§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and two, sums not exceeding sixty million pounds may be raised by all or any of the following methods:—
- (a) by means of the creation of two and three-quarter per cent. Consolidated Stock within the meaning of the National Debt Conversion Act, 1888; or
- (b) by means of the issue of further War Stock or War Bonds under the War Loan Act, 1900; or
- (c) by means of the issue of Treasury Bills; or
- (d) by means of the issue of Exchequer Bonds;
§ That all expenses incurred in connection with raising the said sums, including any additional remuneration to the Banks of England and Ireland, be charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)reminded the House that when the Vote of £10,000,000 was asked for last session he opposed it, on the grounds that the amount was totally insufficient, and that it was impossible accurately to forecast the amount of money which would be required. The views he then expressed had been borne out by what had occurred, and Ireland had the same objection to sharing the fresh burdens now proposed as on the former occasion. In addition to the war expenditure the Estimates were characterised by enormous extravagance in almost every Department of State. If a Member criticised any portion of the Government's proposals he was looked upon as an enemy of the country, with the result that the expenditure progressed with fearful rapidity. This absolute want of economy had brought about a position that the National Debt amounted to £687,797,000, an amount larger than the National Debt of any other civilised State. It was a mistaken financial system to draw cheques on posterity in order to gratify the desires of certain individuals who desired to make war on unoffending nations. The annual expenditure was now £187,000,000, and a larger expenditure was incurred in regard to the Army and Navy than in France and Germany. The imperial taxation had almost reached the limits which the people could bear. The only security for the enormous National Debt was Great Britain's commercial supremacy. It would therefore be necessary to take those facts into consideration. He held the opinion that England was living upon its capital. The imports 832 were enormously increasing, and the supremacy of Great Britain as a commercial nation was gradually vanishing, and owing to the peculiar system of taxation the foreigner selling goods in this country paid nothing towards this enormous amount of £187,000,000, the burden of which fell mainly upon the native producer. He did not propose to discuss at any great length free trade, fair trade, or protection, but would ask the attention of the House to the points most germane to the question. The Government did not appear to know their own mind, and were pursuing a zig-zag policy to obtain the end they had in view. Whilst on the one hand there was an import duty levied on sugar, on the other there was an export duty to be levied on coal. So far as he individually was concerned, he was opposed to export duties altogether. He was a free trader, but the policy of England was free imports not free trade, and therefore he maintained there ought to be a reasonable duty put upon all manufactured articles coming into this country.
England had been prosperous in spite of free trade. In principle he was a free trader, but in theory and practice there was sometimes a very wide divergence, and what was called free trade in this country was not in reality free trade. He reiterated it was a policy of free imports, and the result, he maintained, was to lessen employment at home and destroy native agriculture. If Cobden and Bright and those who advocated free trade for this country could return to the scene of their labours, they would not recognise the policy which was called by their name. The Government taxed many imported articles, and the articles most heavily taxed were those consumed by the poor. A resolution had been passed to tax sugar. Why not put a moderate import duty on butter, and enable home producers to give work to labourers? The result of allowing the free importation of flour, so far as Ireland was concerned, was that there was not a river in the country capable at the present time of running a mill profitably, and no doubt the same statement was equally true with regard to England. Why not give the millers and farmers and labourers a chance against the foreigner who neither contributes 833 to rent, rates, revenue, nor employment. The cost of production had been so lowered that foreign manufactured goods were being sold at less money than they could be produced in Ireland, which must necessarily do away with a considerable amount of the labour of the country. Goods made in German prisons were brought over and sold in open competition with articles made by free labour, and some effort should be made to keep convict-made goods in their own nation.
As the imports were increasing and the exports decreasing, the land was being allowed to go to waste. The National Debt and the expenditure of the country was enormously increasing, whilst at the same time the employment in the country was decreasing, and the commercial supremacy of England gradually vanishing. Where was the security for the National Debt? Where was this enormous annual charge of £187,000,000 to come from in future? The position of this country was that if foreign supplies of food were stopped it would be starved in between, three and six weeks. Was that a satisfactory state of affairs? Commercial supremacy had kept up this country, but that state of things was changing. There was a time when America, imported into this country raw material; they now sent in the manufactured article, and beat you in your own markets. Liverpool got its electric plant from Germany, whilst Glasgow, the greatest iron manufacturing district in Great Britain, had lately been importing steel rails from America. The American manufacturers were absorbing nearly all your foreign markets. Where was it going to end? The Manchester school of thought, which looked upon anything like an attack upon free trade as a sort of commercial suicide, may cry out, but the fact remained that the colonies were protected against the Mother Country. They had been obliged to protect themselves; it was the only way they had to raise revenue. Yet so-called free-traders could not see that every country in the world was banded against it. According to the views of English economists, it should not have been possible for America and Germany to progress and prosper under protection; but the Americans had changed the 834 character of their exports from raw material to manufactured goods, and at the same time immensely increased the exports, whilst diminishing their imports. He did not advocate protection in the rigid sense of the word, but he would advocate that upon all manufactured articles a moderate duty should be paid. It appeared to him that nobody had the courage to face the problem. Foreigners were not only allowed to import into this country articles free of duty, but they were actually protected by preferential railway rates. Some time ago the rate per ton for the carriage of native meat on the London, and North Western Railway was 50s., whilst the rate for foreign meat was 25s., so that practically foreign meat was bounty-fed, so jar as the London and North Western Railway was concerned, to the extent of 25s. a ton. The same state of things existed with regard to foreign imports at the present time on all the railways in the three kingdoms. These great private monopolies, aided by the State, actually gave a bounty to foreigners to bring their goods to the markets which should belong to the producers of this country. In Germany the State railways had realised a profit of £23,200,000, which was applied to the reduction of taxation in Germany. In New Zealand, where the colony also owned the railways, they made a profit on the railways of no less than £2,500,000. This was not the only advantage derived by the colonies and countries like Germany, where the State owned the railways; there was not only the advantage of low rates and the profit and the reduction of taxation, but also the fact that there was a realisable asset as security for the, National Debt, which England did not possess. The policy of this Parliament seemed to be to place power in the hands of these great carrying companies, who controlled the House of Commons, and through them the country, and he hoped the views he expressed would receive consideration.
