§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
[Mr. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe) in the Chair.]
New clause—
and the quantity of dry tobacco shall be treated as diminished or increased accordingly.
This sub-section shall not apply to snuff."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)—
brought up and read the first time.
§ Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ SIR J. A. WILLOX (Liverpool, Everton)appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this proposal. For the first time and without notice the right hon. Gentleman was introducing a penalty on manufacturers of tobacco, by making the proposal contained in the clause.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER' (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.I thought when I placed this clause upon the paper that it would be a great advantage to the trade. I know the acquaintance which the hon. Member has with the subject, and if he desires further consideration of the clause I will not press it now.
§ Clause (by leave) withdrawn.
§
New clause—
The duty to be paid on goods or commodities deposited in a customs or excise warehouse is hereby declared to be the duty chargeable at the date of the actual removal of those goods or commodities from the warehouse, and if before that date any sums shall have been paid in respect of duty, the difference (if any) between the sums so paid and the actual duty chargeable shall be paid or repaid, as the case may be."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)—
brought up and read the first time.
§ Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI shall be very happy to explain. This clause is intended to prevent the very unseemly thing that occurred on the 3rd and 5th of March at the Customs House. At present the mode of effecting clearances on dutiable goods is that persons come to the Customs House with a cheque, and on receipt of the cheque the goods are cleared. Hon. Members are aware of the manner in which this method of proceeding was taken advantage of for the purpose of forestalling the duties on the 3rd and 5th of March. I propose that the time of the clearance of goods shall be interpreted as that of their actual removal from the bonded warehouse. This will tend in another way to ensure the observance of the law, because goods should not be allowed to remain long in bond after the duty has been paid.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)I hope this matter will receive just a little more consideration. The House probably concluded from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks that these are Government warehouses, in which these goods were stored. They are not warehouses belonging to the Government, they are private warehouses and if these are all made subject to this drastic proposal a great blow will be given to the warehouse system. Before the present Budget we had an opinion expressed by the Treasury about this matter of keeping goods in warehouse after the duty has been paid. It arose in connection with the Budget and in connection with one of these bonds it was asked whether there was the right to retain the goods in the warehouse; I think the Treasury—I do not say the light hon. Gentleman was responsible for it—expressed the opinion that there was no such right. That expression of opinion created amongst the proprietors of these warehouses something like dismay. Warehousing is a great business in London. I say, with great deference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion, that by this proposal a great additional difficulty will be thrown on this important business. I don't think 723 that we should lightly increase the difficulties with which the business is carried on. A great deal has been said about the unseemly proceedings at the Customs House on the 3rd and 5th of March, but that was because the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman was rushed in the most extraordinary way this year. There was no reason why it should have been rushed and I think if this Budget had been taken at the proper time there would have been no ground for the complaints made. This is a most extraordinary clause. It seems to me a very clumsy way of meeting the difficulty which I do not believe in myself. I believe it will cause a great deal more difficulty in connection with business than the right hon. Gentleman thinks.
§ SIR J. LENG (Dundee)I think the proposal of this clause will give general satisfaction. The fact that in two days upwards of two millions and a quarter of money was rushed into the Customs for the clearance of goods in bond clearly requires that some attention should be paid to this subject by the Treasury, because whatever may be said about it the object of that sudden and large payment of duty was to take advantage of the position of affairs and practically diminish the revenue of the subsequent year. It will be a great thing that in all such matters the commercial interests shall be put on the same footing. That will be accomplished by this clause, and I think if any practical difficulty is found in the working of it the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his successors, will endeavour to remedy the difficulty. It will have the effect of remedying what happened this year, and that is very desirable.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)I hope the Government will succeed in preventing what has been complained of with respect to clearances. Nothing can be more injurious to our finance than the taking of 2,000,000 out of a year when you want it and putting it into another when you do not want it. My hon. friend says the Budget was rushed and that it led to these proceedings. The fact is exactly the reverse, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. These proceedings were the cause which compelled him to bring on the Budget at the time he did. These are what you may call in a certain sense gambling trans- 724 actions. They are speculations on the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they ought not to be encouraged. I hope this will help to prevent such transactions in future.
§ MR. LOUGHIt appears that there is some misunderstanding on the question from the two short speeches we have heard. This two millions and a half of revenue has been spoken of as if all this money had been put into somebody's pocket. It is a great mistake, as will be seen if the House will only think for a moment. Take spirits—it is only 5 per cent. of the two millions and a half. In the case of tobacco you must take the proportion at one-twelfth. You will see that quite an undue fuss was made about the transactions. There is another point. The trade is constantly changing, and I am sorry that Chancellors of the Exchequer are not, perhaps, as familiar with the details of it as they ought to be, or some of the provisions of the Budget would not appear as they are. A great change has taken place in this country lately, and goods are dealt with in different ways. Large contracts are made for goods duty paid, and they are made a long time in advance. The vast majority of them, as far as I know, were merely acts done by agents for clients they had. I do say that if we have this very clumsy way of collecting the revenue, we ought to remember the situation of the traders when making those violent plunges which seem to me to do a great deal of harm to business. The Chancellor can take off a duty as suddenly, and I cannot recall a case in which great loss did not fall on the holders of stock throughout the country when duty was taken off. I believe we will have to find a much less drastic clause than this, and one better suited to the trade. If others felt as I feel about it I would oppose the clause, but I will not do so. All I want is to get the best system for the collection of the revenue, and to see that some protection is given to traders when duties are taken off.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI should like to read a few sentences from a circular that has been put into my hands—
On Friday, 2nd March, notice was given that the Budget would be presented on Monday, 5th March. Deeming this to foreshadow a sharp increase in taxation, holders 725 of dutiable merchandise spent the interval in paying duty and arranging for clearance. Tea traders were particularly busy, and before 3.30 p.m. on the 5th they paid duty on twenty-three million pounds, bringing up the total since 1st January to forty-three million pounds in excess of the usual quantity, Allowing £1,400,000 for tea and £700,000 for duty, these operations have involved an outlay of £2,100,000, together with the expense of finding storage room for some 450,000 packages entailed by the new order to remove duty-paid goods 'forthwith' from the bonded warehouses. Buyers were in consequence so preoccupied that it was needful to close the market last week, and give the trade time to recover from their exertions, and to accomodate themselves to the new condition of the sixpenny duty imposed on the 6th March. Distributors at once raised their prices, and have thus secured the greater part, of the £350,000, which is the difference between duty at 4d., and at 6d. on forty-three million pound weight of tea.
§ Question put, and Clause added.
