FINANCE BILL.

HC Deb 27 March 1900 vol 81 cc458-543

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. JOHN ELLIS, Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe, in the Chair.]

Clause 4:—

*MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)

said his object in opposing this clause was to save Ireland from the very heavy tax which was imposed by it. The clause hit at two classes of Irishmen—the manufacturer and the consumer; and the amount of the tax made it very difficult to get at the consumer otherwise than by a reduction in the quality of the material supplied to him. Now one of the causes of much evil in Ireland was the supply of bad and inferior drink, and, as a total abstainer himself, he considered it very reprehensible that any temptation should be placed in the way of either the manufacturer or the retailer to supply the public with drink of an inferior quality. But they were forced either to reduce the quality of the liquor they sold or to raise the price of the article, and the latter alternative was scarcely possible, seeing that the added tax was not sufficiently large to enable it to be charged against the individual consumer unless they themselves made a huge profit out of the transaction without the State deriving any advantage whatsoever. Their contention was that the tax should not be put on Ireland at all. They objected, in fact, to all taxes raised for the prosecution of the war, because they were opposed to the war itself. They objected, further, in a particular manner to a tax which struck at an Irish industry. They had some of the largest and best known breweries in the world in Ireland, and they did not know what might be the effect upon them. But they had reason to fear that effect when they remembered how in former days, when the spirit tax was increased, the number of distilleries in Ireland was reduced at one swoop from ninety-one to twenty-nine, thereby depriving a large number of people of employment. By inflicting these taxes, therefore, they struck at the very poorest of the people, they forced them to seek employment elsewhere, and, as there was no other place for them to go to in Ireland, they had to migrate either to England or America. There was reason to fear, too, that another effect of this tax would be to place the manufactories of Ireland in the hands of the larger companies and the richer people, and to create monopolies, which were bad for any trade. There were a number of small thriving breweries scattered throughout the country, which gave a great deal of employment to the people, and it had been calculated by those conversant with the facts that this tax would sweep away a very large proportion of these breweries, by depriving them of the profits they now made, and rendering it impossible to keep them going. Although their protest against this tax might be vain and ineffective, it was their duty, as the representatives of the great majority of the Irish people, to oppose every clause of the Finance Bill. They believed that their country was already over-taxed, and these new proposals would add greatly to the disproportion of Imperial taxation which Irishmen were made to bear. The present proposal would impose a charge of £150,000 per annum upon their country, and it had been calculated that a shilling per barrel upon beer would bring in about £116,000.

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to intervene to point out that he has mistaken the clause. This one does not particularly affect Ireland, as there is hardly any beer imported into that country; indeed, it would be against the advantage of Ireland to omit the clause.

MR. HAYDEN

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and said he would not now move his Amendment. He hoped he would still retain his right to move it at a later stage.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Of course, the hon. Member will have the right to move any Amendment which is in order. As no Amendment has been moved to this clause I have simply to put the question "that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:—

MR. FLYNN (Cork County, N.)

said his hon. friend would soon have an opportunity of re-stating the very cogent arguments which he had been submitting, as he did not propose to occupy much time in stating the grounds for his opposition to this clause. They were, of course, opposed to all increases of taxation, and they were specially opposed to added duties upon commodities which were articles of common consumption in Ireland. He feared that the duty would have disastrous effects upon the general body of Irish taxpayers, and also upon their exports. The present clause imposed a duty of one shilling upon every thirty-six gallons of beer. But beer was being more and more consumed by the working classes of the country, and hence it was that Irish working men, the great bulk of whom were opposed to the war, would have to bear a considerable proportion of the burden. None of them desired to give further facilities for heavy drinking in Ireland, but they must take things as they found them, and surely they ought not to unduly tax a man because he chose beer for his beverage. Undoubtedly it was the working-class population which would be penalised by this tax, and he therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 13, to leave out the words 'the United Kingdom,' and insert the words 'Great Britain' instead thereof."—(Mr. Flynn.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'the United Kingdom' stand part of the clause."

MR. HAYDEN

I will not trouble the Committee by repeating my arguments. What I want to point out is that this Bill adds £150,000 to the taxation of Ireland, of which about £118,000 will be paid by the consumers of beer in that country and £130,000 by the exporters of beer. We consider this tax an unjust addition to the burdens of our country. We also consider that it is unjust that we should have to bear any portion of the cost of a war which we are not in favour of, and which we have always protested against. The amount of taxation involved is very unfair to Ireland because it does not take into consideration many things which we think ought to be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One thing which I would like to urge most strongly, is the fact that this tax does not really come upon the mass of the consumers, except by a method which is to be condemned in the strongest manner possible, and that is by the reduction of the quality of alcoholic drink. I think it is regret-table that in Ireland or in any other country, so much alcohol should be consumed. I do not agree, however, that there is more drink consumed in Ireland than in other countries. The greatest evil is the bad drink which people sometimes get. There are two ways in which the trade can get back this tax; one is by insisting that the price must be very high, or by reducing the quality and giving the people very bad beer. I think this may be one of the effects in England and Ireland of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For this and other reasons I strongly object to this proposal, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make some statement, which will show us how this tax can be placed upon the shoulders of the people by some other means. In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he considered it right in all these proposals to make every class in the community contribute according to their means to the taxes which the war involves. I hope he will be able to show us by what means, otherwise than by taking an inferior drink, the mass of the people who consume drink can pay any portion of this tax, because one shilling per barrel of thirty-six gallons cannot be divided up into any coin of the realm upon quarts, pints, half-pints, or glasses. I think if the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little further and placed a higher tax upon us in that respect, it would have been fairer to Ireland. Not only has this proposal a tendency to palm bad material upon the people, but it is calculated to cripple some of our smaller breweries and place the trade in the hands of monopolists.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

I do not intend to enter into details upon this question, because I heard your predecessor in the chair rule that as the question had been previously discussed upon the tea duty it should not be renewed upon any other part of the Bill. Perhaps I may be allowed to make two remarks in answer to some observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. He said that the arrangement of 1816, by which equal taxation with England was imposed upon Ireland, was assented to by the Irish representatives. I wish to say that there was no assent of the kind given.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member is opening up a question which will not be in order.

MR. CLANCY

I wish simply to confine myself to a protest. From 1816 down to the time when the taxes were equalised a continual protest was uttered on behalf of Ireland, even by some of the Conservative Members. As to this particular tax I conceive that there is a special reason why Ireland should be exempted under the beer duty. I think it is admitted on all hands that the system of conducting public house business differs entirely in the two countries. In England there exists what is known almost universally as the tied house system, and we all know what that means. It means that the big brewers really own the houses in which their beer is sold. I do not profess to understand how that can be, because in Ireland the law is that the resident manager of the public house is the person who is responsible for the sale of drink, and he must be the legal owner of the establishment. He must have a beneficial interest in it, and the fact that he has an interest in it and owns the lease has to be proved before he gets the license in his own name. That is the security demanded by the tribunal which gives the licence, so that the public-house will be properly conducted. The law may be different in England—in fact, it must be, when you have the nominees and representatives of the big brewers managing all these public-houses. The managers of these public-houses in England do not bear any part of the cost which may be involved in an increase of taxation. The real owners who supply the beer and manufacture it are the great firms, and they are the people who really bear any burden involved in any increase of taxation which cannot be got out of the consumer. In Ireland the state of things is entirely different, for when a man applies for a public-house licence he must produce in the court his lease of the place. He must also show that he has paid a substantial sum of money for it, and that it is a real bargain and sale; also that he has invested his own money in it. It is very often a source of complaint and almost a reason for refusing the licence that the man has borrowed the money almost to the last penny from bankers or from private friends. The fact remains that he has to produce his lease showing that he has acquired the public-house in a legal manner, and prove that he has paid a substantial price for the property. That is the guarantee with which he comes to the court, that he will himself conduct the business properly. The consequence of all this is that the brewer in England bears the burden of additional taxation on beer, while in Ireland it is not only a poorer class but a larger class who have to bear the burden. I know that there is a good deal of odium cast upon the trade, and while I admire the efforts and sincerity of those who work in the cause of temperance, a great many of their attacks on the trade I regard as little short of hypocrisy. These owners of public houses in Ireland are very closely watched, and the law is very stringent in regard to them. I believe they are more closely watched in Ireland by the constabulary and the metropolitan police in Dublin than anywhere in England. As a matter of fact, I believe it to be true that the great majority of these public house owners, who are carrying on a business which is recognised by the law, have been falsely accused of many abuses with which they had nothing to do. The result, nevertheless, is that they are treated in the same-way as if they were millionaires who brew the beer in England, or as if they were Guinnesses in Ireland. I think it is very unfair to take advantage of an odium unjustly created to fix burdens upon publicans that they would not have been obliged to bear if they were carrying on their business in England. That difference is, I think, a very strong ground for treating Ireland in a different way to England. In addition to this, it is a fact that Ireland is a poorer country, and you cannot take money out of the pockets of the publicans of Ireland without impoverishing the country to a greater extent than you do if you take it out of the pockets of the same class in England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted figures to show that savings bank deposits had increased, and so on. I have been listening to that sort of thing ever since I entered public life, and I am amused by its vitality. I can remember when the late Lord Carlisle, thirty years ago, went about the country boasting that a few more cattle had been exported from Ireland, and that the country was abounding in wealth. Shortly afterwards there was a famine, and several other famines have occurred since then. For all these reasons I think there is a strong case, apart altogether from the obligations imposed by the Act of Union, for treating Ireland as a, separate country, and for exempting her from this tax.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I hope the hon. Member who moved to omit Ireland from this clause will forgive me if I do not enter at length into his arguments. It seems to me that whatever cause of complaint hon. Members from Ireland may have with regard to tea and tobacco, it absolutely disappears when we come to the question of beer, because there is no doubt whatever that the great bulk of this tax will fall either on the brewers or the consumers in Great Britain rather than in Ireland. As far as I can judge, out of £1,750,000, the total amount of this tax, something less than £110,000 will fall on Ireland. That is not by any means a large proportion; in fact, it is a small proportion. But the hon. Member for South Roscommon suggested that this tax would interfere with the great Irish industry known as Guinness's Brewery. I fancy none of the shareholders of that admirable concern will be much affected.

MR. HAYDEN

The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not suggest that this tax would interfere with a business like Guinness's, but I did suggest it would interfere with small provincial brewers throughout the country, and place the trade in the hands of Guinness.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

Then I am afraid the hon. Member is rather contradicted by the hon. Member for North Dublin, because his argument was that while the brewers in England might bear the tax, the brewers in Ireland would throw it on the publicans, owing to the different system existing in that country. It is very difficult to say precisely in what way an indirect tax will reach the consumer. My belief is that this tax will ultimately come to the consumer, somehow or other. It may be in some cases by the addition of a little water, which may not be a bad thing for the consumer, but which certainly would be a bad thing for the Exchequer. I hope that hon. Gentlemen, even from Ireland, will see that, having imposed additional taxation on alcohol, I am bound to tax beer more heavily than spirits because beer is at present more lightly taxed than spirits. We could not have done anything with regard to existing indirect taxation which would have affected Ireland less than this tax on beer.

MR. DALY (Monaghan, S.)

I approach the question from a different standpoint to that of my hon. friends. My view is that this tax will be an injury to the barley growers of Ireland, and that worse material will be put into beer and stout in Ireland. The majority of the people of Ireland are farmers, not like the people of this country, who have large industries and manufactures to depend on. In a great many counties in Ireland the best barley in the world is grown, and this increase in the tax on beer may cause the brewers of Ireland to purchase their barley in foreign countries. That would be a deplorable state of things, especially from the farmers' point of view. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself admits that this tax will come out of the pockets of the consumers, and he makes light of the water that will be added to beer. I object to this tax on the part of the Irish farmers, who may be injured by it, and also because it is for the purposes of a war with which the people of Ireland have no sympathy, and which they regard as unjust. I hope my hon. friend will proceed to a division.

DR. AMBROSE (Mayo, W.)

I protest against this tax on different grounds from my hon. friends. I object to it because it is opposed to the terms of the Act of Union. I admit beer is a commodity pretty heavily taxed in this country, and not without reason. For instance, if the House of Lords became fossilised you would simply turn on the beer tap to obtain members. I never had the pleasure of holding a post-mortem on a noble Lord, but I believe the colour of his blood is different from that of a Commoner. In forty years we have lost in Ireland more than a million in population, and during the same period our taxes have increased by more than a million sterling. Where then does the Act of Union come in? You broke the treaty you signed in the Transvaal in 1857, having been put on the scent, when a countryman of mine—O'Reilly—found a pebble which turned out to be a diamond, and which he sold for £500. You now ignore the treaty with Ireland, and treat it merely as a district of England, whereas it is in a different position altogether. On those grounds I protest strongly against this tax.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

I have heard with the utmost astonishment the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an attempt would in all probability be made to evade this tax by the addition of water to beer. Coming from any person any suggestion of that kind is, in my opinion, most undesirable, to say the least of it; but coming from such a high authority as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it is perfectly astounding. The retailers of beer are a class who will probably take the hint, and the result will be that the people will not only have to pay a greater price for their beer, but they will probably get their beer watered down. That would be most undesirable, and I for one am perfectly astonished that such a statement should have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I protest against the inclusion of Ireland in this increased taxation, because I think Ireland ought not to bear increased taxation at all. On the other hand, I would feel very much inclined to argue that if taxation is to be put on Ireland and England it would be a much fairer thing to put a greater tax on beer, and not increase the tax on whisky at all, because whereas about half the quantity of beer per head is consumed in Ireland that is consumed in England, the consumption of whisky per head is about the same, and, of course, England is the larger and the richer country, and beer is the national drink. That being so, it would be infinitely fairer to put 2s. extra on beer, and not to increase the tax on whisky at all. I agree with my hon. friend who desires to exclude Ireland altogether, because I think the inclusion of Ireland is most I unfair; but the beer tax will not affect the Irish people as much as the tax on whisky. Beer is manufactured mostly in England, and I say that you ought in common fairness to make the people of this country pay in something like a fair proportion towards the cost of the war. An increase of only a shilling a barrel upon beer is altogether unfair in proportion to the taxation you are putting on whisky. I say that sixpence additional on every gallon of whisky weighs infinitely heavier upon Ireland than the extra one shilling a barrel on beer upon England. For that reason I think the proposal is in itself unfair. I regret at all times, Mr. Ellis, to use any language which may not be strictly Parliamentary, and I always try to avoid it, especially when we have the pleasure of seeing you in the chair; but I really do say that I find it quite impossible to characterise in language which would be considered Parliamentary the attempt which has been made to make the Irish people—and the very poorest of the Irish people—pay a larger contribution towards the expenses of the war. It is the most unjust, the most unfair, and the meanest proposition that ever was made at any time by any Chancellor of the Exchequer. This war is to cost an enormous amount of money, and to tax every unfortunate Irishman who takes a glass of stout or beer with his dinner or his supper in the evening, and make that man pay towards the expenses of your enormous army of a quarter of a million of men in South Africa, is a most unjust and iniquitous proposal. In regard to the increased tax on beer, I think the same thing applies to it as applied to the increased taxes on other commodities. It seems as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had singled out all those things that are necessaries of life for taxation. There are a variety of things that might be taxed in Ireland, which I believe would have realised the money the right hon. Gentleman wants, but he makes no such proposition. There is no proposition to tax champagne or the expensive wines that are consumed by rich people.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I increased the duty on champagne and expensive wines last year.

