel sure that the hon. Members who support it but who are absent would like to have moved it. Nothing has been more unsatisfactory and more complicated than this matter of the duty on films. I think that in this particular case there is no pretence that revenue has been the main aim. It is an unsuccessful attempt to bolster up a British industry, a makeshift the Government have had to resort to in order to make this an effective protective measure. It was said that owing to the vagaries of our climate the light did not permit the taking of satisfactory films, so that difficulty was got over by making arrangements to take films abroad, in Africa and other parts of the world, on condition that the capital of the companies was controlled in this country and that the actors were mainly British subjects. The words are extraordinarily complicated and I very much doubt whether they are effective. It is quite clear from the drafting of the Schedule that the attempt has failed. It states: taken in South Africa and it is of great educational value to our fellow subjects. This great tour is being made through our great South African Dominion; also-through various dominions on the East and West Coast of Africa. I shall be interested to know whether that film will be exempted from duty in which the great percentage of actors and performers will be South African subjects not domiciled in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. Will that film be subject to taxation? It seems to me this is a very pernicious attempt to bolster one particular industry.

The object of re-imposing the McKenna Duties on cinematograph films is justified by the experience of this industry since the duty was repealed. In the last year the printing industry, which was fully established in this country, received a very serious set-back, and the production of blank films has also been in a serious condition. Before the McKenna Duty was originally proposed there was no production of blanks of any kind in this country, but tempted by the opportunity of selling in this market with foreign competition restricted by means of the McKenna Duty the Eastman Kodak firm established a large factory at Harrow, and four other British producers also went into the business. Since the McKenna Duties were repealed all except one of the four British firms have practically ceased to produce. We hope the reimposition of the duties may cause them to revive. The effect of the repeal from the point of view of the printing industry—there is very strong competition from America—has been very disappointing. The consumer in the case of raw film has failed to get advantage proportionate to the reduction in tax. Whereas the price per foot when the duty was taken off was 85 of a penny, most of the 33 per cent. reduction in duty was kept in the pocket of the foreign producer and the price was only brought down by 15 of a penny, not by 33 which was equivalent to the full taxes. Therefore it is clear that the abolition of the tax gave the greatest benefit to the foreign manufacturer and not to the home consumer. When we lost the benefit of this import duty we lost the benefit of a new factory which was going to be built by Messrs. Pathé in this country. As we have made it clear we are primarily concerned with these duties in their revenue aspect but we were glad to admit at the same time the advantage they give to production in this country. We have resisted any of those changes in detail in these duties which have been urged upon us from the point of view of protecting the home producer and we must equally resist any departure from the McKenna scheme which would be of special benefit to the foreigner.

I want to refer to the statement made earlier in the morning

that these were revenue duties. I hope we shall hear no more of this. The speech to which we have listened was frankly protectionist, and may I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the unanswered question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green in relation to another sub-section of these duties relative to gramophone machines.

There is not the slightest doubt, and I have evidence in my hand from people who are engaged in the industry, that if these duties are re-imposed they will lose business or will have to discharge people because the films will not come here to be developed, but in all probability will be sent to the United States of America. I would like to repeat the question as to whether the right hon. Gentleman or his department has received representations from scientific and learned societies in this country protesting against these duties.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 69.

Division No. 134.]

AYES.

[2.48 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Clayton, G. C.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Albery, Irving James

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hammersley, S. S.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Cope, Major William

Hanbury, C.

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

Couper. J. B.

Harland, A.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hawke, John Anthony

Balniel, Lord

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hennessy, Major J. R. G

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Betterton, Henry B.

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

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

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

Bird. Sir R B. (Wolverhamptor W)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Eden, Captain Anthony

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Everard, W. Lindsay

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J N.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Huntingfield, Lord

Briggs, J. Harold

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Fermoy, Lord

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Fielden, E. B.

Jacob, A. E.

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Fleming, D. P.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Fraser, Captain Ian

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Campbell, E. T.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Knox, Sir Alfred

Cassels, J. D.

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Lamb, J. Q.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Gee, Captain R.

Looker, Herbert William

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Goff, Sir Park

Lord, Walter Greaves

Chapman, Sir S.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Lougher, L.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Grotrian, H. Brent

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Lumley, L. R.

Clarry, Reginald George

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

Lynn, Sir R. J

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Price, Major C. W. M.

Strickland, Sir Gerald

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Radford, E. A.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Macintyre, Ian

Ramsden, E.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

McLean, Major A.

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Macmillan, Captain H.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Malone, Major P. B.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Tinne, J. A.

Margesson, Captain D.

Ropner, Major L.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Merriman, F. B.

Rye, F. G.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Salmon, Major I.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Watts, Dr. T.

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

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Wells, S. R.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

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

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Nelson, Sir Frank

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Wolmer, Viscount

Neville, R. J.

Shepperson, E. W.

Womersley, W. J.

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

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

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

Oakley, T.

Smithers, Waldron

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Pennefather, Sir John

Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

Penny, Frederick George

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Douglas Hacking.

Pielou, D. P.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Harris, Percy A.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

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

Hayday. Arthur

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Barr, J.

Hayes, John Henry

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Henderson. T. (Glasgow)

Simon. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Broad, F. A.

Hirst, G. H.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness

Clowes, S.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sitch, Charles H.

Compton, Joseph

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Crawfurd, H. E.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Dalton, Hugh

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stamford, T. W.

Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sutton, J. E.

Day, Colonel Harry

Kelly, W. T.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro W.)

