The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (May-Jun 1923)

June 23, 1923. THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. Broken Promises. been fully discussed in the House of Commons this week, and all hopes of a revision this year have been turned down by Sir William Joynson Hicks on behalf of the Government. After a full discussion on two separate nights, the case for the trade having been presented with clearness and logic, merely asking for justice, it has been met with specious arguments and an appeal from the Financial Secretary to the members to support the Government in their refusal to concede any revision whatever to this industry. Frankly it must be confessed that there is not the smallest ground for comfort in the whole of the debate, as it proves conclusively that the Government do not intend to give up a single halfpenny of this tax until they are literally forced to do so. Sir William Joynson Hicks has gone even further than Sir Robert Horne did last year in pouring ridicule upon this trade, and his stupid and nonsensical argument in instancing the fact that Mr. George Robey is getting a salary of £700 per week for ten years is fairly representative of the whole of his speech. As a matter of fact, this comedian is getting this salary for less than six months’ work, but it apparently suited the Financial Secretary to quote ten years as being far more effective in his argument. The remainder of his speech teems with illogicalities, and was quite evidently delivered to strengthen the Government’s decision not to give any relief on this iniquitous tax this year. It may be permissible to record at this stage that a Select 'Committee was offered by the Government to inquire into the workings of this tax and the movers of the amendment were quite right in refusing to accept such a half-hearted attempt at placation. T: amendments on the entertainment tax have There is one aspect in this debate which is more serious than anything that has occurred during the whole of the fight for the revision of the tax. Four hundred and twenty members of Parliament solidly pledged themselves to support this industry in obtaining either abolition or revision of the tax, and the plain fact-remains that on Monday evening only one hundred and fifty-four went into the lobby in support of the amendment, whilst on Tuesday night one hundred and eighty-three members only supported Sir Walter de Frece. Where are the promises given by the noble four hundred and twenty ? Is it not plain to see they were broken like piecrusts? On top of a specious appeal by Sir William Joynson Hicks to support the Government many of them scurried hke rabbits into the division lobbies, disregarding promises given at the last election, and repeated since, that they would do everything in their power to see that this industry received justice. The Financial Secretary must have known his party very well when he cynically remarked that ‘‘ it was easy to give promises at election time,”’ for a truer utterance was never made in the House of Commons. It looks as though the large majority of these members never intended for one single moment to do anything to redeem their promise. They have flagrantly deserted the trade after promising again and again to members of the trade who have been lobbying that they woud certainly stand by their word when this amendment was raised. What is the trade going to do about it? It is obvious that the cnly mistake that was made in conducting this campaign was that members of the House were treated far too gently. The Kinematograph Trade has been laughed at in the House and utterly flouted by reason of the fact that its members acted like gentlemen at the General Election, and preferred the methods of peaceful persuasion to those of intimidation. It is quite evident that these methods are not understood by our present House of Commons, and it is up to this industry to assert itself and forcefully to prove that they are not going to be ruined by this tax any longer. The Tax Committee have worked exceedingly hard and cannot be blamed for the lack of results. As I have said before, the only mistake that appears to have been made is the reliance that was placed upon the promises of four hundred and twenty members of Parliament; yet, could anyone foresee that over two hundred and fifty of these would deliberately break their pledge in the astonishing manner that they have done? No tax committee could have worked harder in the House to keep members to their promises than our members did. Week after week the hardest work has been put in, and all the labour has been in vain. As a sop to the trade the Prime Minister in pious terms intimates that he will review the situation next year, and if the times permit the tax will be reviewed. The trade have exactly one year to mobilise and put themselves in a position of greater force than they have presented during the last few months. They should take the means that they have in their power of acquainting the electors in their district of the manner in which the pledge has been broken by their member of Parliament. I hope that the Tax Committee will immediately publish a list of those members who promised to vote for abolition or revision and then went into the lobby against them. Immediately the names are known exhibitors should co-operate in every centre and use their screens in defence of their liberty. It is quite obvious that it is no use attempting to conduct this agitation in a meek and mild and peaceful manner. It is high time that the Trade realised that to get justice in the House they must be far more energetic in their methods, and perhaps when M.P.’s realise the power of the screen they will not be in such a hurry to break their promises.