§ Clause added.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)The object of the clause I now beg to move is, I think, apparent to everybody, and it certainly expresses the opinion of most members of this Committee. It is not a new idea. It has not grown out of the present war entirely. In 1894 I moved a similar amendment of the Finance Act following the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire.* Surely those who go and fight our battles should not be taxed in the same way as others. There are some advantages already granted to soldiers and sailors who die in the service of the Crown. Their estates are exempt from certain stamp duties. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very sympathetic on this matter when I moved the same clause, or a practically similar clause, in 1894. He spoke in favour of it and said it should be regarded with a sympathetic feeling by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am glad to think that he now somewhat agrees with that, and I am very hopeful that he will assent to this proposal. I have included in my Amendment other forces of the Crown, besides the Army and Navy, so as to cover the case of any persons killed in heroic action in the field. I think they should be included, but I
*See Debate in Committee on the Finance Bill, 9th July, 1894. (The Parliamentary Debates[Fourth Series], Vol. xxvi., page 1249.)726 believe the right hon. Gentleman has not taken a sympathetic view of this as he does in the case of those who die in the service of the Crown. In his speech in 1894 he drew a distinction between those two classes of heroes, and although I regret it, I cannot persist in that part of the resolution if he insists on excluding it. I give the Treasury absolute discretion to settle each case coming under the purview of this clause, if he will agree to extend it to heroic acts done in civil life as well as military life. I do not press the special wording of my clause. All I want is that the country should not derive any benefit from those unfortunate incidents that lead to our soldiers and sailors being killed in warfare. The limit of £5,000 excludes all persons of large means. I think the common feeling of justice requires that we should exempt them from this heavy tax. The question has been discussed a good deal in public, and I am sure the great bulk of the House agrees with my proposal.
§
New clause—
Estate duty shall not be payable on an estate the principal value of which does not exceed five thousand pounds in the case of any person killed, or dying within twelve months from the effect of any wound received, in the performance of his duty in the Navy, the Army, or other forces of the Crown. The date from which this exemption may be claimed shall be the twelfth day of October one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine. The Treasury may, if they think fit, authorise the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to remit the death duties in any case of an estate the principal value of which does not exceed five thousand pounds, when the person loses his life in the performance of some heroic act of saving or attempting to save another person or persons from danger, disease, or accident."—[Mr. Bartley.)
—brought up and read the first time.
§ Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S. W.)I rise to support this very heartily. Do I understand that the clause applies only to the estates of men who are killed or who die from the effect of any wound received? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he admits that principle to be just, as I sincerely trust he will, does he not consider that a man who dies of disease should also be included in the clause. There is another point I wish to put before the right hon. Gentleman in 727 this connection which I think worthy of consideration. There are a certain number of men called up and not sent on extra service at once. They are kept at the depots. I have known cases of men who died before they actually got to the seat of war, and I do think they are entitled to the same consideration. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot provide for them in the Bill, I do hope that those who die from disease will receive consideration.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I oppose this on the ground that it belongs to a class of proposals most vicious and objectionable in principle—the extending of relief by exemption from taxation. It is a method which popularity hunters and gentlemen who wish to make themselves agreeable eagerly grasp at. Instead of coming out manfully and squarely and openly, you give a remission of taxation, and a remission of taxation is precisely the same thing as the giving of grants. The straight and honest way would be to make up your minds what you are going to do for these people, and vote the money and let it appear on the face of the Estimates. I will state three objections which appear to me to be of enormous weight against the particular proposal we are asked to consider. The first objection appears to be so strong as to be absolutely fatal if we were living in times when the voice of reason would be heard inside and outside of this House on the question of the war, but of course we are not. What is the proposal before us?
Estate duty shall not be payable on an estate the principal value of which does not exceed five thousand pounds in the case of any person killed, or dying within twelve months from the effect of any wound received, in the performance of his duty in the Navy, the Army, or other forces of the Crown.In other words, a grant of money shall be given to the heirs of everybody dying from wounds sustained in the course of the present war. That grant is to be calculated on the most stupid and the most monstrous principle that could be possibly devised by human ingenuity. The richer a man is the larger will be the grant. If an officer who has performed prodigies of valour, and is wounded, afterwards returns to the ranks, as many of them have done, and distinguishes himself in every way, if he is killed, and leaves to his unfortunate widow and family £500, £100, or no 728 pounds at all, under this ingenious clause the family get nothing at all. But if he leaves £5,000 then the family get £100. Was there ever put before the House so monstrous a doctrine? If a man, taken as a prisoner to Pretoria at an early stage of the war, dies there from a small wound he may have received, leaving £5,000, his family is to get a present of £100 or £150—I have not calculated the exact amount—while the family of an officer who has fought all through the war, and has no real estate, is under this ingenious and magnificent clause to get nothing at all. Was there ever such a proposal made to the House of Commons? Because this proposal is in favour of the war it has the effect on hon. Members of making them say "shovel out this money" without considering whether it is to do good or harm. The more you examine the proposal the more insane and monstrous it appears. One man has £1,000 to leave to his widow and family. They get a trifle of £40 or £50 under this clause, and another man who has no wife and no family leaves his property to an elder brother, who benefits by this proposal to the extent of £300 or £400. Is not that grotesque? Many of the officers who are being killed are unmarried, and under this ingenious clause you are making a present of £50 or £100 of the taxpayers' money to wealthy men in England who want no relief whatever. This is going to be done by the British House of Commons when thousands of the widows and families of your soldiers will be starving after this war is over. [Cries of "No!"] They are starving already. [Cries of "No!" and "Name!"] I say they are. I will do better than give names. I have received a circular appealing to me as an Irish Member, and pointing out the wretched condition of the wives and families of the soldiers. There are many poor families of soldiers who have no real estate to leave, and whose little belongings cannot come under the purview of this clause There will be many families in want, and you will require large sums of money. I am sure I won't oppose any Vote you propose for any of the soldiers. I think the families of the soldiers are treated in this country with too little generosity. Is it not a monstrous thing, at this stage of the war, before we have any information as to what the Government are going to propose for the families of 729 the common soldiers, to bring forward a proposal of this kind, which in its very essence is unjust? It is calculated to give the greater relief the greater the amount of property a man leaves. There are many of your officers who have no property at all. No more grotesque and monstrous and insane proposal was ever placed before the House of Commons. I do trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the matter for a moment before he commits himself to it.
