CINEMA THREAT.

Waikato Times, Volume 96, Issue 15360, 8 October 1923, Page 9

CINEMA THREAT.

"FARCICAL ATTEMPT AT INTIMIDATION."

Captain Reginald Berkeley, M.P. for Central Nottingham, has replied to a letter sent by the Entertainment Tax Committee respecting votes by members of Parliament when the abolition of the entertainment tax was considered in the House of Commons. Extracts from correspondence on the same subjert between Mr J. R. Remer, M.P. for Macclesfield, and the Entertainment Tax . Committee •were published recently.. The Committee's letter to Mr Remer, pointing out the absence of his name from the list of members who voted, contained the follofwing passage:—'VAs it ,<may be necessary to inform, by means of the screen, that large body of citizens which attends the cinema why the efforts to abolish or amend the entertainment duty failed, my committee world greatly welcome any explanation you may be disposed to make on the matter."

Captain Berkeley in his letter stated that his name did not appear in the division list to which the committee referred becasse, with the knowledge and approval of his constituents, he had left for France to take part in a conference of League of Nations Unions. He added: —"If, however, , you had taken the trouble to inquire, jyou might have ascertained that, before leaving, I was careful to pair in favour of both motions, thus securing the same practical result as if I had been in my place and recorded my vote. Furthermore, you would have learned that on July 2, after my return from Vienna, I made a speech attacking the Government for their refusal to grand the abolition or amendment of the tax, and on the following day I made another speech urging that films of an educational nature should be admitted into this country duty free. And now, having satisfied your demand for an explanation, may I be permitted to inquire by what right your organisation takes on itself to threaten members of Parliament in the terms you have seen fit to employ? There is a growing tendency among trade and other organisations, not merely to seek to influence members of Parliament by argument or appeal, which Is perfectly legitimate, but to make a farcical attempt at intimidation by veiled threats, and I only reply to your letter to express my disapproval of those highly i improper practices. I have forwarded this and the letter to which it refers to the press."