MR WILLIAM REDMOND

Yes, but I think you ought to put even more extra taxation on them this year. If it were found necessary by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose an additional tax on expensive wines last year, when the whole world was in a state of peace, there is an additional reason for putting on an additional tax upon expensive drinks now, when money has to be raised for the war. The gentlemen in this country who drink their bottle of champagne are quite indifferent as to how long the war will last, for it will not cost them any more for their bottle of champagne; but the unfortunate coal porter who works all day on the quays of Dublin will find, when he gets his half-pint of stout, that he has to pay an additional halfpenny for it. Now, I ask any impartial man, is that justice; is it fairplay? Is that laying with equal hand an equal burden of taxation on all classes according to their means of bearing taxation? It is not. And it is addi- tionally unfair when it applies to Ireland. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are amused at that; but I maintain that we are entitled to say that this taxation is additionally unfair on Ireland, and I could prove that without the slightest trouble if you, Mr. Ellis, would allow me to do so by going into the question of the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland. It is within the knowledge of every Member of the House, and of the outside public, that there are special circumstances in connection with the taxation of Ireland for Imperial purposes which justify me in saying in spite of the laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this tax, which falls hardly on the poor people of Great Britain, falls with additional hardship on the poor people of Ireland. I wish to say no more than I have said, because I know that I could not influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I conclude by referring to his original astounding suggestion that this extra taxation would be met by the people having their beer watered. The Irish people are pretty good judges, and know whether their beer is watered or not; but if the people of this country get their beer watered it will serve them right, because they have allowed this country and the Government to drift into this most disastrous, unjust, and expensive war in South Africa.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)

I wish, in a very few words, to enter my protest against this beer tax. This tax hits my constituency in a peculiar way, because Kilkenny, famous in many other respects, has been specially famous for the excellent quality of its beer. There are two or three breweries in the city, and, in fact, they afford the only means of employment in the city, so that not only are the poor people who drink beer but the industry itself is hit by this extra tax on beer. It is an extraordinary thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have selected the Irish people to bear this extra tax to pay the expenses of a war with which, it is notorious, they have no sympathy. The people of Ireland have demonstrated their opinion against the war, and I believe it is certain that if the masses of the people of this country were only allowed to exercise their right of free speech they also would pronounce against the war. The Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, speaking on the proposed increase of the tax on tea, said that the large mass of the people of the country should be asked to contribute to the expenses of the war as well as the classes. I deny that entirely. I say that the masses of the people had nothing whatever to do with instigating the war, and that they are already contributing most to it. They are contributing the fighting material and the blood which is being wasted in the war. The least that the wealthy magnates who got up the war can do is to contribute the money to pay for it. My hon. friend the Member for East Clare mentioned champagne. I think the people who indulge in champagne in glorification of the war should pay for it. The prime mover in the war, Mr. Cecil Rhodes, laid in a great store of champagne at Kimberley, and allowed the masses of the people who were in the Army to lose their lives for his honour and glory. It is absurd to say that you should tax tea and beer, which are the necessaries of life of the poor, in order to make them contribute to the cost of the war, when they are already giving their lives, or the lives of their breadwinners, to the war. I think every hon. Member who claims to represent the masses of the people is bound to protest against this new tax on beer. So far as my constituents are concerned, it is a very serious matter, because of the reasons I have given. The beer industry in Kilkenny is the only industry in that city. Before the Union was brought about—

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member is wandering considerably from the Amendment before the House.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN

Am I not entitled, Mr. Ellis, to refer to the fact that my constituency may be brought to ruin by this tax? Before the Union Kilkenny was a city of wealth, with a population four times the number it has now. And is this diminished population to be overtaxed again? I shall, of course, vote against the imposition of this tax.

MR. EDWARD BARRY (Cork Co., S.)

As another Irish Member, I rise to protest against this increased taxation. If this tax is imposed on porter in Ireland the direct effect will be that all the small breweries will be absorbed by the larger, and that I would regret. On the sea side of my constituency there is a great deal of barley grown, and the growers have a ready market for their produce at the local brewery. This tax must fall upon the brewer, who is the only one who can pay it, for the margin of profit on the sale of the barley is already too low, and the growers would not be able to contribute to it. I have no knowledge of whether it is the intention of Her Majesty to visit South Cork, but if it is her intention so to do I am afraid the ardour of the people who will drink her health will be damped if they know that in so doing they are also providing sinews for a war against which they have protested, and in the policy of which they do not believe. On those grounds I support the Amendment of my hon. friend.

*MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

was opposed to the extra duty of a shilling a barrel on beer. From long experience, both in this country and America, he had come to the conclusion that the more the legislation in the cause of temperance and the higher the tax put upon certain articles the greater became the ardour of the people to possess those articles, even to the extent of breaking the law. Hon. Members would find, if they carried their recollections back, that in spite of all the temperance measures passed by the House of Commons the consumption of drink per head had largely increased. In 1879 it amounted to £3 10s. per head, and in 1898 it had increased to £3 16s. By increasing this duty the Government were not only not assisting temperance reform,

but they were laying a very heavy burden upon the poor men. After a varied experience in America, where the abolition of drink was carried by the vote of the people in some States—

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the question before the House, which is the omission of Ireland from this particular increase of duty.

*MR. FLAVIN

said in putting this tax on beer the Government was not only doing an injustice to the working man of Great Britain, but a greater injustice to his fellow in Ireland, whose revenue would not compare with that of the working man of Great Britain. The imposition of the tax would also dislocate and demoralise the small brewing industries in Ireland. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that it was manifestly unfair that Ireland should be compelled to contribute to a tax with the reason for which they did not agree. Already in his opinion more duties were imposed than were sufficient to meet any emergency, but Ireland had from beginning to end disagreed with the war policy, and had consistently condemned it, and now the Irish representatives could only protest against the tax of one shilling per barrel on beer both with their voices and their votes.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 261; Noes, 40. (Division List No. 84.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Biddulph, Michael	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Aird, John	Bill, Charles	Charrington, Spencer
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Billson, Alfred	Coddington, Sir William
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Birrell, Augustine	Coghill, Douglas Harry
Arnold, Alfred	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Arrol, Sir William	Boulnois, Edmund	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert H.	Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)	Colville, John
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Brassey, Albert	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow.
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)	Brown, Alexander H.	Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.
Baird, John George Alexander	Bullard, Sir Harry	Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge
Baker, Sir John	Butcher, John George	Crombie, John William
Balcarres, Lord	Caldwell, James	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)	Cross, Herb-Shepherd (Bolton)
Banbury, Frederick George	Carlile, William Walter	Curzon, Viscount
Barlow, John Emmott	Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward	Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Dalkeith, Earl of
Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts	Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derb'shire	Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham
Bartley, George C. T.	Cawley, Frederick	Denny, Colonel
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East	Dewar, Arthur
Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W B (Hants.	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Bethell, Commander	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-	Hozier, Hn James Henry Cecil	Purvis, Robert
Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Dunn, Sir William	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Reid, Sir Robert Threshie
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Emmott, Alfred	Joicey, Sir James	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Fardell, Sir T. George	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Rentoul, James Alexander
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.	Richards, Henry Charles
Ferguson, R. C. Munro-(Leith)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Richardson, Sir Thos (Hartlep'l
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Finch, George H.	Kimber, Henry	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne	Knowles, Lees	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Fison, Frederick William	Lafone, Alfred	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Lambert, George	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Round, James
Fletcher, Sir Henry	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Flower, Ernest	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Forster, Henry William	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land	Savory, Sir Joseph
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Lecky, Rt, Hon. Wm. E. H.	Seely, Charles Hilton
Fowler, Dr. Joseph Francis	Leng, Sir John	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fry, Lewis	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Galloway, William Johnson	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Garfit, William	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Gedge, Sydney	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Lowe, Francis William	Souttar, Robinson
Gilliat, John Saunders	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. H. John	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Strauss, Arthur
Godson, Sir A. Frederick	M'Ewan, William	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Gold, Charles	M'Kenna, Reginald	Tennant, Harold John
Goldsworthy, Major-General	M'Killop, James	Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Malcolm, Ian	Thornton, Percy M.
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Goschen, George J. {Sussex)	Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Goulding Edward Alfred	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Gretton, John	Mellor, Rt. Hn J. W. (Yorks	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Webster, Sir Richard E.
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Weir, James Galloway
Gull, Sir Cameron	Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton	Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton
Haldane, Richard Burdon	Milward, Colonel Victor	Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)
Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Monckton, Edward Philip	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Monk, Charles James	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hanson, Sir Regmald	Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hardy, Laurence	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk
Harwood, George	Mount, William George	Wilson, John (Govan)
Haslett, Sir James Horner	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)
Hazell, Walter	Myers, William Henry	Wodehouse, Rt Hn E. R. (Bath)
Heath, James	Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Woods, Samuel
Heaton, John Henniker	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.-
Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Wrightson, Thomas
Helder, Augustus	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	Wyndham, George
Henderson, Alexander	Percy, Earl	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Pierpoint, Robert	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)	Pilkington, Sir G A (Lancs S'port	Younger, William
Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon
Holland, William Henry	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher.
Horniman, Frederick John	Pretyman, Ernest George
Houldsworth, Sir W Henry	Price, Robert John
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Crean, Eugene	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Ambrose, Robert	Crilly, Daniel	Flynn, James Christopher
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Gibney, James.
Blake, Edward	Daly, James	Hammond, John (Carlow)
Carew, James Laurence	Dillon, John	Hayden, John Patrick
Clancy, John Joseph	Doogan, P. C.	Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Field, William (Dublin)	Hogan, James Francis

Jordan, Jeremiah	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Macaleese, Daniel	O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'nsC	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	O'Malley, William
M'Ghee, Richard	Pinkerton, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Morris, Samuel	Redmond, John E. (Waterf'd)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Redmond, William (Clare)

*SIR CUTHBERT QUILTER (Suffolk, Sudbury)

In rising to support the Amendment which stands first in my name I desire to state that it was substituted for that previously drafted, but unfortunately it places me in the position of wishing, apparently, to reduce the amount sought to be raised by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a course of proceeding which would not commend itself, I am certain, to any of the three classes on whose behalf I am speaking—namely, the farmer, the maltster, and the beer-drinker. The last thing that any of them would desire, I am certain, is that we should seek to reduce in any way or to hinder the collection of that sum of money which is necessary to carry on the war which has been forced upon us. I do not consider that this is the proper time to make what might be called a pure beer speech, but the principle that underlies both of the Amendments on the Paper is the unfairness of the present incidence of the duty on beer, that it is inequitable as between barley-malt and substitutes. The percentage of barley-malt used in beer as compared with substitutes shows very alarming figures. The average quantity of malt used by brewers to each hundred-weight of sugar in 1882, just after the repeal of the malt tax, was 42 bushels; in 1895 the average had fallen to twenty-four bushels, and in 1897–98 to under sixteen bushels. The latest available figures are made up to September, 1898, and I have not the slightest doubt that since that time the proportion has fallen still further. Although I have said this is not the time to make a pure-beer speech, I wish it to be understood that the desire for pure beer is not less than it was. That will be almost universally admitted. It is being asked for in increasing quantities, so far as I can judge from the correspondence that reaches me, and there is no doubt that the consumption of beer and the quality of the beer which is consumed in this country is a very fit subject, not only for the consideration of this House, but of any thoughtful man who takes an interest in the well-being of his fellow-countrymen. Does not the immortal bard say that "a quart of ale is a dish for a king"? Well, I don't think the ale that is met with in the East End of London and some of the great towns is such as you would venture to give to any king—not even to King Prempeh. The "fourpenny" which the labouring classes have to drink would, I think, hardly come under that description. Why are they compelled to drink it? I have been told by a great authority on several occasions. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire who told us on the last occasion when the question of pure beer was discussed, the 29th of March, 1896, he was compelled to drink it because of a monopoly "so powerful that nothing can resist it." The right hon. Gentleman was right. He found it very difficult himself to resist it. In the course of the long and weary watchings I have had in this House on this question, when I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire leaning on the arms of the late Mr. Whitbread, and that high priest of mysteries, the Member for Wimbledon—I have wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would get any advantage from bowing down in the house of Rimmon. The Amendment I first placed on the Paper provided a substitute for the amount which I desire to take off the pure beer. The original Amendment would not have materially reduced the yield of the duty, and it would have compelled those who are admittedly making the largest profit to contribute their fair proportion. I hope if the present Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to differentiate between those who are admittedly making a very large profit out of the use of sugar and other substitutes, and those who continue to use only malt, so as to make the burden fall upon the shoulders which are best able to bear it, perhaps some future Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to do so—some imaginative Chancellor like the Member for King's Lynn, or someone who occupies that important position in future might very likely see his way to do something to redress the inequality. It used to be said: How are we to differentiate? The Inland Revenue authorities now have forms by which it is possible to see at a glance the sort and quantities of substitutes used. That quantity is an increasing one. If we had lived in the time of Sheridan I have no doubt he would have been tempted to repeat that interesting verse of his on this particular point— They ve raised the price of table drink, What is the reason, do you think? The tax on malt's the cause, I hear, But what has malt to do with beer? Very little nowadays, I am sorry to say, and that is the reason I am on my legs speaking upon this Amendment. The manufacture of malt in this country employs a great many hands. The growth of barley used to employ a great many hands, but it employs a much smaller number now. I am not speaking now of anything at second-hand. I am speaking of a thing I understand, because I am sorry to say I grow barley myself, and I know how, year by year, it becomes more and more difficult to sell barley at anything like a price which pays the cost of cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth made some allusions to this subject the other day. I was very sorry to miss that speech, as the right hon. Gentleman does not come amongst us so often now as he used to do, and I am told he was in fine form. I have always found him in the best form when gambolling in the barley field or hiding in the hop garden, and I hope we shall have the benefit of hearing him to-night on this great subject. Doubtless he will be disposed to say that this increased use of substitutes is exaggerated. I do not think it is. I will not weary the House by reading long extracts, but there are one or two to which I must allude. The question of the use of substitutes was alluded to by the hon. Member for Wimbledon in a very memorable declaration which he made when speaking in this House in 1894 on a similar Bill to the one now under consideration. He said^*— An English brewer wished to use English barley, if possible; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to insist upon running up the taxation on beer to such a point that it could not be made from malt and hops, the brewer, like other manufacturers, would naturally seek other ingredients. ^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxiv., p. 502. That is not good reading for the agriculturist or the English farmer, nor is it good reading for the man who represents sixty miles of agricultural country. What has been the effect of this present proposal? I had a short letter this morning from a very large maltster, saying— I was very pleased to see the notice of your Amendment. I have been told by six large brewers that the extra shilling per barrel duty would drive them to use substitutes—raw grain, maize, rice grits, sugar, etc. This would operate against the barley grower and maltster, as some brewers use from fifty to seventy-five per cent. of sugar. I think your suggestion of four shillings per hundred weight on sugar, etc., is very fair, and could be easily collected with the beer duty. I f enclose you an advertisement from a Burton paper, which has appeared since the duty of one shilling was proposed. The advertisement is very short, and is, as follows:— —, —, manufacturers of flaked malts, maize, and rice. The position we hold, as one of the largest maize importers in the United Kingdom, and our modern plant, enable us to compete most favourably in quality and price. Samples and prices on application. That only appeared after the extra shilling duty was announced. It is in very large print, evidently a very expensive advertisement, and one which could have been inserted only in the hope and expectation of a very large business resulting. It is said that this duty is collected from the brewers. Yes, it is collected from the brewers, but it is not paid by them. These extracts which I have just read show that. It is very important that it should be understood that the increasing of a duty does not apparently reduce the brewer's profits. The price of the beer to the public is the same, although the price of the materials is more, and, therefore, substitutes must be used. We barley growers and maltsters suffer because less malt is used, and the beer drinkers suffer because they get a more sophisticated drink. In the Amendment which I originally desired to move, I had to bear in mind that had that 4s. per cwt. been placed on sugar substitutes, while it would have realised about the same amount for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would not even then have brought up the cost of these materials to that of barley malt. It is very necessary to bear this in mind, because it may be that in the future this tax, which is so eagerly availed of by all Chancellors of the Exchequer, should be placed, as I have said, a little more on the right shoulders. I have heard—I do not know whether it is true—that some of this tax is to be recouped by the brewers by raising the price to the publican. The publican is not supposed to charge more, but he will have to pay more. That is a part of the happy system to which the right bon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire has so often alluded. The brewer has many ways of recouping himself, and my object in this Amendment is that there should be an equitable adjustment of the duty according to the materials used. He can use whatever he likes, but if he uses the cheaper materials, and so makes a larger percentage of profit, it is only right that he should contribute a larger sum to the national Exchequer. I regret very much—and I am not the only Member of this House who so regrets—that that Amendment was out of order. I have received a great many letters and assurances from Members of the House to the effect that if I had been able to move that Amendment they would have been glad to support me, because they think the duty as at present levied is inequitable. The brewer who uses substitutes as against barley-malt turns out more beer with the same amount of plant, so that he is all the more able to bear extra taxation. By raising the duty on substitutes any Government would, in my humble opinion, confer a distinct benefit on arable farmers, on maltsters, on beer drinkers, and on the cause of true temperance. I know very well that in this House you have got to hear the other side of the question, and I shall no doubt be confronted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the findings of the Beer Materials Committee. This Beer Materials Committee, which, in a weak moment, I accepted, did not agree with my view. I admit that. I am anxious not to say anything about the Committee myself—it is not proper that a Member of Parliament should—but I would like, if I might, to read some remarks of Mr. Clare Sewell Read, who was himself a member of the Committee, and for a long time an honoured Member of this House, and who stands as high in the agricultural world as any man in England. He said at Norwich directly he was free to speak after the Committee had reported— At the first meeting I told Dr. Bell, 'I shall be in a minority of one, and when I write my Minority Report you five will have a Majority Report.' … Later in the speech, he said: In the first place, I may state that our agricultural witnesses were very shabbily treated. I have served on three Commissions and on scores of Committees, and I have always seen this, that any man who is not a real expert, but a common creature like a farmer, is allowed to send in the heads of his evidence to the Chairman, and to tell his story in his own way. But I think that Mr. Sapwell will bear me out that this was not the way in which our farmers were treated by this Committee. They were cross-examined as if they were at the Old Bailey, and it was not until we had sat for eighteen months that I got the Chairman to allow, and to insist upon it, that witnesses should be permitted to tell their story in their own way. These are not my remarks, but those of Mr. Clare Sewell Read. So much for the composition and the proceedings of the Committee. What were its findings? Naturally, they were adverse to our contentions. But there was a Minority Report, signed by Mr. Clare Sewell Read himself. What were its findings? They, very shortly, were— That a beer brewed with substitutes cannot have the same composition as an article produced from malt and hops only. That the use of substitutes undoubtedly entails the introduction of substances foreign to normal beer. That these substitutes may in some instances be injurious to health, and are certainly less nutritious and wholesome. That beer made from malt and hops only is brewed by nearly half of the brewers in the United Kingdom, and that, therefore, it is possible to produce good beer without the use of sugar or any other substitutes. That the use of preservatives may be, and probably is in many cases, much abused. That at present the public have no adequate protection against the use of deleterious substances in the manufacture of beer. That it would be neither difficult nor vexatious to enforce such legislation as would ensure to the purchaser his right, when he asks for beer—the national beverage—to obtain a beer brewed entirely from malt and hops. Is it not in the national interest to brew beer from malt and hops? I attribute some of the great victories we have won and the great deeds we have done to a certain extent to the consumption of good beer. I have heard many remarks to the effect that the character of our population, especially in the great towns, has decidedly altered. I think hon. Members who have recently had the opportunity of seeing in our streets celebrations of the victories won by our Army must have observed an excitability more akin to that of the Neapolitan fisherman than the staid way in which our citizens were accustomed to conduct themselves on such occasions in former days, and I have come to the conclusion that it is the deterioration of their native drink which has something to do with this great alteration. I do not wish to say anything about Bavarian ales, but when I was over in Bavaria I was very much struck with the steadiness, the sobriety, and the great advance made by that beer-drinking community. It is a matter of common knowledge that this is due to the Bavarian and lager beers which they drink. I am proud to say that good lager beer can now be made in England, not a thousand miles from Burton. It is a fact that a considerable quantity of that beer is not at all objectionable or injurious to anyone. There is an hon. Member who is well known for his vocal talents and for his readiness to give his services; and he told me that, on one occasion, he was present at a supper in Bavaria, and after taking part in it and singing many songs, he found to his horror that he had consumed twenty-two glasses of lager beer. He went out with fear and trembling, and was pleased and indeed rather surprised to find on leaving the hotel that he was not only perfectly well, but on returning to his lodgings he was able to prosecute with success two very difficult anatomical problems to which he had been for a very long time devoting himself. It is quite clear that the effect of this beer which Bavarians enjoy so much, and which seems to be denied to the majority of Englishmen, is an entirely different thing to that which obtains throughout the greater part of this country. I send two or three wagons and horses to the market town, and if anything goes wrong, the invariable answer I get from them is, "We stopped and had a glass of beer at so-and-so." They may have had one glass or two glasses, but I do not suppose, at any rate, that they have had twenty-two glasses, and surely, therefore, there must be something in the quality of the liquor. I do wish to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and upon this House that there is more in this question than merely an afternoon discussion to provide something to laugh and smile at. We are engaged in a very serious war, which as taxing the energies of our country to the utmost. Every year—and more particularly during this great war—the question of population in the country districts is becoming a more serious one, and it is becoming more difficult to see where you are going to get the muscle and sinew from to fight your battles ashore and afloat, to say nothing of tilling the land. What is needed is some attempt to put before the working classes of this country—and especially the classes to which I have referred—a better class of drink than that which now exists, and I think this is an important consideration which should not be lost sight of. How that is to be done is a difficult problem to solve, and I only bring it before the House to urge hon. Members to look into it for themselves. Every instance which I can hear of where a public-house is in private hands, and where the beer is carefully selected, it not only supplies refreshment to the wayfarer, but is also a benefit to the locality. I cannot help thinking that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either now or upon some future occasion, will help us upon this question by adjusting the incidence of the duty upon the materials used in making beer he will do something at any rate to bring back to the countryside and to our villages that good old-fashioned sort of beer which was brewed in former times. I am glad to say that beer can be now much better brewed than it was in previous years, owing to improved apparatus. I think if he would do something of the kind suggested to encourage the use of the genuine materials we should in the end derive immense benefit, and future generations would bless the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who addressed himself to the improvement of the nation's beer. (Cheers.)

*THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member move his Amendment?

*SIR CUTHBERT QUILTER

No, Sir.

Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

My hon. friend the Member for Sudbury has for many years, almost ever since he has been a Member of this House, been an ardent advocate of beer made from malt and hops, and he has always supported his argu- ment with a humour which delights the House, and with obvious sincerity. My hon. friend believes that everything which is good in this country and in our nature is due to good beer, and that everything which is bad is attributable to the want of good beer. I do not think I have heard a finer panegyric on beer since the celebrated song of "John Barleycorn." The actual proposal of my hon. friend is to reduce the additional shilling on beer made from malt to sixpence, and make up the deficiency by a duty of 4s. per cwt. on sugar used in the composition of beer.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has not moved his Amendment. The question is that the clause stand part of the Bill.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I am afraid I am not able now to discuss the proposal of my hon. friend. My hon. friend has referred to the Report of the Departmental Committee which, with his full consent, was appointed in 1896. I remember that then we had a debate on the Bill which he introduced in this House on the subject, and the result was that I think he found himself in a not very satisfactory position; and in the end he accepted my suggestion that the question whether the public suffered from other articles besides malt and hops being used in the manufacture of beer should be examined by a Committee. That Committee was appointed, and I had a good deal of communication with my hon. friend on the subject, and I think he assented to the composition of that Committee. I must say that I do not think a better Committee could have been constituted, and it has conducted a long investigation with great patience and care. The Committee came to a decision adverse to my hon. friend's views, and since then the question has rested. It would not be in order to deal with an Amendment which has not been moved, but I do not agree that the barley-growing districts are injuriously affected by the present system. I believe that the best barley commands a good price from the best brewers. What my hon. friend would probably be most anxious about is inferior barley; and he himself is, I am afraid, a grower of inferior barley. Would it be a real advantage to the growers of inferior barley if a penalty were imposed on the use of sugar? The Committee reported— The evidence appears to us not to support the conclusion that the disuse of malt adjuncts would increase the demand for British barley, but on the contrary rather to suggest that such disuse might tend to diminish the demand. We have been informed by brewing experts that one of the functions performed by sugar in brewing is the correction of certain defects, common in greater or less degree in all but the best British barleys; and that the same result can be attained by the use of foreign barleys. The effect so far as foreign barley is concerned has been expressed by the popular phrase 'getting sun into the mashtun.' If, however, sugar were not used, foreign barley would have to be used in larger proportion. In fact, evidence which is practically unchallenged satisfies us that correction of the defects referred to is essential to the efficiency for brewing purposes of the less good qualities of British barley; and it follows that if sugar were not available as a corrective, those barleys would either not be used at all, or would be used only in conjunction with such a large amount of foreign bailey as would proportionately diminish the total quantity of British barley used.…. There are already powerful inducements to make use of foreign barley, even to the displacement of British barley, and in our opinion these inducements would be strengthened by the prohibition or discouragement of the use of sugar or other malt adjunct. So far as the barley growers of Great, Britain and Ireland are concerned, the proposal of the hon. Baronet to penalise the use of sugar would not improve the position of the British barley growers. If by penalties upon sugar brewers are driven to use foreign barley in the manner suggested by the Committee, the result would be that a very small sum would be derived from the tax upon the sugar used by brewers, and my hon. friend's tax on sugar would fail to benefit the revenue. I feel that I am rather detaining the Committee unreasonably on this matter, because there is no proposal before the Committee, but I thought it right to show that there was an answer to the case put forward by the hon. Baronet. I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for not pressing the matter to a division, because any proposal made by a representative of the agricultural districts to reduce the amount of duty leviable under this clause might be represented as a proof that the agricultural interest is not anxious to bear its fair share of the expenses of the war. I am sure that nothing of that sort was in my hon. friend's mind. The reasoning of the Committee recommends itself to me more than the views of my hon. friend, who will, however, be able to bring the matter before the House on a future occasion if he desires.

*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

The House always looks forward to the annual discourse of the hon. Member on pure beer. I am glad to know that the hon. Baronet occasionally leaves the Eastern counties, where, according to him, they brew very bad beer, and, having refreshed himself in Bavaria, returns to this country in perfect form. I am not going to follow the hon. Member into a discussion of these substitutes in beer. The question with reference to this tax is the article upon which it is raised, and the persons upon whom it is going to fall. The relation of brewers to this tax is peculiar. The hon. Member has referred to the deterioration of the fighting capacity of the people being due to bad beer. We used to hear that the battle of Waterloo was won in the playing fields of Eton; now our battles are lost in the public-houses on impure beer. The fighting qualities of the hon. Baronet have also deteriorated. He has regretted that in former days he accepted a Committee instead of taking a division. But the hon. Baronet is no more full of fight now, when he comes forward with a valiant Amendment which he will not move. The reason is plain. If the occupants of the Treasury Bench had been sitting on the Opposition side of the House the hon. Baronet would have gone to a division like a man. But, being coaxed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Baronet throws overboard pure beer, and the maltster, and the farmer. That is the valour with which the pure beer of Bavaria inspires him. When I increased the duty on beer, the hon. Member for Wimbledon said that, whatever happened, the tax would not be paid by the brewer. Some weeks ago a brewer came to me and asked me what I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do. I replied that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an extreme man, he may propose to increase the duty by 10s. a barrel on beer; but, as a moderate man myself, I should use my influence with the right hon. Gentleman not to raise the duty more than 8s. a barrel. My friend the brewer said that he should be ruined. A ruined brewer was a melancholy spectacle, and so I suggested to him that, having a river in his neighbourhood with a full-bodied water, he might escape ruin after all. It is a notable fact that the brewing of beer is the only manufacture in which the consumer never gets the benefit of a fall in price of the raw material. Though the agricultural industry has been ruined by the fall in the price of barley and malt, the brewers have never altered the price of the beer which they brow. That is a very advantageous situation in which any trade could be placed. It is part of the gospel preached by the hon. Member opposite that whatever happens the brewer is not to lose. The position of this trade is a very curious one, and I would recommend to the hon. Member who has just sat down that there is only one real remedy for bad beer—and that is competition. There is no remedy so good and so likely to secure wholesome commodities as competition. But competition is disappearing from the trade, and the power of the brewer to impose on the consumer exactly what he chooses is the greatest encouragement to bad beer, and that is what is happening throughout the country. One of the most remarkable changes that ever took place in any trade is the monopoly which is going on in the trade, and which, in the slang of the Stock Exchange, is called "combines." Two or three years ago I found, in a Return of the Inland Revenue Department, which I always look at with great interest, that the total amount of sugar used in the manufacture of beer was 2,703 cwts. and malt 57,468 cwts. One remarkable thing was that for years and years I always found that there were only two brewers who brewed over a million barrels of beer. Their names were not given, but I was happy to believe that I knew them. But this year there are ten brewers recorded as brewing over a million barrels; and I should like to know who the other eight are. Unless it is a secret of the Inland Revenue, I should like to know how it is that the brewers brewing over a million barrels have increased by eight. Of course, the explanation of this is the tied house. Enormous sums are given to secure an absolute monopoly in a house, so that the publican cannot buy the beer which he wishes, which his customers would like. The brewers have long been masters of the nation and of the House of Commons, and now they are becoming masters of the consumers of beer. In former times if the publican could not get good beer from one man he could get it from another. His customer used to say, "I drink such-and-such a beer; will you sell it?" and then he could supply what was wanted. This system has been set up for the express purpose of allowing the brewer to impose upon the publican and the customer exactly what he chooses. I would advise the hon. Baronet to devote his attention a good deal more to that subject than apparently he has done already, because if he would look at the figures here given he will find that that sort of thing is progressing with the greatest possible rapidity. The hon. Member referred to the malt tax in former days. That is one of the most remarkable instances of men suffering from that which they most desire. The agricultural interests according to my recollection for years and years persecuted Government after Government until the malt tax was done away with, and they succeeded in their demand. With the beer tax the brewers got what was called the free mash tun, and all the results which followed came from that change. The brewers have availed themselves of the free mash tun. They have got barley at a price which I should say is 40 or 50 per cent. below what it used to be, and they have pocketed the gain. Then they use sugar, and they put that gain also into their own pockets, but they have never altered the price of beer to the consumers at all. The consequence of that has been enormous profits, of which we can judge by the price of the brewing companies in the market. There are only two commodities now which really yield exceptional gains; one is the manufacture of beer, and the other the manufacture of Maxim guns. According to my observation, I think that they both stand at about 500 per cent. premium. If you take the quotation of Guinness and Vickers, you will find that they stand at about the same point of profit. Then the hon. Member complained that there were fewer men employed in the manufacture of malt than there were. Whose fault is that? It is not that barley is dearer; it is cheaper. Why in the world do not the manufacturers use more barley? It appears that the cheaper barley becomes the less of it the brewers employ. That is a consideration which I think the hon. Member might ponder over before he brings on his next motion for pure beer.

*SIR CUTHBERT QUILTER

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I pointed out that the decrease in the use of malt was due to the great increase of malt substitutes.

*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Why is there an increase in malt substitutes when malt is cheaper? You would have thought that there would be less occasion for using malt substitutes when malt is cheaper.

*SIR CUTHBERT QUILTER

It is not so cheap as the substitutes.

CAPTAIN PRETYMAN (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

It is because the substitutes are cheaper still.

*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

What I object to is that the brewers should set up as patriots with reference to a tax which they do not mean to pay, and as patrons of the agricultural interest while they throw over malt in favour of sugars. The hon. Member said that this is a very great question; it is a very great question. One of the most remarkable Returns ever laid on the Table of this House was presented about a fortnight ago, giving an account of the alcoholic habits of all countries, and I am sure the hon. Member will be glad to know that England stands facile princeps in that respect. I have just taken two or three figures out of the Return with reference to the English-speaking races throughout the world, and the hon. Member will see how proud we ought to be of our supremacy. In the United Kingdom per head of the population we drink 31.3 gallons of beer; the United States drink 13 gallons; the Australian colonies 10.6 or one-third; and Canada 3.6 or one-tenth of what we drink. It may be said that they use other alcoholic drink. Then take spirits. In the United Kingdom we drink now 1 .03 gallons; the United States drink .92, Australia .76, and Canada .65. You see how hollow we beat them all. In wines, again, we drink .4, the United States .2, and Canada .08; so that under every head of alcohol we beat the world. The Committee will perhaps be astonished to learn that, taking Germany as a whole, we drink more beer than the Germans.