§ MR. BUTCHER (York)I am not surprised that the hon. Member has strongly opposed this proposal. Any proposal with which he does not absolutely agree is always monstrous and insane. There was one part of the speech of the hon. Member with which I found myself able to agree, and that was when he referred to the wives and families of soldiers killed in action. I am glad to think that there is already some provision made for the widows and children of our soldiers killed in action. The Government have taken an important step in ordering an inquiry into the administration of the Patriotic Fund, which exists for that very purpose, in order to ensure that it shall be worked in the best possible manner. We have also the satisfaction of knowing that the country has responded generously to the appeals made to them for the support of the widows and children of those who have met their death in the service of the State. If these funds are not sufficient, I would gladly welcome any proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide additional money for so absolutely legitimate an object. On the general merits of this proposal I would say that, prima facie, it does seem an unreasonable thing that if a man prematurely meets his death in the service of the State, the State should immediately seize that opportunity of levying a tax on those he leaves behind him. The exemptions from duty upon estates of persons killed in action are mainly two. One of them provides that if an officer is killed in action and has an estate under £100, the State shall not levy any duty upon that property. The other exemption is to the effect that if a common soldier, seaman or marine is killed in action no estate duty shall be levied upon his property. That is a reasonable exemption, but it is open to two objections. One objection is that it does not apply to non-commissioned 730 officers. Another objection is that at the present moment there are men of large property serving in South Africa as common soldiers, and if they are unfortunately killed in action their estates would be exempted altogether. I am glad to think that men who have large properties have gone out, and all praise and all credit to them for having gone out, to serve their country as common soldiers, but there is no reason why these large estates should be exempted from duty. My hon. friend who moved the clause has limited its application to estates of £5,000 and under. I have to propose another limitation, and that is that the exemption should only apply where the £5,000 or less goes to the widow or children of the man who is killed. I agree with the criticism of the hon. Member who has just sat down that, if the property goes to a collateral or more distant relative, or no relative at all, there is no ground for exemption in that case. If, however, you exempt from duty a comparatively small sum which goes to the widow and children of the man who is killed, then I say you have a proposition reasonable in itself and one which I think the great majority of the House will be prepared to accept. The clause moved by my hon. friend the Member for North Islington makes no provision for those who die from disease contracted on active service. That is a case in which I think it will be very difficult to make definite provision by Act of Parliament. It seems to me you must give a certain discretion to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and my proposal is that the Commissioners may extend the provision of exemption to cases of death from disease where the circumstances are such as to warrant the adoption of that course. I think you may be perfectly satisfied that the discretion will be exercised in a proper manner. I heartily support the general view embodied in the new clause of my hon. friend, but I would suggest that it should be amended in the way I propose.
§ CAPTAIN PRETYMAN (Suffolk, Woodbridge)I think the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo surprised some on this side of the House, because the Irish Members for a week have been asking exemptions. Now the hon. Member argues that all exemptions are to be condemned. I should have expected the sympathy of the hon. Members from 731 Ireland, rather than opposition. The hon. Member said that the richer the man killed the larger would be the exemption. I should hardly say that a man who only leaves £5,000 to his widow and children comes under the designation of a very rich man.
§ MR. DILLONI only called him rich in comparison with a man who left nothing at all.
§ CAPTAIN PRETYMANThat does not make any reason why we should not have some sympathy for the man who leaves a little. I hope the Committee will deal with this matter on reasonable lines. The reason the limit of £5,000 is fixed upon is that a large number of the poorer officers in the Army make provision for death, whether on active service or not, by paying out of their scanty income a small monthly sum to regimental or other societies. On their death annuities are paid to the widows. I happen to have in my mind the case of the Royal Artillery Widows' Society. In that particular society the officers put by out of their pay so much a month in order that on their death the society shall pay to their widows an annuity. In that case, supposing the widow to be twenty-five years of age and the annuity to be worth £200 a year, the value would be between £4,000 and £5,000. Under the Death Duties Act such a widow would be asked to pay a lump sum of money which she does not possess. What, no doubt, was in the minds of the Committee when they first heard of this sum of £5,000 was simply the case of a man who leaves £5,000 in cash. In this case there is no cash at all, but merely an annuity, which is valued for the purposes of the death duties at something under £5,000, and on which the widow would have to pay a lump sum. In such a case the money has never belonged to the person. Does that man come under the hon. Member's designation of a rich man? Do we not constantly hear Members on either side of the House asking the Government to encourage thrift? What can be more thrifty or more desirable than an action of this kind, by which a man provides for his widow and children? So desirable is it that a case has been placed in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite apart from this question of active service, to see whether 732 he could not make some special provision to lighten the burden on these widows in connection with the Royal Artillery Widows' Society. They would, however, receive great benefit by the passing of this clause, and it would deal with the cases, at any rate, of officers who were killed in action or who died on active service. I quite allow you must draw the line somewhere, and it may be said that there is really no difference in the case whether a man is killed on active service or dies an ordinary death. But I think there is a very great difference. A man who dies an ordinary death in time of peace, whether he be a common soldier or an officer, takes no more risk than an ordinary member of the population, and there is no reason why a special exemption should be made in his case. But when on active service it is entirely different. The man is employed by the country, and it is his trade to take imminent risk of death. But that the country in whose service he was taking that risk should on his death exact a heavy penalty from his widow and children is most unreasonable and unjust. I quite agree that the exemption should be confined to the widow and children. I put this forward quite apart from any question of grants. Give them a grant as well if you like. Considering that the common soldier and the officer are laying down their lives side by side in South Africa, I think the endeavour to set up the case of the former against the case of the latter is unworthy of the House of Commons.
§ MR. DILLONI said that both ought to be treated justly.
§ CAPTAIN PRETYMANI am afraid the hon. Member's idea of justice is very different from mine. His idea of justice is that because a soldier in the ranks is probably not in a position to make a provision of £5,000 for his widow and children, who in his life-time would not expect any such sum, therefore we are to make no recognition whatever of an officer who is leaving for his widow and children, who have been brought up in a different rank of life, a provision as barely sufficient to maintain their position as the small provision the man in the ranks might have been able to make for his dependants. I think the hon. Member has entirely failed to make out any case 733 against this clause, and I venture to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the matter into his most favourable consideration. All these clauses may really be dealt with together, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point in the proposal which stands in my name. I have included every person subject to military or naval law under the Army Act, or the Navy Discipline Act, thereby bringing in the member of the auxiliary forces as well as the regular soldier. The clause brings the matter into consonance with the terms of the Army Act, and is therefore wider and more workable. It includes also deaths from disease or any other cause while on active service. With regard to the case of persons who may die possessed of more than £5,000, I do not press that part of the clause if the right hon. Gentleman does not feel himself able to grant it, but I think it is worthy of consideration. I think the House may fairly be asked to make this concession without it being accused of passing legislation induced by sentiment—other than proper and reasonable sentiment; and not only now we are at war, but when the war is over, the House will feel that it has done what is right, and this decision will stand as a good action for all time.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)I take it for granted that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give favourable consideration to this proposal he will certainly embody the limitation suggested by the hon. and learned Member for York. At the same time, I think it right to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot accept this proposal without being in a position to guarantee to the House that the widow and orphans of the common soldier or sailor should have some equal compensation in their case.
§ CAPTAIN PRETYMANThey are exempt already.
§ MR. BROADHURSTThey are exempt because they have no real estate or fortune in the funds or in the bank. It would be manifestly unfair to enact a special exemption in the case of the officer, without some special and corresponding advantage being given to the common soldier or sailor.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHwas understood to assent.
§ MR. BROADHURSTThe Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees, and surely the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division will accept the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one worthy of consideration. He shakes his head and says the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman is not worthy of consideration.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHMy gesture was only intended to imply that I thought officers and men should be treated alike.
§ MR. BROADHURSTThat is exactly the point I am raising, and thereon I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My reason for rising was that I could not imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be caught napping in the manner suggested by these Amendments, and be induced to give special advantages to certain members of the Army.
§ MR. BARTLEYNo one proposed to do so.
