HC Deb 11 May 1898 vol 57 cc1033-6

Resolution (10th May) reported.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

In view of the very interesting though desultory Debate which took place upon this subject, I wish to state in the briefest way the general conclusions on which I act in reference to my vote on this question. If we were now dealing with the general policy of making subventions to local rates out of the central Treasury, I think there would have been a great deal to be said against it. My belief is that these subventions do not afford the best guarantee for economy. My belief is that the more directly you can place before the taxpayers the proposition that he who spends must pay, the more plainly you show him not merely that the shoe pinches in a general way, but make him feel exactly where it pinches, and who pinches, the more you will ensure economy. My belief, further, is that under our system of taxation, however much you may disguise or obstruct it, the ultimate result of a system of general subvention towards local rates is to place that subvention upon the general taxpayers that it increases the sum of the Budget, that it comes in the end from the taxes on consumption, the taxes on the masses, and that it thus unjustly imposes a burden on them for the relief of the local taxes on property. But this is not our present situation. That system, for good or evil, exists to a very large extent, and so long as it does exist we are entitled and bound to insist, as representatives from Ireland, that it shall be applied to that country to the extent to which it is applied to the rest of the United Kingdom; and it is on that ground that I argue for the extension of the agricultural rate to Ireland. You are, in fact, extending it, and you are doing it in terms, and in substance, although not directly acknowledging it in Debate, as stated by a prominent Member behind the Front Bench. To that we hold you. You are not on this occasion, in our judgment, dealing in any degree with the question of any undue and disproportionate taxation of the country. If that were intended, believing as I do that the inevitable tendencv will be, in the case of land, the value of the product of which depends upon foreign competition, to give the advantage to the owner, whether he be occupier or landlord, I would be reluctant to support it. I believe that even the tenant who purchases in the future under the Irish Land Acts will pay an enhanced price for the estate in view of the additional advantage he will obtain as such purchaser. The general result of applying this as a mitigation of Irish over-taxation would be this: that that over-taxation which is on articles of consumption, and not on property, is to be said to be mitigated by the application of a part of the over-taxation of the Irish masses in relief of property which is not relatively overtaxed. That would be aggravation under pretence of mitigation. But on the indicated ground I am quite ready to support the claims of Irishmen to be treated just as men of the same class under like conditions are treated in this part of the United Kingdom. When the clauses are reached various serious questions may be raised. It is contended that the dealing is not the same, but is more favourable to the landlord; and it is contended that the conditions are not the same, since the conditions of agricultural distress in Ireland, although we aver, on the whole, more severe than those which are said to justify the agricultural rate in England, differ in this, that owing to the fixing of the rents for a long term by a judicial process agricultural distress has operated in a different way, and on different classes. It has operated much less severely on the landlord, and more severely on the tenant in Ireland. Therefore, the plan is open on that ground, and it is also open on other grounds, to grave objections, social, economic, and political. But, Sir, I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the discussion must be reserved. For my part, I frankly confess that my ardour, never very keen, to intervene in Debates is chilled on this occasion by the somewhat frank, if not somewhat cynical, admission the Government has made. They have announced to their distrustful friends on the other side of the House that the price of this distribution of the grant is the Bill, and they have announced to their distrusted opponents on this side of the House that the price of the Bill is the distribution of the grant. We are told by our happier fellow-subjects on this island, that they, like Paul, are free-born. We may say to them, "See with what a great price we must buy this freedom." But, Sir, the Government must remember that a bargain must be kept, that if it is a case of a bargain and sale, and of price and consideration, we who are called upon to pay must receive the goods, and that any attempts made here, and expected, particularly by the honourable Member for North Louth to be made more assiduously, and with greater effect elsewhere, to fritter away the talent of the concession of freedom in return for that price, will be strenuously resisted. Sir, turning to the other elements of the Resolution, my honourable Friend from Mayo very rightly and prudently complained of the absence of figures with reference to this local Budget, and pointed out the alarming indication of its inadequacy to meet the demands of the future. The Chief Secretary, with the candour which he generally displays, has acknowledged to my honourable Friend a very serious error into which he was inadvertently led in the figures which he gave yesterday. He has admitted that the increase of local licences between 1888 and 1897, instead of being £44,000, was £15,500, thus that the increase was not 28 per cent., but less than nine per cent. in 10 years. That is another proof of the importance of further and fuller consideration of the materials available as to the statistics, both of this country and of Ireland, before we can finally dispose of the question of the adequacy of the Budget. The only other remark I shall make is with reference to the claim somewhat ostentatiously made of the exceptional generosity of the balancing grant of £35,000. It was said that that grant was absolutely without consideration. This claim to generosity is, even assuming the figures, quite illusory. You are evading the payment of £1,160,000 out of the £1,460,000, representing two years' arrears of the agricultural grant, which will be due in equity and in justice on the principles which were set forth by the time this Bill comes into operation. You are reserving for future purposes the balance of £300,000, and thus a very moderate interest on the arrears, which, you are keeping from Ireland, more than pays the £35,000; so that your generosity consists in agreeing to pay a very moderate interest on the principal which you hold back from us. That is the extent of your generosity. To that I feel bound to say we must answer, "Thank you for nothing."

MR. LLOYD GEORGE (Carnarvon)

As the question is one of great importance and means voting three quarters of a million for subsidising the Irish landlords, I think the matter ought to be discussed more fully than it was yesterday. It can hardly be discussed in the short time before six o'clock, and I move that the Debate be adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER

The honourable Member seems to be under the impression that this Debate must close at six o'clock. That is not the case. It can go on after six.

MR. LLOYD GEORGE

said he would persist in his Motion.

MR. SPEAKER

Is it seconded?

There being no seconder,

House adjourned at 5.55.