*SIR CUTHBERT QUILTER

Not in Bavaria.

*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

That is where the hon. Gentleman goes, but if we take the Germans as a whole they drink 27 gallons per head as against our 31. We are therefore the unexampled drinkers of alcoholic spirits in the world. I have taken the English speaking, Anglo-Saxon race throughout the world, and you will find that our Australian colonies, as I have shown, drink only a third of what we consume, and Canada not one-tenth. I am afraid almost to mention what is the cause of it. But perhaps I may be allowed to say that it is because all these peoples as a rule are themselves allowed to determine the question. That is the rule in the United States and throughout the colonies, but your supremacy in drink depends upon the fact that the people of this country are not allowed, as other peoples are, to decide the question for themselves. There is another point in connection with this matter, and that is that whereas in our colonies and in the United States drink is diminishing every year under the influence of popular opinion, in England it is increasing every year, and that very rapidly. There are some curious figures about the consumption of spirits in the United States. Here we have increased from .92 to 1.05; in the United States it has been exactly the opposite; they began at 1.05 and have diminished to .92. I will not trouble the Committee with more figures, but I hope hon. Members will look at that Return, which is one of the most remarkable ever presented, dealing with the history of the social and moral condition, so far as drink is concerned, of the countries of the world. If hon. Members will look at that Return they will see that people of our own race beyond the seas are diminishing the evils of drink while we are increasing them year by year. I think when we are discussing the question of a tax upon drink this subject is very germane. The trade can well afford this tax; no one can doubt that. Never was there a trade which could better afford to minister to the necessities of the country; therefore I can support the proposal to place an additional duty of one shilling on beer in a very different spirit to that in which I voted in favour of an increased tax on tea.

*MR. WHITTAKER (Yorkshire, W. R., Spen Valley)

I wish to say a word or two in support of this tax, and to express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will increase it in future years and not make it temporary. In justification of that position I wish to state a fact to the Committee which I think has been frequently overlooked. That is that for the first thirty years of this century the tax on beer was double what it is now proposed it should be; in fact it was more than double. In 1830 the Beer Act was passed, the object of which was to encourage the sale and consumption of beer. In those days a delusion was entertained that if you could persuade the people to give up drinking spirits and consume what was then called "wholesome beer" you would make them sober, and the Beer Act was passed to enable houses to sell beer only. Beer-houses were unknown up to that time, and under the Act houses were established where spirits could not be obtained. The result of that was an enormous increase in drunkenness in this country, and within four years a Committee was appointed to inquire into its causes. At the time that the Beer Act of 1830 was passed, something else was done. There was at that time a tax of 10s. a barrel on beer in addition to the malt tax; that tax of 10s. was abolished in order to encourage the sale of beer, and to carry out the view that if more beer and less spirits were consumed, the country would be facilitated in becoming sober. That 10s. was never put back on beer; and the present tax we have on beer is merely a substitute for the malt tax. In 1829, the year before the Beer Act was passed, the total tax on beer, including the malt tax, was equal to 15s. 4d. a barrel; with the increase now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer it will only be 7s. 9d. But there was a time during the early part of this century when the tax on beer was equal to 19s. a barrel, and there is no reason in the world why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not go a long way further and put more than 1s. a barrel on beer. I hope also the right hon. Gentleman will not carry out his idea to make it a temporary tax. There is room for any amount of an advance on beer. Something has been said about the tax falling on the consumer; it will do nothing of the kind. It will fall upon the brewer in the main. Although the tax on beer has been reduced and the cost of making it has also been very much reduced, the consumer does not get his beer a farthing cheaper. Where has the profit all gone? The greater part of it has gone into the price of public houses. One of the most marked characteristics of the last twenty-five years has been the enormous increase in the price of public-houses because of the enormous profit which can be made out of the beer sold in them, and as their number is limited, and as new licences cannot be got, brewers are willing to pay enormous prices for houses in which to sell their beer. The diminution of the taxation on beer, and the cheaper rate at which it can now be produced, has gone to enhance the value of public-houses, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do something to divert these enormous profits to the national Exchequer, he would not only benefit the Exchequer, but would also do something to render it more easy to deal with the drink question than it is to-day. It has been suggested that this tax would fall on the consumer; it has also been said by some hon. Members that it would crush out the brewers, and some of the Irish Members told us in pitiable tones of people who would be put out of work owing to breweries being closed. You cannot have it in both directions, and I am very well satisfied in my own mind that the tax will in the main come out of the pockets of the brewers, and that the ultimate result will be to reduce the value of public-houses. Another reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should continue the process of increasing the tax on beer is that the tax on spirits has been increased to a much greater extent than the tax on beer. That is one cause of complaint from Ireland, and I quite agree with the Irish Members who suggest that the tax should be increased much more largely on beer than on spirits. In 1829 before the Beer Act was passed the tax on spirits in England was 7s. per gallon, it is now 11s. At that time the tax on beer was 15s. 4d.; it will now, with this increase, be only 7s. 9d. In other words the tax on spirits has been increased by more than 50 per cent., whereas the tax on beer has been reduced by a half. That is a strong reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should continue to work up the taxation on beer until it is something like the old figure. There is no reason why there should not be a gradual increase which would do something to mitigate the grievance of our Irish friends. I hope, therefore, that instead of considering this increase as temporary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he finds that he requires more money for this war, as undoubtedly he will, will put 2s. or 3s. a barrel more on beer.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

We who represent the agricultural interest have often before had to protest against glib suggestions similar to those to which we have just listened. The hon. Member who has just sat down appeared to forget that this additional tax will fall with very great hardship on others than the brewers. Is it impossible to persuade the hon. Member that this proposed tax will not be felt by those who produce the materials for the manufacture of beer? He seems to think that he may pile on the agony on one branch of trade with which he happens to be in personal dispute, but he leaves out of account altogether how it may affect a large section of the community. That is the narrow-minded way of dealing with these questions, which naturally paralyses all efforts for the reduction of evils of I drink, and makes them such difficult questions to deal with, which they would not be if dealt with fairly and squarely, and not in a partisan manner. It is impossible to suppose, if you have a branch of the community enormously interested in providing the raw material for another trade, that an increase of taxation on that trade will not affect the section of the community which produces the raw material. The hon. Gentleman no doubt thinks that agriculturists are blind and stupid, and that if an agriculturist cannot sell his barley he has no reason to complain at all, and in fact that it is a benefit to him rather than otherwise if he could only understand it. We, however, find that the demand for barley is decreasing, and we find that the reason of that is that other substances are used by those who brew beer, and therefore it is a fact that barley growers do suffer by the increased taxation on beer. In the face of a great national emergency the agricultural interest will not demur to paying its share of taxation, and the agricultural community, of all others, are the least likely to complain. We have seen that evidenced by the magnificent response made in the agricultural districts to the call for recruits for the Yeomanry and other forces. What I wish hon. Members to remember is that this is a question not only of intoxicating drink, but a question which reacts on the condition of the country. It is no exaggeration to say that it is on the barley growing industry that arable cultivation of the country in great measure depends at this moment. Other corn crops are not being grown with any profit at all, and a large section of the agricultural portion of the community look to the possibility of producing a good barley crop for its possible salvation in these hard times. What more does that mean? It means not only the interest of the barley grower, but it means the continual cultivation of a large amount of arable land. That involves the employment and retention on the soil of a large mass of the agricultural population. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side talk glibly of taxing an industry out of existence, but you are also taxing out of existence a large proportion of the population. Reference has been made by my hon. friend who started this discussion as to the effect of the destruction of this arable land on the neighbouring population. I am within the knowledge of every practical agriculturist in this House when I say that the greatest question we have to consider is the reduction of the agricultural population. In my own county it is very difficult to find an able-bodied man between the ages of twenty and sixty. They are all leaving the soil. One of the great questions of the future is undoubtedly the retention of that population on the soil, and yet we are asked to tax one obnoxious trade even if we are to denude the soil of a portion of its population. I object to such a light and airy way of dealing with these questions. I object entirely to impose taxation without recognising what will follow in its train. Of course, people may disagree; it may be said that increased taxation on beer has no effect on the barley grower and has no effect on the agricultural labourer. But on these questions we are the experts and you are the theorists. We have expert knowledge drawn from life-long residence on the soil, and we know what will be the result of certain proposals, and it is not fair to allow this question to be settled by those who do not understand what it involves. I do not in the least suggest that we should hesitate to take up our share of the present burden, but I do say that this continual taxation on beer affects nearly and clearly the prosperity of the barley growers, or, in other words, the farmers of the country, and also affects materially the continued existence of the class of agricultural labourer

MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

I am not an expert in finance, but only an agricultural Member, and as such I regret that the hon. Baronet did not move his reduction, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to accept it, because, if he had accepted it, it would be extremely valuable to the barley growers of the Eastern Counties. I do not mean to say that the agricultural interest is dissatisfied with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, although it is rather difficult to induce them to say that they are satisfied. I think, however, my right hon. friend might have done considerably worse. As far as I am concerned, I have not sufficient flexibility or adaptation to support a proposal which I opposed four years ago when it was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to my hon. friend last night asked why he did not suggest some alternative. I would suggest an alternative. Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a supporter of the temperance question, turn his attention to British wines? Surely it is absurd that manufacturers of British wines, whose products contain alcohol to the extent of 27 per cent., a great deal more than in sherry, should escape taxation, while brewers and manufacturers of British spirits are taxed to the heavy extent they are. The right hon. Gentleman probably does not know that some years ago the First Lord of the Admiralty, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, asked on one occasion, "Who drinks rum?" The right hon. Gentleman might say, "Who drinks British wines?" I do not suppose he drinks British wines. I do not drink British wines myself; but a good many people do; and I submit that it is a fraud that the maker of gin should be taxed 500 per cent. on his product, while the deleterious stuff turned out by the manufacturers of British wines is practically taxed nothing at all. If these wines were taxed, the produce of the tax might go to the reduction of local taxation. Thousands of acres are going out of cultivation, and I agree with my hon. friend the Member for the Newport Division that the difficulty and danger to the agricultural interest is not so much high taxes and low prices, but the absolute impossibility of getting men to work the land.

CAPTAIN PRETYMAN

The Board of Inland Revenue furnish an annual Return showing the materials used by every firm of brewers in the country, but that Return does not make public the names of the firms. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would confer a great benefit, not only on the agricultural interest, but on the community at large, if, in that Return, he published the names of the firms, so that the public might know which houses they should go to for their beer if they like their beer made of hops and malt. This question is intimately bound up with that of tied houses; for a large number of public-houses are now the property of firms of brewers. There is no certainty at present as to what these firms of brewers use in making their beer. If it was known that such and such firms only used malts and hops, and other firms maize or rice, or other like decoctions, that would be more effective than a tax on sugar in promoting the use of barley, for sugar is not so much a substitute for barley as maize and rice.

MR. R. JASPER MORE (Shropshire, Ludlow)

It is a great pity that the Conservative party did not deal with the Malt Tax, but unfortunately they left it to Mr. Gladstone, who allowed beer to be made of different materials than malt and hops. It is a remarkable fact that the Board of Inland Revenue tested between 2,000 and 3,000 samples of beer, and did not find a single one to be adulterated; whereas, it is the opinion of people throughout the country that beer is largely adulterated. The explanation of that is that the beer-drinkers do not like the beer made from maize and rice. When the Commission was appointed they did not take the evidence of the "man in the street," who is really the best judge of beer. The men in this House may be very good judges of anything else; but very few are good judges, of beer. Farmers and labourers are of opinion that beer made from maize and rice gives them a furred tongue and headaches in the morning, while beer made from malt and hops makes them do their work all the better. It was due to the right hon. the Member for West Monmouth that labourers were allowed to brew their own beer; free of duty, if they lived in houses of £8 rent or under. In my own constituency there are 1,200 labourers who brew their own beer. I think we are much indebted to the right hon. the Member for West Monmouth for what he said about tied houses. There is no doubt that if we had only one beverage to drink in this House, we would soon strike against it. If we had more competition we should have better beer.

MR. GRETTON (Derbyshire, S.)

I do not propose to follow hon. Gentlemen opposite in their discussion of the war policy. We are discussing the war tax, and there seems to be a difference of opinion as to who should have to pay it. I recollect that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth proposed to increase the beer tax in 1894 he said it would be a tax on the brewers, and that they were well able to afford it; but the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer says that his beer tax will fall on the consumer. It seems to me that those gentlemen who discuss the profits of the brewing trade forget that a large proportion of that trade is now organised in public companies. A few of the larger corporations do carry on their operations with profit which exceeds the average; but I have a Return taken from the official register of all the public brewing companies, and I find that it works out a profit of something like 8 per cent. on the capital. One of the important witnesses before the Royal Commission stated that the average profits, in his experience, upon the total capital employed in breweries was only 6½ per cent. When you include in the breweries one or two larger corporations where the profit is very much above the average, it will be seen that the average profit is not excessive, while some companies earn a very small profit indeed. It must be remembered that the directors of these public companies have the interest of their shareholders to consider, and have to determine in what way the tax is to be met. During the last twenty years there has been an increase of 40 per cent. in taxation on beer. The first beer duty was 6s. 3d. per barrel, but in 1889 the standard of gravity was lowered from 10.57 to 10.55, which was equal to an increase of taxation of 3d. per barrel. In 1894, when the duty was increased by 6d. a barrel, it stood nominally at 6s. 9d. per barrel, but in reality at 7s.; and the shilling now proposed to be added will bring the tax up to 8s. a barrel. Corresponding with this increase of taxation there has been, as is well known, a decrease in the price of materials. There have been fluctuations in the price of all agricultural produce, but the fluctuation, on the whole, in the price of barley has been a decrease. No doubt

the decrease in the price of materials has been brought about in many instances by a larger resort to substitutes for barley, and the price of barley had to follow its rivals to a lower level. Then, some brewers have not been careful in maintaining the density of the ales to the exact standard, and perhaps some have lowered the standard; but in my opinion the limit of that process has been reached, and no further reduction can be made in the cost of production. A considerable quantity of material is used which is too cheap from the point of view of quality, and I do not think it will be possible, with our present knowledge of chemistry, to use any cheaper materials and yet maintain the standard of the ale. As to whether the tax is to be paid wholly by the consumer or wholly by the brewer, it appears to me that the limit to economy in manufacture having been reached, a large proportion of the tax will, in the ordinary course of trade, be cast on the shoulders of consumers.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 85.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Butcher, John George	Fardell, Sir T. George
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Caldwell, James	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Carlile, William Walter	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r
Arnold, Alfred	Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire	Finch, George H.
Arrol, Sir William	Cawley, Frederick	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Atkinson, Rt Hon. John	Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Fison, Frederick William
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund
Bainbridge, Emerson	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm	Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.
Baird, John George Alexander	Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Balcarres, Lord	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Fletcher, Sir Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)	Charrington, Spencer	Flower, Ernest
Banbury, Frederick George	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Forster, Henry William
Barlow, John Emmott	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H.S.-(Hunts.)	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Bartley, George C. T.	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Fry, Lewis
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)	Colville, John	Garfit, William
Bethell, Commander	Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Gibbons, J. Lloyd
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Courtney, Rt Hon. Leonard H	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H(City of Lond.
Bill, Charles	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Billson, Alfred	Crombie, John William	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Birrell, Augustine	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Curzon, Viscount	Gold, Charles
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Dalkeith, Earl of	Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bond, Edward	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn	Denny, Colonel	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Brassey, Albert	Dewar, Arthur	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (StGeor's
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Brown, Alexander H.	Donkin, Richard Sim	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Graham, Henry Robert
Bullard, Sir Harry	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Gretton, John	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Robson, William Snowdon
Greville, Hon. Ronald	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W)	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)	M'Kenna, Reginald	Runciman, Walter
Gull, Sir Cameron	M'Killop, James	Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.	Malcolm, Ian	Schwann, Charles E.
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Seely, Charles Hilton
Haslett, Sir James Horner	Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbt. E.	Seton-Karr, Henry
Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hazell, Walter	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew)
Heath, James	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Heaton, John Henniker	Monckton, Edward Philip	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Monk, Charles James	Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)
Helder, Augustus	Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)	Smith, Hon. W. F D. (Strand)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Henderson, Alexander	Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)	Strauss, Arthur
Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Morrell, George Herbert	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Holland, William Henry	Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford	Thornton, Percy M.
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Moulton, John Fletcher	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Houston, R. P.	Mount, William George	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute	Usborne, Thomas
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Myers, William Henry	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Joicey, Sir James	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Wallace, Robert
Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)
Kearley, Hudson E.	Parkes, Ebenezer	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb)	Webster, Sir Richard E.
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Percy, Earl	Weir, James Galloway
Kimber, Henry	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur	Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Ta'nt'n
Knowles, Lees	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts
Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Pilkington, Sir G. A.(Lancs S W	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Leng, Sir John	Pretyman, Ernest George	Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a	Price, Robert John	Wilson, John (Govan)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R	Purvis, Robert	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Pym, C. Guy	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Woods, Samuel
Long, Rt Hn Walter(Liverpool)	Reid, Sir Robert Threshie	Wylie, Alexander
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Remnant, James Farquharson	Wyndham, George
Lough, Thomas	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Lowe, Francis William	Richards, Henry Charles	Younger, William
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Lucas-Shadwell, William	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher.
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.
Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Gibney, James	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hammond, John (Carlow)	Parnell, John Howard
Blake, Edward	Hayden, John Patrick	Power, Patrick Joseph
Clancy, John Joseph	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Crean, Eugene	Hogan, James Francis	Redmond, William (Clare)
Crilly, Daniel	Jordan, Jeremiah	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Macaleese, Daniel	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Daly, James	MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n. C.
Doogan, P. C.	M'Dermott, Patrick	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Field, William (Dublin)	Morris, Samuel
Flavin, Michael Joseph	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Clause 7:—