§ MR. BROADHURSTThis will be an advantage to the widows and orphans of officers killed or dying in connection with this war, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman cannot allow this to pass without some assurance that the widows and children of the rank and file, who have no real estate to leave, who have no fortunes of any kind, should be provided by the State with some corresponding advantage. Surely that is only even justice. I hope the House will not say that the soldier of the rank and file who gives his life for his country is not equally with his officer entitled to the consideration of the State. The hon. and learned Member for York referred to the fact that the widows and children of the soldiers killed at the front are being largely provided for out of charitable funds collected by and from the public. But that is a very unsatisfactory condition of things. There is a limit to the charitable resources of this country, and that provision might cease at any moment. Apart from that, I hold that the State is responsible, and that the widows and children should be provided for wholly and liberally by the State, and that they should not have to depend on the Lady Bountiful who distributes parish or district public funds. We are drifting to-night into an entirely new channel of public provision. This is a matter which 735 cannot stop at this present motion, if carried. There are a number of dangerous employments other than war. The Government itself is introducing a Railway Accidents Bill which has reference to a dangerous employment. The loss of life and limb in connection with the railway service is enormous and is a matter for grave consideration. The miners, too, are subjected to enormous risks. There is not a miner who leaves his home in the morning who has any considerable guarantee that he will return whole and sound to his family at night. I will not attempt to exhaust the list of dangerous employments: I will only mention one other—that of seamen. Look at the hundreds of fishermen's lives which are lost in the course of a year. These are all dangerous employments, from the exercise of which the State as well as the community gains great advantages. If you legislate for one class of dangerous employment you must legislate for the others. You cannot make preferential provision by Act of Parliament for one particular section of the community. I would repeat that I am not necessarily speaking against the motion if it is limited in the manner which has been suggested——
§ MR. BARTLEYIt sounds rather like it.
MR. BROADHUESTI hope the hon. Member for North Islington will curb his bombardment of objectionable interruptions with which he has been so free of late. Surely this is a reasonable and just view to bring under the notice of those who are responsible for Treasury expenditure and those who are responsible to the country for Government measures. The hon. Member for North Islington is not responsible for those measures. [An HON. MEMBER: Not yet.] That is one of the misfortunes——
§ MR. BROADHURSTI might have ended in a complimentary manner to the hon. Member, but I will leave the subject. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give his best consideration to the points I have brought under his notice, and that if this motion is agreed to he will see that corresponding advantages are given to the rank and file.
§ MR. LOWE (Birmingham, Edgbaston)I wish to associate myself fully with and 736 to join in the appeal which has been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to incorporate this Amendment in one form or another into the Bill. It seems to me that it is enough for a man to have laid down his life for his country and for his family to have given to the service of the nation that which was most valuable to them, without their being called upon to make a further sacrifice in the shape of this duty on the little property he has left behind him. It appears to me that this applies to any soldier of whatever rank he may be, and that the hon. Gentleman opposite is quite under a delusion in thinking the clause applies only to officers. If the hon. Member desires to give some special bounty to the family of the common soldier, the proper course is for him to propose to confer such a grant. But the present is not the proper occasion on which to do that, because we are not discussing the question of conferring grants upon anyone. The question before the Committee is whether the property of a deceased soldier up to a certain amount should be exempted from duty, which is a very different question. I think if this principle is once admitted, there is a great deal to be said in favour of exempting such property, whatever its value, from the duty. At the same time, I entirely agree that it would be wiser under all the circumstances to limit the scope of this clause so that it will apply only to cases in which the value of the property is under £5,000. I think it is wise so to limit the clause, because in the case of large estates the burden of having to pay the duty would be comparatively small, and, therefore, the hardship would be proportionately less. It is also wise to confine it to the widow and lineal descendants of the deceased soldier, because in the case of those in a more remote degree of relationship they would not, like the nearer relatives, be dependent for their maintenance and support upon the property which descended to them. Moreover, the burden which would be cast upon the national exchequer by the exemption being limited in this way would be a mere flea-bite compared with what it would be if the duty were remitted on all estates, without reference to value or those to whom the property descended. The proposal is a very moderate and reasonable one, and the exemption might be conceded without 737 imposing any appreciable burden upon the public funds. Indeed, it is only at an exceptional time like the present that it would impose anything worth calling a burden at all upon the general body of the taxpayers; but lam sure that any little sacrifice it might involve on their part would be most readily and cheerfully borne, seeing that it would constitute a just and fitting, but a very small, recognition of the splendid gallantry and self-sacrificing patriotism and devotion which have been invariably displayed by our soldiers and sailors throughout the whole of the present war.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHThese questions of exemptions are always difficult and sometimes invidious. There is one thing which I think the House of Commons cannot be too careful of, and that is to remember that the grant of an exemption is practically a grant to the person in whose favour the exemption is made, at the expense of all the other taxpayers. That view, I think, is taken in the alternative amendment dealing with the same subject as that now under discussion which the hon. Member for King's Lynn has placed on the paper. The hon. Member for Leicester alluded to cases of heroism ending in death on the part of miners and other persons engaged in private employment. I do not think it is quite fair to put persons of that kind on the same footing as soldiers and sailors who devote their lives to the service of their country in time of war. I may say that, as a matter of fact, Parliament has not taken that view. I think the hon. Member for East Mayo in discussing this question has not quite recollected that there is at present an Act of Parliament in force which does confer an exemption of this kind upon common soldiers, seamen, and marines. For the last hundred years, ever since the time of the great French war, that Act has existed, and it is the fact, I believe, that at the present time if a person in any one of those three positions dies, leaving property to the amount of a million behind him, that property would not be subject to estate duty. But if such a person is an officer that Act does not apply. Is that equal treatment of officers and soldiers? No; it is not. After all, it must be recollected that in the case of the widows, and I believe of the children, of officers who are killed in action, Parliament does provide grants to aid them in their neces- 738 sities. I do not think it is quite fair to argue that grants of that kind are on the same footing as exemptions from a tax which is levied on the property a person may happen to leave behind him. The two things do not seem to me to stand in exactly the same position. That is the present state of the law. There is an exemption from taxation of this kind in favour of common soldiers and sailors. At the present moment there are to my knowledge serving in Africa, in the position of privates in some of the forces, persons having means far in excess of the bulk of officers. The position is that the estates of such men losing their lives in the military operations will be free from estate duty, while the widows and children of officers serving by their side, who may be left with only a few hundred pounds, will have to pay duty. That is not fair, and the question arises how to deal with the matter. I cannot agree to the clause of the hon. Member for North Islington, because it exempts others than widows and children of officers, nor can I accept the clauses standing in the names of the hon. and learned Member for York and the hon. and gallant Member for the Woodbridge Division, because they deal with property beyond the limit of £5,000. I will not at the present moment express any definite opinion as to what the limit of exemption should be, but £5,000, I am sure, is as high as it ought to be put. I have been in communication with my noble friend the Secretary of State for War on the subject, because it has occurred to me that it may be possible to achieve the same end by some system of increased grants to the widows and children of officers who might be killed in the war, and if that is possible I should prefer to assist them upon that basis. I cannot say at the moment whether such a system can be devised or not. If it cannot, then, after the opinions which have been expressed, I am sure it will be the general view of the House that something else should be done. I will myself prepare a clause, and move it at the proper time, if a clause is necessary. The matter requires further consideration, and I would prefer to deal with it myself.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)I feel quite confident no hon. Member would object to such a 739 clause as has been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is confined to a compassionate allowance in the case of the widow of an officer who, in consequence of the alteration in the death duties, has been left not so well off as before. I feel the strongest objection to the alternative which hon. Members who have spoken have suggested, because it will be very unequal and unjust if carried out, and it would benefit unequally certain persons and not others who are equally deserving. I wish to put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the subject of exemption. The question of a compassionate allowance is a different case, because the War Office would deal with each individual case in proportion to the distress involved. But supposing the alternative proposal is accepted, this anomaly will then arise. Nobody objects to the death duties as such. Suppose an officer dies a few years earlier than he would otherwise have done under the ordinary operations of nature. It is not fair that an officer of sixty years of age should receive the same allowance as an officer who is killed at the age of forty. You propose that the estate of an officer who dies at forty is not to pay death duty on this particular sum, and the successor or the widow of an officer who dies at sixty years of age is also to be exempted. Surely the officer at forty has a much longer probability of life than the officer at sixty. I think you must put it on a fair basis in considering your compassionate allowance, and you should take into consideration how many years would probably have elapsed before the death duty would have had to be paid. I have no objection to these individual cases being dealt with upon their merits, but I should object very strongly to anything in the nature of an exemption from death duties through being killed on the field, because I think there are many other trades and occupations in which chances of sudden death are equal or even greater than those of an officer in the Army.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHNot in the service of the State.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONOne man may be sent to a climate where his life is injured at a much earlier period than it otherwise would be, and in cases of that kind exemption would be just as reasonable.