Duckworth, John

Kennedy, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Duncan, C.

Lawson, John James

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Livingstone, A. M.

Warne, G. H.

England, Colonel A.

Lunn, William

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Mackinder, W.

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

Fenby, T. D.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Forrest, W.

Morris, R. H.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gibbins, Joseph

Owen, Major G.

Windsor, Walter

Gillett, George M.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Potts, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grundy, T. W.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir R.

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

Ritson, J.

Hutchison.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

I wish to put a question which I think everyone will admit ought to be put in a matter of this kind. This is the question. We are getting an accumulation of these duties. There are the duties under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part I. We have the so-called McKenna Duties and we have the Silk Duties. In addition, people are coming to the inquiries and are asking for further duties. It is very important we should know, before we pass this Clause, whether these duties are to be cumulative. Regarding the duties under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it is stated that they shall operate only if they are less. I do not think we need go into the realm of phantasy for examples. We might, for instance, have silk in electrical apparatus. You might have parties in this connection applying for duties under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I think we ought to have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is a position to give it, that it is not intended to add to this already high rate of 33⅓ per cent. any duties levied in any other way by the growth of the Budget. If he can give that assurance it would be a considerable relief to those who can see in this the possibility of duties rising almost to 100 per cent.

3.0 A.M.

There is a certain amount of judgment in the criticism of the hon. and gallant Member who says that we have got into a state where there are a terrible variety of minor duties justified on various grounds, historical and political. If this were the proper time to enter upon a general discussion of the fiscal policy of the country, I think it would be very right and proper that we should endeavour to focus very clearly our ideas on this subject and essay a limitation of principle in various directions. But it would not be useful at this hour of the night, because it would not receive the attention from the country which would be given at another hour. But I may reassure the hon. Gentleman as to the intention and principle of these duties. If in any case they overlap some other in the same article—if there was a silk article of which silk forms a component part, or vice versa, the principle is that the major Duty prevails. The Duties are merged together and the larger will prevail. That is the broad principle we follow. In other words, the sentences run concurrently, not consecutively. With that reassurance I hope the hon. and gallant Member will be content.

I am very nearly content, but not quite. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this specific question. He spoke of the sentences running concurrently, not consecutively; rather significant language. Supposing in a motor car there is a silk lining—and of course there is—would the Chancellor of the Exchequer enter the motor car as an article made of silk?

If there are silk linings or fittings in a motor car then, of course, it would be an article which consisted partly of silk, and as such would be subject to the ad valorem Duty which it it is proposed to put on silk goods coming into this country. But as the quantity of the silk would probably be less than 5 per cent. of the full value of the motor car, the rate of Duty leviable would be only 2 per cent., and as that Duty of 2 per cent. would come into contact with the overwhelming Duty of 33⅓ per cent., and would be swamped by it, only the 33⅓ per cent. Duty would emerge.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 67.

Division No. 135.]

AYES.

[3.4 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Albery, Irving James

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Holt, Captain H. P.

Balniel, Lord

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

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Huntingfield, Lord

Betterton, Henry B.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

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

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Jacob, A. E.

Blades' Sir George Rowland

Fanshawe Commander G. D.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Fermoy, Lord

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Fielden, E. B.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Fleming, D. P.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Lamb, J. Q.

Briggs, J. Harold

Fraser, Captain Ian

Looker, Herbert William

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Gadie, Lieut.-Cot Anthony

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Lougher, L.

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Gee, Captain R.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

Goff sir Park

Lumley, L. R.

Butt, Sir Alfred

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Campbell, E. T.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Cassels, J. D.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Macintyre, Ian

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

McLean, Major A.

Chapman, Sir S.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hammersley, S. S.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hanbury, C.

Malone, Major P. B.

Clarry, Reginald George

Harland, A.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Clayton, G. C.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Margesson, Captain D.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.

Cope, Major William

Hawke, John Anthony

Merriman, F. B.

Couper, J. B.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

Moore, Sir Newton J.

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

Rye, F. G.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Salmon, Major I.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Tinne, J. A.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Neville, R. J.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Warrender, sir Victor

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

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Oakley, T.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Shepperson, E. W.

Watts, Dr. T.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

Wells, S. R.

Pennefather, Sir John

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Penny, Frederick George

Smithers, Waldron

Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds. Central)

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Wolmer, Viscount

Pielou, D. P.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

Womersley, W. J.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Radford, E. A.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Ramsden, E.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Woodcock. Colonel H. C.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

styles, Captain H. Walter

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Ropner, Major L.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Major Sir Harry Barnston.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ritson, J.

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

Hayday, Arthur

Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Barr, J.

Hayes, John Henry

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Broad, F. A.

Hirst, G. H.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Clowes, S.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sitch, Charles H.

Compton, Joseph

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Crawfurd, H. E.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Dalton, Hugh

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stamford, T. W.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vala)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sutton, J. E.

Day, Colonel Harry

Kelly, W. T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Duckworth, John

Kennedy, T.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Duncan, C.

Lawson, John James

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

England, Colonel A.

Livingstone, A. M.

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

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Lunn, William

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Fenby, T. D.

Mackinder, W.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Forrest, W.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Windsor, Walter

Gibbins, Joseph

Morris, R. H.

Gillett, George M.

Owen, Major G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles

Grundy, T. W.

Potts, John S.

Edwards.

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [ Mr. Churchill. ]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after half-past eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen minutes after Three o'Clock, a.m.