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

, in moving to leave out "United Kingdom" and insert "Great Britain," said: Whatever view might be taken of the matter from a temperance point of view, it might be generally conceded that it was a most unfair thing to put this additional tax on whisky, in view of the fact that, while it was manufactured in Ireland, no whisky at all was manufactured in England, the consequence of which was that Ireland suffered very heavily from it. The views of the Irish representatives were already well known, and, therefore, it was useless to labour the question; but there was no doubt whatever that the tax of sixpence a gallon on Irish whisky was altogther disproportionate as compared with a tax of a shilling on English beer. Such a tax would lead to a very appreciable increase in the price of whisky, whereas the shilling tax on a barrel of beer, though it might cause some increase in the price, would be almost infinitesimal compared with the increase which the consumers of Ireland would feel in the matter of whisky. No doubt the hon. Member for South Belfast and others who put temperance reform almost before any other question, would welcome the increased taxation, and no doubt that would be quite a legitimate proceeding provided it could be shown that the additional taxation would lead to decreased consumption, but everyone was perfectly well aware that it would do nothing of the kind, for the reason that those who liked to drink whisky would not be deterred from doing so because they had to pay an increased price for it. The history of the taxation of whisky in Ireland was somewhat curious. According to the best figures obtainable, the tax upon whisky in 1853 amounted to 3s. 4d. a gallon. Since that date it had been more than trebled. In 1853 an additional tax of eightpence was put on by Mr. Gladstone, which was folin 1854 by a further addition of 8d., and this in its turn was followed in 1858 by an additional tax of no less than 2s. 10d., which was imposed by Sir Geo. Cornewall Lewis. The tax then stood at 8s. a gallon. In 1860 it was again increased to 10s., at which figure it remained for thirty years up to 1890. It was further increased by 1s. in 1894, and in 1895 6d. was knocked off by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire on the distinct promise by that Gentleman that the reduction would only be temporary. From that it was painfully apparent that Irish whisky had been taxed to the utmost extremity. It was a popular idea in this country that Irishmen drank a great deal more than other people, but nothing was more untrue, and to say such a thing was a slander on the Irish race, because the figures at the disposal of the House of Commons would prove conclusively that the consumption per head of alcohol was far greater in Great Britain than in Ireland. The consumption of whisky was about the same, but the consumption of beer in Great Britain was thirty gallons per head as against sixteen gallons per head in Ireland. The result of the continual increase of the taxation of whisky in Ireland had been to very greatly decrease the prosperity of that country, as would be seen from the fact that, in 1835, Ireland possessed ninety-one distilleries, a great many of which had now disappeared. Everyone, whether they were temperance advocates or not, must admit that the decrease in the number of distilleries was a sign of the decreasing prosperity of the country. Years ago a very large trade existed in the distillation of whisky in Ireland, giving employment to a large number of people, but with the decrease in the number of distilleries that employment had largely disappeared. In the year just closed, about 4½ millions of gallons of whisky had been produced in Ireland, the increased taxation on which would mean £116,988. Such an amount to the Irish people generally, who had to pay it, was a very serious matter, and it was most unfair that such an enormous sum should be placed on one of the few remaining industries of Ireland. This tax could not be said in any way to promote the cause of temperance, because however high the tax on whisky might be, it would not prevent those who so desired from drinking it, but it would discourage the whisky-producing industry in Ireland and by so doing would be likely to throw a great many out of employment. In view of the way in which, ever since 1853, Irish whisky had been taxed, and having regard to the decreasing number of distilleries in Ireland, Irish Members could not view without alarm the proposals now made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The matter had been so thoroughly threshed out that it was useless to labour the subject. In conclusion he would make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the facts to which he had alluded, and also the fact that distilling was one of the few remaining industries in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman could not find some other commodity on which to place this tax; or, if indeed he must tax Irish whisky, he would make the tax more uniform with the tax on beer, the brewing of which was an English industry.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 29, to leave out the words 'The United Kingdom,' in order to insert the words 'Great Britain' instead thereof."—(Mr. William Redmond.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'the United Kingdom' stand part of the clause."

MR. FLYNN

, in supporting the Amendment, said he did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee at great length, as others who thought with him also desired to speak on this important subject. It appeared to him that the Treasury regarded this tax as one which could be stretched to any extent they desired. A man whose name was before the public very much at the present time had stated before the Financial Relations Committee that the tax on spirits was from two-thirds to three-fourths of the price of spirits, whilst the tax on beer only amounted to one-sixth of the price. It was under those circumstances that the Government now proposed to impose a further tax of sixpence a gallon on Irish whisky. One would have thought that the taxation of spirits had been carried far enough. For eighty years it had been intermittently increasing, and only once, in 1894, was it reduced, and then only by sixpence a gallon. In 1835 the tax on spirits in this country was 7s. a gallon, and to Ireland 2s. 4d.; in 1858 it was, in England, 8s., and in Ireland for the first time the taxation was assimilated, and the tax there was raised to 8s. also, and it now stood at 10s. 6d. a gallon. From 1810 to 1899 the taxation had been increased ninety per cent., though starting from 1835 the increase on taxation in whisky amounted to something like 400 per cent. It was a strange and significant fact, in view of the debate upon the Bill before the House, that every article which was more commonly consumed in Ireland than elsewhere was subjected to the heaviest tax. It might be a coincidence, but it was nevertheless true, and such coincidences told against the resources and prosperity of the Irish people. It was obvious from the history of the country that the large increase in the taxation of Ireland was due to the legislation from 1850 to 1860, when the taxation was assimilated and the income tax extended to Ireland. In the General Report of the Royal Commission there were some remarks by Mr. Sexton, who said that whether tea, tobacco, beer, or whisky were luxuries—

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order.! The hon. Member must confine himself to the clause, before the House.

MR. FLYNN

pointed out that he was endeavouring to do so. The arguments of the advocates of the tax was that whisky was not a necessity. Whether tea, tobacco, beer, or whisky were luxuries, or not was a question which could not be answered. The question was, whether in selecting articles to be taxed articles should be selected which were more commonly consumed in different countries. The English national beverage was beer. The House had heard a most glowing panegyric on the subject of pure beer from an hon. Gentleman on the Government side of the House, and Irish Members might sing the praise of good Irish whisky. On beer only a shilling a barrel was going to be imposed, but on a gallon of whisky the tax was to be sixpence. There was something very paltry in the way in which this taxation was imposed, and there was something most unfair in the position taken up by the predominant partner in the matter. It was said that this tax would press no more hardly on the Irish people than on the English, but the reply to that was that whisky was more commonly consumed in Ireland than in this country, and the result was that instead of having an indiscriminate taxation in Ireland it was carefully discriminated as against the man who drinks whisky. It was owing to the high duty placed upon whisky that such an increased quantity of new and impure and bad spirit, which mostly came into Belfast, had been put on to the market. When the distillers were able to make a good article and to bond it, the consumers obtained a sound article distilled from malt, and not burning spirit. Within a year something approaching a million of money had been paid in duty in Belfast on what was termed silent spirit (proof) imported into Belfast; to this burning spirit Irish whisky was afterwards mixed, and it was exported to England as good Irish whisky. A spirit made on the continent from foreign grain, maize, and potatoes, was imported into Belfast at one shilling a gallon duty and exported as good Irish whisky or Highland whisky—and all the corruption and adulteration from which the trade was now suffering, and which led to the most frightful abuses, was due o the high duties on whisky. When sixty years ago the duty on Irish whisky was 2s. 4d. a gallon, there was a phrase coined that there was not a headache in a hogs-head of it, which meant that if a man was foolish or greedy enough to drink to excess, so pure was the spirit and so little the deleterious effects that the next day no ill effects were felt. It was now common knowledge that there was a vast amount of bad spirit placed on the market, which had a most pernicious effect on those who consumed it in too large quantities. It was this spirit that largely accounted for the squabbles which occurred in the Irish markets, and also for a large amount of the misery which occurred in the towns of England. The hon. Baronet asked what was a pure spirit. He took it that a pure spirit was one that had been obtained from pure malt by the pot still process, which was sufficiently matured

in bond, and, of course, in wood, so that the original impurity, commonly called fusil oil, should be chemically decomposed. He did not know what the hon. Baronet would think of the pure spirit he had endeavoured to describe. He had heard that if a man was fatigued a drop of honest Irish whisky or Highland whisky, mixed with a little distilled water or pure water, was a far better drink than any cup of tea or coffee that could be got. If alcohol was to be consumed in any form it was better that it should be pure. At present they held up a temptation to every distiller to put on the market an article that paid them, but which was injurious to the health of the people of the United Kingdom.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 86.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Dewar, Arthur	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverp'l
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Donkin, Richard Sim	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Arnold, Alfred	Doughty, George	Lowe, Francis William
Arrol, Sir William	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fardell, Sir T. George	Lucas-Shadwell, William
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)	Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Baird, John George Alexander	Finch, George H.	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	M'Kenna, Reginald
Barlow, John Emmott	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	M'Killop, James
Bartley, George C. T.	Garfit, William	Malcolm, Ian
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Bill, Charles	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Monckton, Edward Philip
Billson, Alfred	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Monk, Charles James
Bond, Edward	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)
Brassy, Albert	Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St. George's	Morrell, George Herbert
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Graham, Henry Robert	Morrison, Walter
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Burns, John	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.	Moulton, John Fletcher
Butcher, John George	Hardy, Laurence	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Caldwell, James	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cawley, Frederick	Hazell, Walter	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Heath, James	Parkes, Ebenezer
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm	Heaton, John Henniker	Percy, Earl
Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r	Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Helder, Augustus	Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon
Charrington, Spencer	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Holland, William Henry	Pretyman, Ernest George
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Houston, R. P.	Purvis, Robert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Pym, C. Guy
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U	Remnant, James Farquharson
Colville, John	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Knowles, Lees	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Lambert, George	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Curzon, Viscount	Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Runciman, Walter
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Denny, Colonel	Leng, Sir John	Schwann, Charles E.
Seton-Karr, Henry	Usborne, Thomas	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Sharpe, William Edward T.	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Wallace, Robert	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)	Warr, Augustus Frederick	Woods, Samuel
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Webster, Sir Richard E.	Wylie, Alexander
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Weir, James Galloway	Wyndham, George
Thornton, Percy M.	Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher.
Tritton, Charles Ernest	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
NOES.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Flynn, James Christopher	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Blake, Edward	Gibney, James	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Clancy, John Joseph	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Parnell, John Howard
Crean, Eugene	Hogan, James Francis	Pinkerton, John
Crilly, Daniel	Jordan, Jeremiah	Power, Patrick Joseph
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Macaleese, Daniel	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C	Redmond, William (Clare)
Daly, James	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Dillon, John	M'Dermott, Patrick	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Doogan, P. C.	M'Ghee, Richard
Field, William (Dublin)	Molloy, Bernard Charles

Question proposed, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

MR. DALY

said he believed that this particular clause would strike very hard against Ireland as compared with England. He found that if beer was taxed in proportion to its alcoholic strength with whisky, at least three times the tax would be put upon beer. He wished to remind the Committee how fairly the American Parliament taxed beer with regard to the late war. They put a dollar on the barrel of beer, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer only put on 1s., while 6d. was put on the gallon of whisky. Sir Edward Clarke was an eminent authority to whom great respect would be paid in that House. He stated that if an Englishman expended £4 2s. on drink, he only paid 15s. 6d. taxation, whereas if an Irishman expended £2 15s., he gave to the taxation 13s. 6d. The hon. Member thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been badly advised in adding to the duty on whisky. He could only protest against this tax.

MR. FLAVIN

thought Irishmen were fully justified in opposing an increase in the duty on whisky. The present duty was 10s. 6d. per gallon, and that was too high. If he might be permitted, he would point out that in his humble judgment the Government was not justified in placing an additional duty on an article of consumption upon which the present duty was 300 or 400 per cent. of the actual value.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman except when he is repeating, as he now is, what has been said by the previous speakers. There is a rule against repetition, and I warn the hon. Gentleman that he must not repeat the arguments used by previous speakers.

MR. FLAVIN

said that having been absent from the House he was not aware that any other speaker had brought before the attention of the Committee the comparative amount of duty levied on whisky in Great Britain and other countries. He saw from a Return that the duty levied on whisky in the United Kingdom would be 11s., as compared with 6s. in Germany, 5s. 6d. in America, and 2s. 6d. in France. That was in itself a startling fact. The tax in the United Kingdom would be 500 per cent. more than in France. In Ireland they felt that the addition of 6d. per gallon on whisky was even a greater injustice than the additional tax on beer. The amount of beer manufactured in Ireland was nothing as compared with whisky. In the consumption of alcohol they were below the average per head of the population of any part of Great Britain. It would seem that the ordinary working man in Ireland preferred whisky to beer, and if he paid 4d. for a glass 300 per cent. of that money— 3d. out of every 4d.—if the resolution was carried, would go into the Imperial Exchequer. Instead of getting redress from the Imperial Government, they were now asked to increase their large contribution for Imperial purposes. Ireland contributed 15s. 11d. per head of the population, and with a decreasing population and increasing taxation was it any wonder that they should say that they were entitled to exceptional treatment and certain abatements under the Act of Union? It seemed to be a continuous stream of taxation, so far as Ireland was concerned. They had increased the taxation on tobacco—

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon Member, I hope, will not pursue that line of argument. I have warned him already not to repeat anything that has been said by those who preceded him.

Mr. FLAVIN

With all due respect, I have not discussed the question of tobacco; I only mentioned it.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The question is that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill.

MR. FLAVIN

Then it is our duty and our right to stand up and make these protests.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will continue his remarks upon the clause. He must not discuss the action of the Chairman.

MR. FLAVIN

I am not questioning your authority at all. It is our duty to stand up here and make these protests against the increase of taxation. We have no other means of showing that we are doing our duty towards our constituents unless we stand up and make a protest against what we think not only an unreasonable but an unfair addition to the taxation. I consider the duty on whisky excessively high already. We know the purpose for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks the increase, but we cannot consider his position or the position of the Government. What we have to consider is our position as Irish representatives, and we have to prevent the increase of taxation on the Irish people as a whole.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 87.)