§ MR. BARTLEYAfter the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall be quite satisfied to leave the matter in his hands, and I will withdraw the clause.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ CAPTAIN PRETYMANI only wish to say that I accept what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered. Speaking for myself, I do not prefer the system of a compassionate grant. That appears to me to be a very offensive term to employ. I entirely dissent from the views expressed by the hon. Member for Poplar, and the niggling spirit in which he has treated this subject. To come here and make such a comparison between a man of sixty and a man of forty is nothing short of a scandal. It is one thing to relieve the savings of an officer of the payment of death duty, and quite another thing to make him a compassionate grant. I most strongly approve of the system of exempting the small savings left to the widow and children from taxation, instead of giving a compassionate grant just as if they were paupers. I desire to strongly impress upon the right hon. Gentleman—and I think my view will be shared by the hon. Member for York and a large majority of hon. Members on this side of the House—that we regret that he has not approached this question in a better spirit than it has been approached. All we ask is that the State should not take advantage of the death of a man in the service of the State to come down and demand the death duty upon the provision he had made for his widow and children. That is all we ask, and I think it ought to have been accepted in a better spirit. I beg to formally move the clause standing in my name.
§
New clause—
Section 7, Sub-section 1, of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be construed as if there were added at the end thereof the following enactment:—
—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. MADDISON (Sheffield, Brightside)I desire to associate myself with the views expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House with reference to these proposals. The hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk, in a rather heated speech, pleaded for a higher tone of debate on this question. I do not think you can have a higher tone in any debate than a demand for justice. No hon. Member on this side of the House has pleaded for anything more than justice, and I therefore submit that the "niggling policy" to which reference has been made does not exist in fact, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. friend the Member for Poplar put the case in its proper position. The "niggling policy" referred to is neither more nor less than a desire to secure equality, and I venture to submit that the Amendment now before us would not secure equality. The hon. Member would have us believe that he is more concerned about the widows and orphans of those officers than we are who think his Amendment unjust and unequal. According to the Amendment it would be possible if an officer left an estate worth £5,000 that it would be exempted from death duties.
§ CAPTAIN PRETYMANI have withdrawn that.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman did not explain that to me. The whole clause has been put from the chair.
§ CAPTAIN PRETYMANPerhaps I went too far in saying that I had with- 742 drawn it. I mean that I do not wish to press it.
§ MR. MADDISONI understood that the whole clause was before us, but evidently the hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to give it a decent appearance by dropping some of the cargo overboard. I will confine myself to the substantial part of the Amendment. The inequality would work out in this way. In case an officer left £5,000, no death duty would be payable, but his widow may have £5,000 or £10,000 in her own name, whereas another officer's widow may not have anything in her own right at all. The inequality would arise as between officer and officer, and the Treasury could not differentiate in a case like that. There is also an inequality as between officers and men. I am perfectly well aware of the law relating to men serving in the ranks, and that law is often used as an argument in favour of the wretched pay given to private soldiers. At any rate, the law which was passed at the beginning of the present or the end of last century was in keeping with justice, because it made a distinction between officers and men. I desire to support very heartily the proposal that if anything is done in this direction it should be by way of compassionate allowances. It has been assumed that we on this side of the House are indifferent to the splendid bravery of our officers equally with the bravery of our men. Although it has been displayed in what we believe to be an unjust and unnecessary war, we naturally realise that a man can serve his country in fighting in a cause on the merits of which we differ. The soldier does not enter into our controversies at all. We can recognise heroism either on our own side or the side of the enemy, and I protest against the idea that we have no regard for the bravery of our officers and men in South Africa. I do more. I protest against the idea that we are not willing to recompense the widows of the men who have died or the men themselves who will return in a crippled and mutilated condition. But I submit the proper way to do that is, as I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, by way of compassionate allowances. What is the objection to them? The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk used a 743 very significant phrase when he asked, "Do you want to pauperise the widows and orphans of these brave men who have died for their country?" That shows the old spirit of caste, because when the case of the private soldiers was first mentioned the hon. Member said they had been provided for by various charitable funds. You may pauperise the widow of the private soldier, but not the widow of the officer.
§ CAPTAIN PRETYMANIt is a case of pauperising a person who has got something. You cannot pauperise a person who has nothing.
§ MR. MADDISONI could not have imagined that any hon. Member of this House was so completely ignorant of the minds of the people of this country as to say that capacity for pauperism depends on the amount of money a man has, and that when he has nothing he cannot be pauperised. If the hon. Gentleman's language means anything it means that. In reply, I would ask if you do not pauperise a private soldier's widow by giving her money out of charitable funds, how can you pauperise an officer's widow who gets money direct from the War Office? With reference to soldiers of industry mentioned by my hon. friend the Member for Leicester, the right hon. Gentleman said they were not in the service of the State. Technically they may not be, but in whose service are the hundreds of thousands of miners, of railwaymen, and of seamen in this country? Do they not contribute their labour to the State? By this policy you differentiate between different kinds of service to the State, not by special grants, but by altering the system of taxation in favour of one class and not in favour of another. I say these proposals are proposals for grants of the worst kind, because you increase the amount in proportion to the wealth of the officer's widow, and I object, under the plea of patriotism, which just now covers a multitude of sins, to tampering with the taxation of the country. After all, what are these death duties? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not get the money in that form he would have to get it by other means. They are part and parcel of our system of taxation, and should not be interfered with, and I maintain that it is altogether wrong to attempt to alter our 744 taxation by such an Amendment as that now before us. The hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk told us of officers who had insured their lives so that their widows would have a small annuity. He mentioned £200 a year, and he proceeded to say that in case that widow was called On to pay death duties she would not have the money to do it. That is no doubt a hard case, but it happens in thousands of instances in ordinary civil life. It is part and parcel of your system. You cannot cover every exception and you cannot make your laws suit every peculiar circumstances, and I ask why a widow who, unfortunately, loses her husband in the war should be treated differently from other widows. I am prepared to deal generously not only to the men, but the officers. I think it would be a burning shame and disgrace to this nation if we did not make proper allowances in every case where a man has lost a limb, or a wife her husband. There is no difference on that point between us on either side of the House. I venture to say that compensation in that direction must be put very high indeed. We are prepared to do all that is necessary, but not in the way suggested by this Amendment. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist all attempts to alter the definite system of taxation to suit a set of particular circumstances. The proper way to deal with exceptional circumstances is by exceptional measures, which will not in any sort of way make inequality with other people in civil life. For my own part I will resist any attempt in the direction of the Amendment now before the Committee, which, I think, is not justified on the grounds of justice or equality, and is impregnated with the vicious principle which seeks to set up a higher claim to consideration for one set of people who serve the State than another set of people. I venture to say that the time will come when we shall not hear so much of the military services of the State, but when we shall realise that civilians, like railway men and seamen, do their everyday duty in the face of difficulties and dangers not surpassed by those of soldiers in the field. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Why, the shunters of England run greater risks than the troops who have been fighting the Boers during the last three or four months; and I venture to 745 say that the percentage of killed and wounded amongst shunters, in any one year during the last two decades, is greater, and the shunters stand more chance of losing life and limb than soldiers on active service. And yet if a shunter has saved, say, £200, through his building society, his widow would have to pay the death duties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his sound system of finance and reject the Amendment.
§ CAPTAIN PRETYMANAfter the assurance given by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he himself will bring up a clause to deal with this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!]
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI desire to speak on this clause, because it embodies in a very specific manner a suggestion which I make in regard to the death duties. No doubt the Committee and everybody else must feel the highest degree of sympathy with the man who loses his life in the service of the State, and must also feel that his wife and family have established a very special claim on the country. But let us consider whether the suggestions proposed are proper, and such as should be properly allowed. These suggestions can only really refer to officers; for the Committee will remember that every private soldier, every marine, every common seaman who loses his life in the service of the State is already exempt from death duty. [An HON. MEMBER: No!] Every half-penny of it; and therefore, if it were possible to conceive of a millionaire dying in the ranks in the service of Her Majesty in South Africa, the whole of his million would be exempt from death duty under the law as it stands. I do not know but that there may be millionaires in the ranks. There is certainly going to be a duke among the lieutenants, and therefore there may be an equally remarkable case in regard to privates. These three Amendments consequently touch exclusively officers. Let it be further understood by the Committee that in the case of every officer, both in the Army and Navy, dying in action, a very special pension is awarded to the widow—a pension that has been assumed to be adequate to the circumstances. If that pension is not adequate, 746 then, in God's name, let it be increased; but let it be increased in the proper department of the Army and Navy. That is a proposal which no Member of the House would oppose. But it is an entirely different thing to make a special remission of general taxation in special circumstances, in the case of officers in the Army and Navy. Now, is that a proper thing to agree to? I confess that it has been my ambition always to attack the death duties; and I have resisted, as far as I could, the attempts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to screw them up. But on this occasion I must rank myself on the side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, if you are going to make a remission of the death duties on the ground that a man has lost his life in active service in the service of the State, why on active service alone? Those 300 men who went down in the "Victoria" lost their lives in the service of the State just as much as those who died in the field. There have been even men on these front benches who have given their lives in the service of this House and the country as truly as those soldiers and sailors in South Africa. I do not see how you can draw the line here. Just consider how unequally the remission would work. You are to remit the duty in the case of an officer who leaves £5,000. The amount of that duty would be £150, and you therefore make a present of £150 to his wife and family. But take the case of an officer who leaves nothing; you make no remission to him at all. Surely his wife and family would need assistance far more than the wife and family of a man who leaves £5,000. My hon. and gallant friend can scarcely have considered the effect of his proposal. He proposes that the £5,000 should be deducted in every case. Now in certain cases the deduction of £5,000 from the total amount left would be to limit the death duties to 3 per cent., and in other cases to 5 per cent. [Captain PRETYMAN dissented.] Well, I won't press that point; I only wanted to show that a remission of this nature must necessarily act in favour of the officer who leaves most. If an officer left £5,000, that money might go on his death perhaps to strangers, or to cousins, or to nephews. Well, these are not materially disadvantaged by his death; they in fact get an advantage: and yet, by this proposal 747 the death duty would be remitted in this case too. Take a son who has a young father, and who therefore does not expect to get his £5,000 soon. If his father was an officer and killed in the war, the consequence would be that he would really be advantaged. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Certainly he would be materially advantaged. But take the case of a poor man, a man destitute of £5,000, who leaves a widow and children who had been entirely depending upon him. In consequence of the death of that officer it is quite possible the widow and children would have to go to the workhouse. It is manifest that the advantage goes all the wrong way. The plan would give nothing to him that hath nothing, and to him that hath something it would give something more. No; in my belief this is not the fund from which these allowances should be made. They should be made out of the funds provided for the Army and Navy, and then make them as large, as splendid, and as generous as you like. Do not deal with them out of the death duties, which should be levied on some consistent and consecutive principle, and not on the principle of dealing with hard cases as they arise. I do not think this is a right plan; but if my light hon. friend wants a right plan, I commend to him an Amendment which I have ventured to put down, which goes to this, that the widow, and everybody——
MR. GIBSON BOWLESTo tell the truth, I was anticipating it because I was afraid my Amendment would be ruled out of order. I will, however, follow your ruling, Sir; but I am informed that a suggestion has been made in an unauthorised quarter which would fully meet the case by making the same allowance all round. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has practically adopted, in his reply, the suggestion which the unknown person to whom I have referred has put on the Paper, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman is right.