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Cornwallis, Fiennes Stan. W.	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Johnston, William (Belfast)
Arnold, Alfred	Curzon, Viscount	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U
Arrol, Sir William	Denny, Colonel	Kenyon, James
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Knowles, Lees
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Donkin, Richard Sim	Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness	Doughty, George	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Baird, John George Alexander	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Fardell, Sir T. George	Leng Sir John
Barlow, John Emmott	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bartley, George C. T.	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)
Beach, Rt Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Finch, George H.	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lough, Thomas
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Lowe, Francis William
Bill, Charles	Garfit, William	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Billson, Alfred	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Lucas-Shadwell, William
Brassey, Albert	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Goldsworthy, Major-General	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	M'Killop, James
Burns, John	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Monckton, Edward Philip
Butcher, John George	Graham, Henry Robert	Monk, Charles James
Caldwell, James	Gretton, John	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire	Hamil on, Rt. Hon. Lord G.	Morrell, George Herbert
Cawley, Frederick	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.	Morrison, Walter
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Hardy, Laurence	Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)
Charrington, Spencer	Hazell, Walter	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Heath, James	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Helder, Augustus	Percy, Earl
Colomb, Sir John Charles R.	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Colston, Charles E. H. A.	Holland, William Henry	Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon
Colville, John	Houston, R. P.	Pretyman, Ernest George
Purvis, Robert	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Pym. C. Guy	Thornton, Percy M.	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Tritton, Charles Ernest	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Remnant, James Farquharson	Usborne, Thomas	Woods, Samuel
Renshaw, Charles Bine	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)	Wylie, Alexander
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Warr, Augustus Frederick	Wyndham, George
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye	Webster, Sir Richard E.
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Weir, James Galloway	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher.
Schwann, Charles E.	Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)
Sharpe, William Edward T.	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Field, William (Dublin)	Molloy, Bernard Charles
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Flynn, James Christopher	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Blake, Edward	Gibney, James	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Clancy, John Joseph	Hayden, John Patrick	Parnell, John Howard
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Pinkerton, John
Crean, Eugene	Hogan, James Francis	Power, Patrick Joseph
Crilly, Daniel	Jordan, Jeremiah	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Macaleese, Daniel	Redmond, William (Clare)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	MacDonnell, Dr. M A (Queen's C	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Daly, James	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Dillon, John	M'Dermott, Patrick
Doogan, P. C.	M'Ghee, Richard

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 8:—

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

formally moved to omit Clause 8.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I think the clause placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for West Islington is an improvement on the clause which deals with the subject in the Bill, and I will therefore agree to this Amendment.

Question, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill," put and negatived.

Clause 9:—

Question proposed—"That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill."

*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

In formally moving my Amendment to omit Clause 9, I hope I need do no more than take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the willingness with which he has, since the original debate on the Budget, considered certain objections which were pointed out to him by myself and others in regard to the proposed stamp duty on brokers' notes. I thank him for the courtesy and attention he has shown in listening to the arguments put before him by deputations from the London Chamber of Commerce, and some provincial chambers of commerce, for the right hon. Gentleman has spared no pains to arrive at the gist of the real questions at issue, and to see that there was some foundation for the objection raised against this matter. I hope the result of the representations made to him upon this subject, and his further inquiries into it will convince him that, while the revenue would not have gained materially from his proposal, on the other hand, trade would have been greatly inconvenienced by it. Under these circumstances, knowing as I do how much regard he has for the commerce of the country, I trust he will see his way not to persist in his proposal, but to allow this clause to be omitted. I think the thanks of the whole commercial community are due to him for having heard so patiently what has been said upon this subject, and for having expressed his willingness to remove objections if they really existed, and to listen to anything which was advanced in the interests of commerce.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I am obliged for the hon. Member's reference to what I have done in this matter. I have been convinced by the further information that has reached me that the proposed duty would not have the effect I intended. My desire was that the tax on produce brokers' contract notes should be precisely of the same kind as that on Stock Exchange contracts. I have, however, been satisfied by the information conveyed to me by the deputations from London, Liverpool, and Manchester, and from other sources, that the effect would not be the same, for whereas the stamp duty on Stock Exchange transactions is paid by the parties to the contract, it would, in the other case, practically have to be paid by the produce brokers. This is due to the fact that, while the Stock Exchange is a close corporation, the produce market is an open market in which others besides brokers can take part. I do not propose to press the matter further, though I never considered that it would have such an effect on trade and commerce as the hon. Member for Islington seems to think. It is not a very great financial matter, and I will only add that I do not propose to make any further suggestion to Parliament on the matter this year, but I will see if I can deal with it upon a future occasion.

*MR. WARR (Liverpool, Toxteth, E.)

As I had the honour of introducing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a deputation representing commercial interests in Liverpool, I should like to associate myself with what has been said by my hon. friend the Member for Islington, and to acknowledge the courtesy and consideration which has been shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, and to assure him that his action will be highly appreciated by the commercial community in Liverpool.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I do not know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it very clear to the House that this tax should not fall upon the broker. There is one point about which we have had no explanation, and that is how the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to fill up the gap created by the abandonment of this clause. I think he estimated that it would produce £150,000 a year, but I have been told that the product would have been enormously larger than this estimate. I have been told this by people in the trade. At all events the loss of £150,000 a year does create a serious gap in the financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the short speech he has made he has given us no indication of the steps he intends to take for filling up that gap.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

The revenue of the present year has been even more productive than I anticipated. There will, therefore, in all probability, be an increase from various sources which will more than make up the £150,000 at which I estimated this tax.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

I desire to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon having consented to the omission of this clause, because I think it shows a disposition to entertain representations of a reasonable character. I hope this augurs well for certain suggestions which I have put on the Paper. This tax was estimated to produce £150,000 a year, and it has been stated that that estimate might be a mistake. If it only produced that amount it must be wrong. This is a little illustration of what I ventured to point out the other day, and that is the weakness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with high commercial finance. I think if there had been a little city knowledge in the Treasury this tax would never have been proposed. The tax was no sooner proposed than its uselessness was demonstrated. I only rose to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon having shown such a readiness to recognise his mistake and withdraw from the position he took up.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

There is one word which has not been said about this matter. The Chancellor' of the Exchequer told us that he did not consider it would be necessary in this Budget to replace this tax by some other. I take it that he has decided to make a clean withdrawal of it. He has told us in his short speech that he intends to return to the subject next year. I think we ought to have some additional information about these stamp duties and their result, and I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant a Return about them, especially as he has said that it may be necessary to return to this matter a year hence. When one looks at this question as it stands in the Return there are a couple of pages of small print about stamp duties of almost every kind, and why they were put on I do not think any man knows. It would be a good thing if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give us an opportunity of studying the matter by furnishing a Return showing the produce of these taxes, so that the country may understand them when any proposal of this kind is brought forward in the future. I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the complete way in which he has withdrawn his proposal.

Clause put, and negatived.

Clause 10:—

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said that before moving his Amendments he wished to ask the Attorney General what view he took of them, and whether he could accept any one of them. The third one was the Amendment to which he attached most importance.

Amendment proposed— In page 10, line 20, to leave out the words 'or any other person.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

It may be convenient for me to state here that it is not possible for the Government to accept any of these Amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

, in moving a further Amendment, contended that the words he proposed to add were necessary because, although the whole estate might not pass, the whole duty might be charged. If that was already secured without these words, he did not wish to move, and if the Attorney General would assure him that that was so he would withdraw his Amendment. It seemed to him that unless those words were introduced there might be some ambiguity, and his proposal was simply an amicable suggestion.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 29, after the words 'death of the deceased,' to insert the words 'to the extent to which a benefit accrues or arises by the cessor of such estate or interest.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said that these words were not necessary, and if they were inserted they would have no effect, and would not achieve the object which the hon. Member had in view.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said that after what had fallen from the Attorney General he would not press his Amendment, and asked leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he proposed to introduce a drafting Amendment, as it had been pointed out that the words in the section might otherwise be insufficient. He proposed in line 30 to insert the word "divested" after "assured." The other alterations would be purely consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

moved to insert in line 34, after the words last inserted, "by the deceased." He said that the whole history of the twelve months, limitation which was applied by the original Act as to bestowing property before death, showed that it was never contemplated to charge duty in such a case as was now proposed. It was assumed that when a gift was made twelve months before death, whether the donor knew he was dying or not, was a donatio mortuis causa, or a gift with the object of defeating the purpose of the Act, and in consequence it was provided by the original Act that the assumption should be made that everything a man gave away twelve months, before his death should be deemed a donatio mortuis causa, and charged with duty. But there was a limitation. The Act of 1894 never did charge any duty whatever on any transaction such as was contemplated by the section. It was not a section to meet evasion; evasion in such a connection was nonsense, and the section imposed a new death duty altogether. It was shutting an opening left in the Finance Act of 1894, and a new duty was being imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who distinguished himself by an intermittent opposition to the Bill of 1894 while in Committee. He contended that it should be proved that the gift was a death-bed gift, and that they should not throw the thread of their assumption over the last twelve months of the man's life. If a man gave a bracelet to his wife or a rebatement to his tenant, or put a gift in the plate at church, the assumption now was that such a gift would be charged with duty. Settled property for the last six years was not charged with duty. When the Act was first passed the Inland Revenue Officers who were charged with its construction thought the duty ought to be charged, but in the only two attempts made, it was held by the courts that duty was not chargeable when a man surrendered his life interest, even within twelve months of his death. It was now proposed to extend to settled property the same assumption which existed as regarded personal property. If a man possessed a life interest and transferred it to the remainderman, that was to be treated as a fraudulent attempt to evade the law, otherwise there was no meaning in the clause. He maintained that the transfer should be by the deceased himself, and unless the deceased had divested himself of his property it was absurd to extend the assumption in the manner proposed. Take the case of property settled on A for life, or, in case of bankruptcy, on his wife and children with remainder to C. The wife and children surrendered to C within twelve months of A's death and A had nothing to do with it. Was there any reason why duty should be charged in such a case? But the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to charge it on the assumption that A had done an act in which really he was not concerned. He (Mr. Gibson Bowles) was not a lawyer, but unless he could get a better explanation than had previously been given him, he should have to press for the inclusion of these words.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 10, page 5, line 34, after the words last inserted, to insert 'by the deceased.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

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

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he really could not accept the disclaimer of knowledge on the part of his hon. friend, because out of the House he was always writing to the papers to show that he, and he alone, was able to put the law officers of the Crown right. [Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: That is not true.] If his hon. friend were not a lawyer, he was certainly better than half a lawyer. He was very glad to receive the criticisms of his hon. friend, and would also be glad, if possible, to meet his views. He was not going to talk about fraud or evasion with reference to the clause; there was no moral or other obliquity in not paying a tax which was not due, and if a man did not come within the terms of the Act he was not bound to pay the tax. Avoidance of the Act was perfectly legitimate, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing his best to stop the possibility of avoidance where it was intended that the tax should be chargeable. There was no question of a new tax of any kind. The position was very simple. Ever since the Act of 1881, if a man possessed of £100,000 worth of Consols first within three months, and now within twelve months of his death, gave them away with no idea of evading the tax, the estate did not get out of liability to duty. A somewhat anomalous state of things arose after the passing of the Act in 1894, owing to two cases in which the House of Lords decided that, though a man only gave away a life interest and thereby prevented events happening which would have rendered the tax payable, still the life interest was to be deemed not to have been given away. That their position was logical could not be disputed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was only putting settled property as far as he could in the same position as free property, and to provide that the fact that a man gave away £100,000 within twelve months of his death did not prevent his executor from having to pay estate duty. There was no intention whatever of imposing a new duty; they were simply stopping a hole which had been left open when the Act of 1894 was passed, and which ought to be stopped, on every principle of equality and justice. If he might speak on behalf of the Inland Revenue authorities, he was very much obliged to his hon. friend for having pointed out the necessity of keeping in the words "or any other person," for his hon. friend very ingeniously pointed out what might have happened if a life interest had been transferred to a third person. His hon. friend had shown in his speech that it was absolutely necessary to retain the words "or other person." He could not understand why, if a life interest were surrendered or conveyed away within twelve months of death, it should not be liable to pay duty as if it had not been disposed of at all. He thought his hon. friend would see that it was not intended to impose a new tax, and also that he himself had made it perfectly clear to the House that it was necessary to retain the words to which he had referred.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 36, after the word 'assurance' to insert the word 'divesting.'"—(The Attorney General.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'divesting' be there inserted.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

said before the word was finally added to the section he thought the Committee should understand what it really meant. The Finance Act was the most complex Act on the Statute Book, and he himself could not remember its contents for two consecutive days. It was full of pitfalls for the unwary, and it had struck him that there might be some danger in the word "divest." He quite understood the objects of the clause, and had nothing to say against its policy, but he thought the introduction of the word "divest" would extend its scope somewhat further than perhaps was meant. The words already in the clause "surrender, assurance or disposition," contemplated a voluntary surrender, not a surrender in the sense of being made for valuable consideration, but an act discharged of the free will of the person surrendering. What he feared was that the word "divest" would cover the class of case in which the divesting was effected by the operation of law, without any reference whatever to the person divested. The clause was intended to deal with the case of a life interest with remainder to a friendly party, where the tenant for life and the remainderman combined to get rid of the estate duty, but it was quite possible that the remainderman might be a hostile party, in which case there would be no combination and no danger of the revenue being defrauded. It might also well happen that a person might have it in his power to take the estate during the life of the person who had a life interest in it and without his consent. There was, he understood, some method in English law in which a debt could be enforced against a life interest even to the extent of putting up that interest for sale. Under such circumstances it would be very unjust to treat such a transaction as if it were a voluntary transfer, and he thought the word "divesting" would cover that class of case. The words already in the clause were wide enough, and there might be some danger in the word now proposed.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTEK

said that the word must now be inserted, because otherwise the clause would not read correctly; but he would consider before the Report stage whether any danger might attach to the introduction of the word. He would take the best opinion he possibly could as to the meaning of the word.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:—

MR. MAURICE HEALY

moved to delete the first sub-section of Clause 11. He thought the fourth section of the Finance Act of 1894 was very just, and there did not seem to be any ground whatever for altering it. As he understood its effect, it was that if a man had two estates, one his own and the other only a life interest, which would pass at his death, not in virtue of any disposition made by him, but by a disposition of the original owner, who might be a total stranger, then, according to the Finance Act of 1894, the two estates would be separately aggregated. What was unjust and unreasonable in that to induce the Government to make a change? He thought it was a great hardship to impose a tax upon heirs, or next-of-kin, of a deceased person, merely because the deceased was, during his life, the owner of an estate which at his death passed, not to next- of-kin at all, but to strangers. The present law was just, reasonable, and equitable, and there was no ground whatever for the proposed change.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 3, to leave out sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

Question proposed "That sub-section (1) stand part of the Clause."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