§ MR. DALY (Monaghan, S.)I should say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in moving this Amendment did not take the right way to gain support for it when he made a quite uncalled for attack on the Front Opposition Bench. Then he 748 made an attack on the hon. Member for East Mayo, because that hon. Gentleman had expressed an opinion against the dole to be given to officers. I consider it nothing short of a dole, and I am sure these men who are going to be killed in South Africa would be ashamed to ask the Treasury for a dole, either in an indirect or direct form. All these new clauses have been put down for the purpose of gaining a little cheap popularity in the country. There is nothing in the Press nowadays but jingoism from top to bottom. I am very pleased that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to accept the Amendment, although suggested from the other side of the House; but I may remind the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has treated the proposals made on the other side of the House very differently from those made on this side by the Members from Ireland. I oppose the clause because the relief given will fall on the taxpayers. The most comical thing about it is that an officer who has £5,000 would get relief to the extent of £150 to £200, but an unfortunate officer who has no money at all simply gets nothing. That is part of the system of helping the rich in every direction. I have heard great praises given for the self-sacrifice made by the gentlemen who are going to the front; but all these gentlemen, when they return, will be candidates for every situation open. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should see his way to make some provision for the unfortunate soldiers from Ireland who come home without legs or arms, and are disabled for life.
§ MR. DALYI admit that; but, at the same time, I was looking forward to the time when it is quite possible that some of these soldiers who come home to Ireland maimed for life will be a charge on the rates; and I think that if provision is made for the officers it should be made for the soldiers. I find there is £8,335——
THE CHAIRMANThat is really not germane to the subject; and I warn the hon. Member that he must not wander from the clause under discussion.
§ MR. DALYI did not wander from the clause. I expect we shall go to a division on this clause, and not allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw it.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI hope the Committee will not prolong the discussion. It will only delay the consideration of the remaining clauses of the Bill if a debate be continued which will lead to no practical result.
§ Question put and negatived.
§ Question proposed:—
§
New clause—
Section 20 of The Customs Consolidation Act, 1870 (which has reference to the effect of changes of duty on existing contracts), shall apply to the imposition of new duties as well as to increases, decreases, or repeals, and as so amended shall apply to duties of excise as well as to duties of customs, with the substitution in the case of the excise duty on beer of the time of the charge of the duty for the time of the clearance and delivery from the warehouse."—(Mr Lough.)
§ Brought up and read the first and second times, and added.
§
New clause—
A conveyance on sale made for any consideration in respect whereof it is chargeable with ad valorem duty, and in further consideration of a covenant by the purchaser to make, or of his having previously made, any substantial improvement of or addition to the property conveyed to him, or of any covenant relating to the subject matter of the conveyance, is not chargeable, and shall be deemed not to have been chargeable with any duty in respect of such further consideration."—(Mr. Bond.)
§ Brought up and read the first time.
§ Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)I should like to hear the views of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this clause.
§ MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)said the object of the clause was to remove an
§ inconvenience which had been recognised by the Treasury. Doubts had arisen as to whether duty should be charged on covenants relating to improvements in addition to the ad valorem duty on conveyances. Although the practice of the Inland Revenue Department had been not to charge anything in respect of these covenants, last year an attempt was made, owing to some too minute scrutiny of the matter, to charge stamp duty upon the covenants as to improvements. The inconvenience was especially felt in the case of building estates, where a company or an individual divided a large property into small lots and disposed of them at from £5 to £50 a lot. The ad valorem duty on a £50 lot would be 5s., but if every covenant relating to the land, such as those regarding fences, gates, etc., were to be charged as well, it would be seen that the burden would be very excessive indeed. He believed that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to accept the clause, and he trusted that the Committee would recognise the justice of it.
§ MR. HALDANEbelieved there was a good deal in what the hon. Member had said. He thought, however, that the words of the clause were wide, and deserved consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very careful about these matters, and he should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in accepting them he was not parting with any portion of the public revenue.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI have looked into the matter myself, and I am quite satisfied that the provisions of the law as they now stand are unfair and unreasonable; and that the duty is one that should not be charged in these cases.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee proceeded to a Division; but the doors of the No Lobby having been opened before the Tellers in the No Lobby were present, the Chairman directed the Committee to proceed again to a Division:—Ayes, 218; Noes, 37. (Division List No. 91.)
753| Bond, Edward | Green, Walford D (Wednesbury | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Greville, Hon Ronald | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Gurdon, Sir William Brampton | Oldroyd, Mark |
| Brassey, Albert | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Brigg, John | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George | Palmer, George Wm. (Reading |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Burns, John | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n |
| Butcher, John George | Hardy, Laurence | Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Hare Thomas Leigh | Perks, Robert William |
| Caldwell, James | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Heath, James | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Carlile, William Walter | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Piatt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Henderson, Alexander | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Hobhouse, Henry | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Holland, William Henry | Purvis, Robert |
| Charrington, Spencer | Horniman, Frederick John | Rankin, Sir James |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Howard, Joseph | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) |
| Colomb, Sir John C. Ready | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Colville, John | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Ridley, Rt. Hn Sir Matthew W. |
| Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Joicey, Sir James | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney |
| Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. | Jones, William (Carnarvon) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge | Kearley, Hudson E. | Round, James |
| Cross, Alex. (Glasgow) | Kenyon, James | Runciman, Walter |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Curzon, Viscount | Keswick, William | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kimber, Henry | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Denny, Colonel | Knowles, Lees | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Dewar, Arthur | Lafone, Alfred | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Langley, Batty | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield | Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn | Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Donkin, Richard Sim | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Doughty, George | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Strauss, Arthur |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Leng, Sir John | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Duckworth, James | Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray |
| Emmott, Alfred | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Lough, Thomas | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Finch, George H. | Lowe, Francis William | Wason, Eugene |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lowles, John | Webster, Sir Richard E. |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n |
| Fison, Frederick William | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Macdona, John Cumming | Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| Flower, Ernest | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.) |
| Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W. | Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk) |
| Foster. Sir Walter, (Derby Co.) | M'Killop, James | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Fry, Lewis | Maddison, Fred. | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks) |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Gedge, Sydney | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'sf'd |
| Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Woods, Samuel |
| Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Wrightson, Thomas |
| Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Milward, Colonel Victor | Wylie, Alexander |
| Gilliat, John Saunders | Monckton, Edward Philip | Wyndham, George |
| Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John | Monk, Charles James | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Golds worthy, Major-General | Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport) | |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher. |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute | |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Channing, Francis Alliston | Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Crean, Eugene | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Cawley, Frederick | Crilly, Daniel | Dillon, John |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lloyd-George, David | Samuel, J. Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macaleese, Daniel | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Dermott, Patrick | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Ghee, Richard | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- | Pinkerton, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Daly and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Hogan, James Francis | Power, Patrick Joseph | |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | Redmond, William (Clare) | |
| Kilbride, Denis | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
§ Clause added.
§ The following Amendments stood next on the Paper—
§ MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Cork)—
§
To move the following Clause:—
Where, before the sixth day of March nineteen hundred, any person shall have contracted for the sale of tea without reference to the duties of customs thereon granted by this Act, it shall be lawful for that person, and he is hereby authorised to receive from the purchaser, and sue for and recover the equivalent in money of the excess of those duties over the duties which would have been payable if this Act had not been passed.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLES—
§
To move the following Clause:—
The Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall pay, out of the proceeds of the estate duty, to the representatives of any person subject to military or naval law, who has died while on active service since the eleventh day of October, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine.