I can assure the hon. Member that this matter has received the most careful consideration, and that there is a general agreement that this sub-section is necessary in order to prevent the inequitable working of the Act of 1894. I may say that the matter was inquired into by a Committee on which I had the honour of sitting with my friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division, the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs, my hon. and learned friend the Member for Haddington, and the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue; and the Committee unanimously recommended that this change in the law should be made. I think I can explain in a very few words why the change is necessary. The general law provides that all property is aggregated, but from that an exception was made by a proviso in the Finance Act of 1894. That proviso was no doubt intended to benefit the immediate family of the deceased, but it was so curiously worded that it has had in practice the effect of benefiting collaterals; and therefore property which goes to a stranger was not aggregated. There is nothing to justify such an exceptional advantage being conferred upon collaterals which is not conferred upon the immediate family of the deceased. Suppose that settled property passes to the eldest son, and the free property to a younger son; aggregation takes place. The clause, however, is so worded that property passing to the several sons is aggregated, while there is no aggregation of property which passes to a collateral, even though that collateral takes all the free property. It is impossible to allow such a state of law to continue.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said the Solicitor General had forgotten that if the collaterals benefit by the segregation of the property, so did the lineals, for the effect was to diminish the rate of duty all round. The whole point of aggregation lay in this: that by aggregation they increased the rate of duty under this blessed, beneficent, heaven-sent system of aggregation invented by the right hon. Member for West Monmouth. He could not, for the life of him, understand why this sub-section was introduced, unless it were as another screwing up of the Act. When they were on the other side of the House, when the Act of 1894 was being passed, they encouraged the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had in turn encouraged them, to resist it, and they had discussed it for long and weary months; but no sooner did the right hon. Gentleman get into office than he went clean over to the enemy. It reminded him of the 450 prophets of Baal, and he alone was left to serve the Lord. Now why was this desire to screw up the Act at this point? What the Act did was to aggregate all the property which passed at the death of the deceased, with a certain exception—the property in which the deceased never had any interest whatever. What was proposed was not to exempt from duty the property which the deceased never had, but from aggregation with other property which he did have. He was aware that that sounded like a passage from a comic opera, but it was the fact. Also, if there was any property which, under some settlement not made by himself, passed by his death to people other than his own family, then that was not to be aggregated. Now, mark what that meant. Brown left property for life to Jones, and on Jones's death to a hospital, say, for distressed Chancellors of the Exchequer, or for an epileptic asylum. But when the life tenant died there was an absolute extinction of his whole interest in it. Why should that be aggregated with his other property? Now came in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who proposed to get rid of the saving clause This matter of aggregation was no new one. Again and again he had proposed that the property disposed of by the deceased should be aggregated together to make one estate, which either belonged to the deceased in fact, or which belonged to him in effect. It was quite right that that should be aggregated, but not otherwise, so as to raise the rate of duty. He believed that that was the only logical solution of this very difficult question of aggregation. The Solicitor General did not defend the clause. What he said was that it had been drawn up by a Comm ttee. Let them look at the constitution of that Committee. First of all, there was the Solicitor General himself; then there was the Attorney General and the late Attorney General, who was one of the wicked authors of the Act—the one man to whom it was owing the Act passed through the House on account of his amiable methods of making concessions. Then there was the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire, who was no better than one of the wicked; who, indeed, invented Clause 2 over the comedy of which the Attorney General and the First Lord of the Treasury never tired of making jokes and gibes, although they did not think it a matter of joking now. Then there was the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, who was an interested party; and there was a noble Lord who had gone out to serve in South Africa, who, of course, was a satellite of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They considered his Amendment, which he had put down again and again, suggesting what he considered to be the only true and fair method of aggregation; and they reported that it would make great inroads on the death duties. He was informed that they privately said that his Amendment was the only logical solution, but in their published Report that did not appear, for of course they felt that it cut the ground from their own amendment. He had another and a last argument. As he had said, he had always urged that the aggregation should be confined either to the property which the deceased owned himself, or to property of which he had the power to dispose, and of which he did dispose. But that was nothing like so far as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the virtuous days of Opposition, proposed; namely, to have separate aggregation for every separate settlement. The Attorney General said on the 7th June, 1894, with that air of authority which the Committee remembered so well— The Committee stood face to face with this difficulty, that the Government were seeking to aggregate properties of a different kind"— exactly the same thing as he had said— with different incidents, and the control of which rested in different hands. The only practical and sensible method of dealing with the case was to require that property passing by settlement should be aggregated separately."^* Now that was just what he had said; but the argument which the right hon. Gentleman made use of in 1894 seemed to become weak and inadequate in 1900. What had happened to him? The argument addressed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman had actually led him first to suggest the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague now united to reject. He was surprised, he was shocked, at seeing those two right hon. Gentlemen now proposing to adore the very gods they had burned, and to burn the gods they had adored. He was shocked to see them proposing to take away the very necessary and proper exemption of 1894, and to screw up the Act which, in their opinion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had made too indulgent to owners of settled property.

*MR. BUTCHER (York)

said he was sure the Committee would have some considerable sympathy with the mental attitude of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who was so shocked and pained at the sub-section of the clause under discussion. He confessed that, to him, the spectacle of his hon. friend being, according to his own account, the only man left in this country who served the Lord, and had not bowed down the knee to Baal, was so affecting that he felt bound to get up and address the Committee. The principle of aggregation was exceedingly complicated, and unfair in operation. That resulted from the erroneous financial basis on which the Act of 1894 had been founded. Instead of proceeding on the sound and reasonable view of taxing what a man received—on the principle adopted in all the Colonial Taxing Acts in relation to death duties—that Act proceeded on the irrational and illogical basis of taxing what a man left, or what he was deemed to leave. In proceeding on that footing they were lost in absurdities. Having adopted the deplorable and peculiar system of aggregation, it became necessary to make certain exemptions. When they aggregated two estates the necessary result was that they increased the taxation ^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxv., p. 653. on both; but when they segregated two estates the necessary result was to diminish the taxation on both. Therefore you have this curious result, that, though you may be perfectly right in diminishing the rate of taxation on one estate, you are forced at the same time to diminish the rate of taxation on another estate, on which you desire to have the taxation undiminished. Take this illustration. There may be a large estate which goes out of the family on the death of the tenant for life, and a small estate that will remain in the family. If you say those estates shall not be aggregated, the rate of taxation is diminished on both. It may be perfectly right to say that the rate of taxation on the small estate which remains in the family shall be diminished, but it may be wrong that a large estate going out of the family should have its taxation diminished. Yet if you diminish the taxation in one case, you necessarily diminish it in the other case. On the other hand, the result of aggregating the two estates is that both bear the same rate of taxation. The fact is that so long as you retain the principle of aggregation at all, it is impossible to avoid certain cases of unfair and unjust taxation. My hon. friend has just given an illustration in which this unfortunate result has occurred; but even my hon. friend's Amendment would not remove all anomalies. Having given the best attention I can to this matter, I have come to the conclusion that the proposal embodied in the Bill diminishes many of the inequalities of the Act of 1894, and on the whole, I think it is a fair compromise, and on that ground I support the proposal in the Bill.

CAPTAIN PRETYMAN

What we have heard from the hon. gentleman the Member for King's Lynn gives a general impression to the Committee that this clause as here proposed is an increase of duty, but one must read both sub-sections together; you cannot read the one without the other, and the effect of that is that so far from being an increase of duty, it is really, on the whole, a relief. But whether it be an increase or a relief, it must be plain to the Committee that the proposal is of a temporary character, because this aggregation that is to be dealt with is an aggregation on the passing of property on the death of the tenant for life, and the estate must be subject to estate duty. But by the Bill of 1894 no duty is payable on settled estates except on the first passing of the property, and that must come into operation on the death of the first settler, and where the death of the settler comes after 1894, no estate duty or aggregation at all can take place on the death of the tenant for life, so that all these hardships exist only in the imagination of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, because if there be no duty and no aggregation it follows that there can be no hardships.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there is in Sub-section I no alteration of the duty—that there is no duty payable in the case of a person who died after the Act of 1894?

CAPTAIN PRETYMAN

There is one case only in which settlements are made after 1894 where duty must be paid by the tenant for life, and that is where the settler and the tenant for life have transferred the property by consent; then, instead of the death of the settler being the first passing of the property, the death of the tenant for life became the first passing, because the transfer of the property was an act of their own for their own purposes and benefit Though I should be the last to suggest the imposition of a penalty in such cases, I do not think it is for the Committee to allow an exemption from aggregation in those cases in which there has been a transfer of property from one to another for the simple purpose of avoiding the payment of duty. That is the only instance where the duty can be paid by the tenant for life after the passing of the Act of 1894, but in the other cases, before the passing of the Act, the death of a settler was regarded as the same as the death of a tenant for life, and the duty had to be paid. The hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn by this Amendment proposes to abolish all aggregation on property passing on the death of the tenant for life. No doubt there are many cases of great hardship on an estate passing to collaterals which is not only not aggregated, but, on the other hand, is separated into as many parts as there are collaterals; no aggregation takes place on the separate parts, and throughout it has to bear an expense which is certainly uncalled for. Again, supposing the property passes under settlement to the eldest son, and the savings of the tenant for life pass to younger children, the amount of those savings is largely increased by aggregation, because the eldest son gets the settled property. But, on the other hand, if there are no children and the property passes to a brother, or cousin, or distant collateral, no aggregation takes place, and the property is divided. It was at the instance of the noble Lord the Member for the Biggleswade Division of Bedfordshire and myself that Amendments were introduced last session and the year before with a view to this being amended. Those Amendments were intended to deal with an extremely complicated and difficult question, and although they appeared practicable at the time, I am bound to say now that they were impracticable. This Amendment of the hon. Member is logical and practicable, but it goes too far. It is desirable to find something which is logical and practicable, but which does not go too far. I do not know whether I should be in order to refer to Sub-section 2, but without doing so it is impossible to deal with this subject. What that does is this; it puts aside all questions of collaterals and lineals, questions which underlie a very desirable object, because it is only in the previous Clause 4 that the relationship is introduced at all. It is entirely foreign to the contents of the Bill, and it is undesirable to introduce it. In regard to the passing of property on the death of the tenant for life, where the settler died before 1894 the aggregation only relates to half the property; so that the grievance of the hon. Member reduces itself to this: that where the settler died before 1894 the aggregation is limited to half the property, and consequently the increase of duty to which the hon. Gentleman referred cannot be such a hardship as he suggested. Where the settler's death has occurred since the Act of 1894, neither duty nor aggregation can under any circumstances be appreciable, except where the parties themselves for their own purposes and benefits have transferred the property from the death of the settler to the death of the tenant for life. The Committee will see that the matter is in their own hands, and it is for them to say whether there is any hardship. The hon. Member has referred to me as a satellite. I hope I have not been nebulous; it is a nebulous subject; but this Amendment does to some extent remedy the inequalities of the duty, and I ask the Committee in the interests of the taxpayer to support it.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and so far as I can see I entirely fail to trace the bearing of his argument at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with my Amendment as if I was moving to mitigate the evil of aggregation. It is the Government who are increasing the evils of aggregation. It is not I who am seeking to introduce any new principle in the Finance Act. It is the Government who have chosen to propose an alteration in the law which has a great tendency to aggravate the evils of aggregation, which the hon. gentleman the Member for King's Lynn has so ably explained. I cannot say that I am myself opposed to aggregation in any form. I believe it to be a principle which is perfectly sound and just, and, where there is a settled property and a free property passing, it is quite right to aggregate the two properties, even though the property passes to distant collaterals. That one property passes by settlement and the other by will makes no substantial difference in the case. They are both methods by which the deceased parts with his property, and the question in this case is what property the deceased leaves. All that I am attacking by the Amendment I have before the Committee is the unjust extension of the principle which is set up by the proposals in this Bill. This particular case was, I take it, considered when the Finance Act was before the Committee of this House in 1894. Nothing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said can affect the case, except in one particular. I quite admit that he has demonstrated the one possible case in which it would be unjust to apply the exemption created by Section 4. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that this clause was intended to protect collaterals. If that is so, it was not necessary. I would not say the protection of collaterals in all cases is unjust. If a man has settled property which passes to collaterals, and a free property which passes to lineals, it is very unjust to tax the collaterals more heavily than the lineals, so no doubt there is in a case of that kind something to be said in favour of protection. But even so, it should be effected by a simple clause framed in an entirely different manner to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. What he says is this—that, because collaterals in one case get a benefit which it was not intended that they should get, lineals must be deprived of all benefit. That does not appear to me to be a just method of dealing with the matter, and, so far from the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman being an improvement, I think the proposals of the Finance Act are far more just and practicable. I can conceive that, in a case where a collateral takes both properties, you might deal with it by a sub-clause, by which the amount of duty which he would have to pay might be reduced. There is only one case in which a collateral derives a benefit which it is not intended he should receive, and to deprive him of all benefits because of that appears to me to be most unjust.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Although I accept the proposition in Sub-section 1, the Committee will see that the possible increase in the rate of duty may inflict some hardship on a certain class. Since the passing of the Act of 1894, there have been frequent dealings for money or money's worth with such interests, always, of course, on the hypothesis that the property dealt with is subject to the duty of segregation. It would be manifestly unfair if the duty were now increased on such property or charge. This is a matter which only applies to the purchase or mortgage of property between the passing of the Act of 1894 and this Bill, and the proposal that I desire to make is simply this. That such properties as have been sold or mortgaged for money or money's worth since the Act of 1894, up to the passing of this Act, shall not be subject to any increase in the rate of duty in the case of sales, and in the case of estates mortgaged during the same period, the increase of duty arising from aggregation shall not impair the validity of the mortgage, but shall come as a second charge after the satisfaction of the mortgage. The Solicitor General prefers to have an Amendment which follows more exactly the lines of the Act of 1894 in similar cases, and therefore I propose to move this Amendment instead of the one which appears in my name on the Paper. It effects the same result, which is to protect from an increase of duty such properties as have been sold between the Act of 1894 and the present date, and to ensure in the case of mortgages that the increased duty should come as a second charge after the satisfaction of the mortgage.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 7, after the word 'interest' to add: 'Provided that where an interest in expectancy in any property has before the passing of this Act been bona fide sold or mortgaged for full consideration in money or money's worth, then no other duty on such property shall be payable by the purchaser or mortgagee when the interest falls into possession than would have been payable if this section had not pa sed; and in the case of a mortgage any higher duty payable by the mortgagor shall rank as a charge subsequent to that of the mortgagee.'"—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

I prefer to accept the Amendment now proposed by my right hon. friend to that which is on the Paper. He has now followed closely an analogous clause of the Act of 1894, and under those circumstances I desire to say, on behalf of the Government, that they will offer no opposition.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

It is intended first of all by this Amendment to give up the principle that duties are a first charge on the property, and they are to be regarded as a second charge.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Act of 1894, he will see a clause there in precisely similar terms.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

That is to say, wherever there has been a bargain, or wherever a sale has taken place under circumstances where it would be liable for the death to occur, those cases should be treated differently. Surely the Solicitor General must have failed to recollect that in the case of all settled property and realty the charge for duty is the first charge on the estate. It is a little difficult to follow what was said at the Table, but I certainly gathered that under the circumstances provided for by the Amendment the charge for duty comes, after the mortgage charge.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

The extra duty.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Then there will be not only a segregation of property, but a segregation of duty. I am afraid the Ireland Revenue officials will find some trouble in working the provision.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

called attention to the involved phraseology of Subsection 2, remarking that those who invented this proviso really never could have asked themselves what the effect would be. He illustrated what the effect would be by stating a concrete case—that of a man dying in 1900, after the passing of this Bill—for he presumed it would be passed—and leaving three sums of £9,000 each. Under the proviso 3½ per cent. would be paid on one £9000, while 4½ per cent. would be paid on the other two sums of £9,000, although all came on the same person's death to one person. It seemed to him that the effect of the sub-section was ridiculous. On the same man's death 3½ per cent. was paid on one portion of the property, and 4½ per cent. on another portion of the property. He was trying to find out why that should be. He could see why it should not. It was said that any other proposal than that contained in the sub-section would involve loss to the revenue, but it was not so. He had ascertained that the loss to the revenue would be extremely small, because about seven-eighths of the property that passed on a person's death passed under disposition made by the deceased person himself.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

No, Sir, I will not do that.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the question was really a very simple one indeed. He thought that everyone would agree that the natural and normal point for segregation was the death of the settler. In cases where the settler died after the Finance Act came into force, the estate duty was chargeable upon his death. In the concrete case stated by the hon. Member, the hypothetical person who died leaving the three equal sums of £9,000 died before the Finance Act came into force, and therefore no estate duty was asked. If that person had happened to die after the Finance Act came into force, the estate duty would have been aggregated with his other property. He hoped the Committee would consider that the abatement that had been allowed was not unreasonable.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:—

MR. MAURICE HEALY

complained that the Inland Revenue authorities had in six years changed their minds no fewer than three times on this trumpery matter. It seemed to him to be playing very low down when dealing with a Budget of £120,000,000.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said the intention of the Act of 1896 was that where an estate which consisted of three parts amounting in the aggregate, he would assume, to £30,000 odd, the fractions should be excluded from that aggregate. In practice, however, the fractions had been excluded from the separate parts of the estate, with the result that the reduction had been altogether beyond what was intended. The object of the Amendment was to prevent that result.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:—

MR. MAURICE HEALY

When dealing with the previous clauses we have argued, and I think justly argued, that the taxes press hardly and operate unjustly on the Irish people, because the incidence of indirect taxation is much more oppressive on that side of the Channel than it is upon this, and in putting before the Committee the Amendment which I have now to submit I do not at all recede from that position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted last evening to raise a controversy between my hon. friend the Member for North Islington and the right hon. Member for North Tyrone, alleging that the right hon. Member for North Tyrone had given his benediction to the portion of this Bill which imposes an increase of the income tax, and in that way had somehow come to a different conclusion from that which the hon. Member for North Islington had come to. I do not think there was any real conflict between the two hon. Members. I think my right hon. friend the Member for North Tyrone said that if any tax was to be imposed on Ireland at all in connection with this war, a direct tax, such as the income tax, no doubt operated less oppressively and affected more the well-to-do class of people than the indirect taxes on whisky, beer, tea, and tobacco, included in the previous clauses. It is argued from that that we are justifying the imposition of the income tax on the country in connection with the war now being waged. If I am open to the objection which I have pointed out, that our arguments hitherto from this quarter of the House have been in favour of direct taxation as opposed to indirect, I, at any rate, have an advantage in pressing this Amendment on the Chancellor of the Exchequer which my hon. friend did not possess. His great argument against any differentiation between the two countries in these indirect taxes was that it would involve the bête noire of a customs barrier, and would be an attack in some way upon the unity of the three kingdoms. In dealing with the Amendment I am now putting forward I can be met with no such argument. The concession I am now asking from the right hon. Gentleman will not involve a customs barrier, and will involve no attack on the integrity of the Empire. Ireland was exempted from the income tax for many years after the Act of Union was passed, and no one can contend that the statesmen who so exempted it would in any way have been parties to anything that would impair the union of the three kingdoms. I am afraid, however, that, though the right hon Gentleman will not be able to fall back upon that argument, he will have another quite as ready to his hand and perhaps much more valid. I do press upon the Committee that from the point of view of the social condition of Ireland, and from the point of view of the financial relations between the two countries, and from the point of view of the circumstances under which this tax was originally imposed, Ireland has an enormously strong case for the exemption which I now claim. The income tax was first imposed upon Ireland in the year 1853, and under very re- markable circumstances. It is impossible for anyone to read the speech in which Mr. Gladstone introduced that proposal in the Budget of that year to the English Parliament, without being filled with indignation, and it requires all the recollection of the great services that illustrious man in his later years conferred upon our country, to enable us to forget the enormous injury he inflicted upon Ireland by the legislation originated in that Budget, and aggravated by successive Budgets of subsequent years. I put it to the Committee that this income tax is essentially a tax of that character which is covered by the phrase "exemptions and abatements" occurring in the Act of Union and also the legislation of the year 1817. If there is a possible case in which that phrase is to have any meaning, and if any benefit is ever to extend to Ireland from its use, it is the case of the income tax. In urging that position on the Committee I would mention the fact that Mr. Peel, when he re-enforced the income tax on Great Britain after an interval of nearly thirty years, deliberately exempted Ireland from the scope of the tax, conceiving that Ireland was not then in a position to bear the burden that tax involved. When Sir Robert Peel came to that conclusion in 1842, Ireland had not passed through the dreadful ordeal of the famine. Ireland in 1842 was, I will not say a prosperous country, but it certainly was a country much more prosperous than the Ireland of ten years later, on which Mr. Gladstone for the first time imposed this tax, and it does fill me with astonishment and amazement that within five years of the awful agony of the famine which so reduced the population and sapped the vitality of our country, that great man should have been so regardless of the condition of our country as to introduce the income tax in that year. There is something connected with the imposition of the income tax upon Ireland which involves a great reflection upon—I was going to say the integrity and honour of this House. The income tax was expressly imposed upon Ireland by Mr. Gladstone by virtue of a sort of bargain. Mr. Gladstone, in imposing that tax, proposed to grant to Ireland a benefit which would more than compensate her for the mischief done by this imposition. He described the state of misery to which our country had been reduced by the awful experience of the famine, and said that that must be taken into consideration. How did this House proceed to take into consideration the "awful visitation of the famine," and "to relieve Ireland from the relation of creditor and debtor"? It proceeded to impose a burden exactly twice as great in amount as that from which Mr. Gladstone relieved Ireland. Mr. Gladstone estimated the amount of the Consolidated Annuities from which he was relieving Ireland at £245,000, and he told the Committee that he hoped the income tax would bring in about £460,000. Mr. Gladstone defended that proposal by saying that the annuities would exist for about thirty or forty years, while the income tax would last only seven years. But, as we know, instead of coming to an end after the lapse of seven years, the income tax has been levied every year since then, and last year it produced in Ireland, not £460,000, but between £700,000 and £800,000, while under the present Budget the right hon. Gentle-tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to extract by this tax about£900,000. In the face of that history, I think we in Ireland may be pardoned if we are inclined to protest against this increased imposition. It may be said that, whatever can be urged against indirect taxation, no valid argument can be produced to justify the exemption of Irish direct taxpayers from any burden which is imposed upon the English direct taxpayer similarly situated. I do not for a moment admit that. The bulk of this income tax is a tax upon Irish trade and commerce. We all know that, compared with the enormous volume of that of England, the trade and commerce of Ireland are very insignificant indeed, and that a burden which the ever-expanding trade of England can bear without feeling may operate in Ireland so as to be insupportable and wholly injurious to the trade of that part of the Empire. The Returns of the collection of the tax are the best proof of that argument, because they show that while in England the right hon. Gentleman can always calculate upon a steady increase of the produce of the income tax, it may be regarded as substantially stationary in Ireland. I do not admit that, because they are nominally assessed at the same amount, equality of impost necessarily means identity of burden. It may be said that this is a tax upon the rich, and that there can be no more harm in taxing the rich people of Ireland than in taxing the rich people of England. But we have too few rich people in Ireland to be able to afford that they should be taxed in this way. I do not admit that the poor man is not injured by such taxation. The rich often create the means by which the poor live, and any additional tax upon the rich man is in, my opinion, a drain upon the resources of the poorest classes of the community. I therefore press this Amendment upon the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. When two years ago the Government were relieving the Irish landlord, they took very good care not to give that relief by exempting him from the income tax; they did it by sacrificing the local body, and they secured that exemption for the landlord at the expense of the local rates. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 32, after the words 'Income Tax,' to insert the words 'Great Britain.'"—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

The hon. and learned Member has just made a speech in direct contrast to all the speeches we have heard from those benches on the previous items of taxation mentioned in the Bill. In regard to tea, tobacco, beer and spirits, we have had complaints that we were increasing the indirect taxation of Ireland which was already too heavy, and which affected injuriously the consumers of these different articles. At one time the hon. Member for Waterford went even so far as to say that he did not complain of the income tax at all—that he was willing to give us the income tax and a certain amount of indirect taxation as well if we would let Ireland off the rest. It is perfectly clear that the burden of the complaints of hon. Members below the gangway opposite on this subject of taxation have not been with regard to the direct but the indirect taxation of Ireland. We are practically asked to abolish income tax in Ireland altogether. The reason for that request is, that in 1853, when the tax was imposed by Mr. Gladstone, a sufficient consideration was not given to Ireland in return. I do not think we need enter into the history of those days. The question is, whether the income tax, as now applied to Ireland and Great Britain, is a fair thing or not in the case of Ireland. I must say this, that if the income tax had not existed in Ireland, and I was obliged to seek some fresh source of taxation in Ireland, there is nothing to which I should look so confidently as regards fairness and justice, as the application of the income tax to Ireland, Why should the rich merchant princes of Belfast and the shareholders in Guinness' Brewery in Dublin, not pay income tax on the profits of their industries, just as much as the poor shopkeeper in London, or Birmingham, or Glasgow, or Edinburgh? The proposition seems to me, with all respect to the hon. Member, to be almost absurd. As I pointed out to the House the other day when we were discussing the question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, there do exist at the present time exemptions and abatements in Ireland, such as the house tax, which is a very considerable tax in Great Britain—

MR. MAURICE HEALY

How much?

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

If the house tax were extended to Ireland it would be a very sensible addition to the income tax. Then there is the land tax, all of which applies to the class who pay income tax.

MR. FLAVIN

Why did you not give us the whole of the agricultural grant?

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

What has that to do with the question? Hon. Members were very glad to accept that £400,000 when it was offered to them. They might have preferred that it should be divided in a different way, but that has very little to do with the question of whether or not income tax should be paid in Ireland. Of all the Amendments which have been proposed from the benches opposite I think this is the one which demands the least sympathy and the last I should be disposed to accept.

MR LOUGH

I should like to say one word on this question. It is a settled question no doubt, but there is more to be said for the Amendment than the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have appreciated. The argument of my hon. friend is that in a very poor country where you have very few rich men it is not good policy to tax those rich men out of existence. The Returns with regard to income tax in the three countries—England, Scotland, and Ireland—are most interesting in this connection. In Scotland we have a country we can compare with Ireland, because it is about the same in population. From those Returns I gather that of incomes over £50,000 a year there is only one in Ireland, while in Scotland there are twelve. Of incomes between £10,000 and £50,000 there are but twelve in Ireland, against 121 in Scotland, so that again, in a country of the same size, there are ten times as many as in Ireland. Of incomes between £5,000 and £10,000 there are in Ireland only thirty-two, so that altogether there are only forty-five incomes of over £5,000 assessed to income tax in Ireland, while in Scotland there are 368. That is a very substantial difference, and the proportion is practically the same in England. The Committee marked the glowing allusion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the "merchant princes of Belfast." There are very few merchant princes of Belfast. In the whole of Ireland, as these figures show, there are only forty-five people who pay on more than £5,000 a year as against 368 in Scotland. This is my point. Perhaps not to-day or to-morrow, but some day, this House will awake to the fact that something must be done for Ireland to deal with the economic crisis you have there. The country is going in exactly the opposite direction to the rest of the United Kingdom. I have shown how few rich people there are there now, and the number is growing less day by day. The result is that you cannot get capital for any enterprise; there is no initiative in the country; and I believe that in the economical condition of Ireland the sufferings of the rich—which, of course, are very different from those of the poor—are just as serious a factor in the situation as the sufferings of the poor. I have had an opportunity of mentioning these points before, so that I need not labour them now, but I do think that this Amendment deserves a great deal more consideration than it has received.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 165. (Division List No. 88.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Ghee, Richard
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Flynn, James Christopher	Parnell, John Howard
Bond, Edward	Gibney, James	Pinkerton, John
Clancy, John Joseph	Hayden, John Patrick	Power, Patrick Joseph
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Crean, Eugene	Jordan, Jeremiah	Redmond, William (Clare)
Crilly, Daniel	Lough, Thomas	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Macaleese, Daniel
Daly, James	MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q.'s C.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Dillon, John	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Doogan, P. C.	M'Dermott, Patrick
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Joicey, Sir James
Allison, Robert Andrew	Denny, Colonel	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)
Allsopp, Hon. George	Dewar, Arthur
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Kenyon, James
Arnold, Alfred	Doughty, George	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Arrol, Sir William	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Kimber, Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Knowles, Lees
	Dyke, Rt Hon Sir William Hart
Bainbridge, Emerson		Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn
Balcarres, Lord	Emmott, Alfred	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r		Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)
Banbury, Frederick George	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Bartley, George C. T.	Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r)	Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Finch, George H.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)
Beckett, Ernest William	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	FitzWygram, General Sir F.	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Billson, Alfred	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Lowe, Francis William
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)	Gedge, Sydney	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Brassey, Albert	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverp'l)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Killop, James
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Godson, Sir A. Frederick	Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bullard, Sir Harry	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Butcher, John George	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Caldwell, James	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geor's	Milner, Sir Frederick George
Carlile, William Walter	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Milward, Colonel Victor
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Graham, Henry Robert	Monckton, Edward Philip
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)	Monk, Charles James
Cawley, Frederick	Gretton, John	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants-
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Greville, Hon. Ronald	More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Gull, Sir Cameron	Morrell, George Herbert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm		Morrison, Walter
Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute
Channing, Francis Allston	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Charrington, Spencer	Hardy, Laurence	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Heath, James
Colville, John	Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Helder, Augustus	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Percy, Earl
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)		Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon.
Curzon, Viscount	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Pretyman, Ernest George
Dalkeith, Earl of	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Price, Robert John
Purvis, Robert	Stephens, Henry Charles	Willox, Sir John Archibald
	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Rentoul, James Alexander	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.
Ridley, Rt. Hon Sir Matthew W.	Strauss, Arthur	Wodehouse, Rt. Hon E. R (Bath
Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley	Woods, Samuel
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)		Wylie, Alexander
	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ.)	Wyndham, George
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Seely, Charles Hilton	Thornton, Percy M.
Seton-Karr, Henry	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher.
Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Webster, Sir Richard E
Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wentworth. Bruce C. Vernon-

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:—

MR. FLYNN

moved to report progress. He contended that very satisfactory progress had been made with the Bill, and it was not reasonable that Members should be asked to continue the consideration of such a Bill after midnight, especially as many Members had been at the House since noon. The Irish representatives had been endeavouring to protect the interests of their constituents, and they were now fairly entitled to a little respite.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Flynn.)

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I hope the House will agree to continue the sitting a little longer. I believe we have now reached a point beyond which there is little that can be called matter of contention. We have had a great deal of discussion, and many divisions have been taken with regard to the additional taxation as it affects Ireland, and hon. Members opposite have had a full opportunity of expressing their views. We have now arrived at a part of the Bill which has no bearing on questions of that kind. There is no further Amendment affecting Ireland, and, as regards the proposed new clauses, I do not think they should occupy more than about half an hour. It is always understood that the proceedings on the Finance Bill may be continued beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment, but last night we reported progress by twelve o'clock, and I really must ask the Committee to continue for a little while longer to-night, as other business has been fixed for Thursday to suit the general convenience of the House.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

was amazed at the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was now Wednesday morning, and at noon the House was to meet to consider a Bill dear to the Tory heart, namely, that dealing with the flogging of the lower classes, but he and his friends desired to refresh themselves in order to oppose that Bill later on in the day. It was bringing legislation to a farce to discuss large financial measures after midnight, when Members could not be reported, and, if they were, they could not be so bright or clear as if they discussed the measure after a few hours rest.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

I hope there will not be any prolonged altercation over this matter. I quite admit that the Irish Members have discussed the points which affected them in a particular way with some latitude for the last two days, but there still remain upon the notice paper nine now clauses to be disposed of. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that it is somewhat unreasonable to expect us at this time of the morning to go through the whole of those new clauses. What I would suggest, with great respect, would be this: We have passed Clause 13 of the Bill, and there remain only Clauses 14, 15, 16, and 17, to which no Amendment stands upon the Paper. I think it would be a reasonable thing if the Chancellor of the Exchequer got those clauses passed and then reported progress, so that we could deal with the new clauses at a subsequent sitting. I certainly think the argument of my hon. friend below me is a reasonable one. We have to meet at noon to-day to discuss a Bill which interests the House generally, and that being so I think it is a little unreasonable to ask us to deal with nine new clauses to-night. I am not making these remarks at all with the desire to obstruct the passage of the remainder of the Bill. I sincerely believe that that passage will be facilitated if this concession is made now. Certainly so far as the Irish Members are concerned we have no desire to prolong the discussion, but questions may arise on those clauses which will have to be discussed. Therefore I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should get the remaining clauses of the Bill and then report progress, and I make that suggestion with the conviction that when the Bill is again taken up a small amount of time will be sufficient to go through the new clauses.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

My reason for desiring to continue the sitting was this: My right hon. friend the Leader of the House has made an arrangement with right hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the business on Thursday, and I hoped that by finishing the consideration of this Bill to-night it would have been in the power of the Government to secure that that arrangement should be carried out. I have, however, had enough experience of this House to know what happens when there is a wrangle about reporting progress, and therefore I think it would probably be better to accept the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

MR. FLYNN

On that understanding I will with pleasure withdraw my motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15, 16, and 17 agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.