THE CHAIRMANThe next Amendment on the Paper is covered by a clause inserted in place of Clause 8 struck out of the Bill. The last Amendment, which is in the name of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, is outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore out of order.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI submit to you, Sir, most respectfully that my Amendment, which among other things proposes to amend the law, comes within the terms of the resolution to that effect in the Committee upon which this Bill was founded. It has been an unbroken rule on the Finance Bill to allow general Amendments to be moved to the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue. If we refer to the ruling of Mr. Speaker on the 23rd of May, 1895*, we find that he used these words—
It was true that the land tax and the estate duty were not taxes which were levied by virtue of the Finance Bill, but there was a long series of precedents which showed that in Customs and Inland Revenue Bills reductions of taxes which were not levied actually by virtue of the Bill might be opposed in Committee on the Bill. The Bill, it was to be observed, was founded on Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means, one of which contained the words 'it is expedient to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue.' The presence of those words had been held to cover general Amendments to the Finance Bill.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I am perfectly familiar with that ruling; but the hon. Gentleman has not convinced me that the proposed Amendment is in order.
§ Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 229; Noes, 28. (Division List No. 92.)
§
*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth-Series], Vol. xxxiv., page 127.
| AYES. | ||
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Bainbridge, Emerson | Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r | Beckett, Ernest William |
| Arnold, Alfred | Banbury, Frederick George | Bethell, Commander |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Barlow, John Emmott | Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Barry, Rt Hn AHSmith-(Hunts | Blundell, Colonel Henry |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Bartley, George C. T. | Bolton, Thomas Dolling |
| Bond, Edward | Green, Walford D (Wednesbury | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Greville, Hon Ronald | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Gurdon, Sir William Brampton | Oldroyd, Mark |
| Brassey, Albert | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Brigg, John | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George | Palmer, George Wm. (Reading |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Burns, John | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n |
| Butcher, John George | Hardy, Laurence | Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Hare Thomas Leigh | Perks, Robert William |
| Caldwell, James | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Heath, James | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Carlile, William Walter | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Piatt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Henderson, Alexander | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Hobhouse, Henry | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Holland, William Henry | Purvis, Robert |
| Charrington, Spencer | Horniman, Frederick John | Rankin, Sir James |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Howard, Joseph | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) |
| Colomb, Sir John C. Ready | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Colville, John | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Ridley, Rt. Hn Sir Matthew W. |
| Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Joicey, Sir James | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney |
| Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. | Jones, William (Carnarvon) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge | Kearley, Hudson E. | Round, James |
| Cross, Alex. (Glasgow) | Kenyon, James | Runciman, Walter |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Curzon, Viscount | Keswick, William | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kimber, Henry | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Denny, Colonel | Knowles, Lees | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Dewar, Arthur | Lafone, Alfred | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Langley, Batty | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield | Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn | Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Donkin, Richard Sim | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Doughty, George | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Strauss, Arthur |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Leng, Sir John | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Duckworth, James | Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray |
| Emmott, Alfred | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Lough, Thomas | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Finch, George H. | Lowe, Francis William | Wason, Eugene |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lowles, John | Webster, Sir Richard E. |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n |
| Fison, Frederick William | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Macdona, John Cumming | Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| Flower, Ernest | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.) |
| Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W. | Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk) |
| Foster. Sir Walter, (Derby Co.) | M'Killop, James | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Fry, Lewis | Maddison, Fred. | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks) |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Gedge, Sydney | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'sf'd |
| Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Woods, Samuel |
| Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Wrightson, Thomas |
| Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Milward, Colonel Victor | Wylie, Alexander |
| Gilliat, John Saunders | Monckton, Edward Philip | Wyndham, George |
| Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John | Monk, Charles James | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Golds worthy, Major-General | Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport) | |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher. |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute | |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Channing, Francis Alliston | Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Crean, Eugene | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Cawley, Frederick | Crilly, Daniel | Dillon, John |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lloyd-George, David | Samuel, J. Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macaleese, Daniel | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Dermott, Patrick | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Ghee, Richard | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- | Pinkerton, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Daly and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Hogan, James Francis | Power, Patrick Joseph | |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | Redmond, William (Clare) | |
| Kilbride, Denis | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Banbury, Frederick George |
| Arnold, Alfred | Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness | Barlow, John Emmott |
| Asher, Alexander | Bainbridge, Emerson | Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington) |
| Beach, Rt Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Perks, Robert William |
| Bethell, Commander | Griffith, Ellis J. | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Billson, Alfred | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bond, Edward | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Hardy, Laurence | Price, Robert John |
| Brassey, Albert | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Purvis, Robert |
| Butcher, John George | Heath, James | |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. | Rankin, Sir James |
| Caldwell, James | Henderson, Alexander | Rickitt, Harold James |
| Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Carlile, William Walter | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. | Hobhouse, Henry | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) | Holland, William Henry | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Horniman, Frederick John | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Howard, Joseph | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Charrington, Spencer | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Round, James |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Runciman, Walter |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Joicey, Sir James | |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Colville, John | Kearley, Hudson E. | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth) | Kenyon, James | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Corn wall is Fiennes Stanley W | Keswick, William | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Kimber, Henry | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Knowles, Lees | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Lafone, Alfred | Smith, James P. (Lanarks) |
| Curzon, Viscount | Langley, Batty | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn | Steadman, William Charles |
| Denny, Colonel | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart |
| Dewar, Arthur | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Strauss, Arthur |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Dilke, Right Hon. Sir Charles | Leng, Sir John | |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swan.) | Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr) |
| Doughty, George | Lock wood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (L'pool) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | |
| Doxford, Sir William T. | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Duckworth, James | Lough, Thomas | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Lowe, Francis William | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Emmott, Alfred | Lowles, John | Wason, Eugene |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Webster, Sir Richard E. |
| Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Ta'nt'n |
| Finch, George H. | Macdona, John Cumming | Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool) | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Fison, Frederick William | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W) | Williams, Joseph P.- (Birm.) |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | M'Killop, James | Wilson, Frederick W. (Norf'k |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flower, Ernest | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Fry, Lewis | Milward, Colonel Victor | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hnddersf. |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Monckton, Edward Philip | Woods, Samuel |
| Gedge, Sydney | Monk, Charles James | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Gibbons, J. Lloyd | More, Robert Jasper (Shrops. | Wrightson, Thomas |
| Gibbs, Hn A G H (City of Lond.) | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Gibbs. Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Cray C. | Wyndham, George |
| Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Gilliat, John Saunders | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Newdigate, Francis Alex. | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Goldsworthy, Major-General | Oldroyd, Mark | |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher. |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading) | |
| Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Dillon, John | M'Ghee, Richard |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Doogan, P. C. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Bowles, T Gibson (King sLynn | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Pinkerton, John |
| Burns, John | Flynn, James Christopher | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hayden, John Patrick | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hogan, James Francis | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Crean, Eugene | Jordan, Jeremiah | |
| Crilly, Daniel | Kilbride, Denis | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Macaleese, Daniel | |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | |
| Daly, James | McDermott, Patrick |
§ Bill reported, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]