In conclusion, he would say it was a wrong system to pay our debts by drawing cheques upon posterity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not like the idea of war loans, and, if he could have managed it financially, would have infinitely preferred to have met the expenditure as it came along out of 835 income; but if the, extraordinary extravagance of expenditure was to be allowed to continue, and private Members were to be closured and prevented from discussing the Estimates, then they had arrived at a condition of things when all financial business was to be engineered by the Front Bench, and when wholesome agitation and criticism from the House would enable the right hon. Gentleman to exercise a certain amount of control over the Treasury with regard to what was called national expenditure. It was for such reasons that he had criticised the proposal to obtain this money by means of a war loan. He did not propose to enter into the protest of the shipping interest regarding the coal tax, which he thought would create grave cause of complaint in Ireland against the Mercantile Marine, because the Mercantile Marine was protected by the British Navy, to which Ireland had to contribute far more than its share, and the business of the Mercantile Marine was to collect and carry produce from all parts of the world and bring it over at cheap rates to British markets in competition with Irish produce. He had no desire to see the price of food raised, but Ireland could not live out of the profits of English manufacture. Englishmen could not live out of the profits of manufacture, but must have a certain amount of agriculture. The burden of taxation ought to be put upon the shoulders of those who were best able to bear it, and foreign manufactured articles ought to take their share. He could not vote for the war loan. He felt, as an Irishman, that they were obliged to pay a far larger amount of money than their share of the taxation which would be levied in various directions, and he suggested that some arrangements ought to be made to lessen the burdens so far as Ireland was concerned. He drew attention to the fact that the income tax was originally only to be levied in certain parts of Ireland for a certain period, and that it was a very exceptional tax, and it would be an act of simple justice on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would arrange that an amount equal to that levied through income tax in Ireland should be returned to that country in the shape of grants for reproductive purposes.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)I am not quite sure that the House would be entirely prudent in leaving to the Chancellor of the Exchequer such a large choice with regard to the manner in which the loan is to be raised. The first method proposed is by means of the creation of Two-and-Three-Quarter per Cent. Consolidated Stock within the meaning of the National Debt Conversion Act, 1888. I do not know what price the Chancellor of the Exchequer will obtain for sixty millions of 2½ per cent. Consols; it may possibly only be 91 or 92.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESAn hon. Member says 89; that surely would not be a very profitable bargain. The other methods are by means of the issue of further war stock or war bonds under the War Loan Act, 1900; or (c) by means of the issue of Treasury Bills; or (d) by means of the issue of Exchequer Bonds; and that the principal of and interest on any sum so raised be charged on the Consolidated Fund. I am not convinced that the right hon. Gentleman would be perfect in his choice of method which all these opportunities open to him. Great complaint was made of his manner of dealing with the last loan without adequate notice, and his selection of American financiers, and at the time of the Greek loan, secured by France, Russia, and this country, the right hon. Gentleman so contrived that English contributors to the loan paid 1 per cent. more for their contributions than either the French or Russian contributors. Now I come to the Budget. This is the most appalling Budget I have ever seen. I do not say so by way of blame; it was inevitable. It is appalling not only on account of the enormous amount but also on account of the entire absence of any promise or probability of any reduction next year or any succeeding year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confesses to an expenditure of £187,000,000, but that is not the whole of the expenditure. It is one of my complaints that our public accounts are deliberately falsified and that people are deceived, and I am obliged to correct the right hon. Gentleman. 837 The Chancellor of the Exchequer puts the Exchequer expenditure at £187,600,000, but to that sum we must add the nine or ten millions which the right hon. Gentleman intercepts for local purposes, and also the eight or nine millions of appropriations in aid. That eighteen millions is part of the national expenditure, though it is concealed by the form in which the accounts are kept, and brings the Exchequer expenditure up to £205,000,000. But apart from that there is the local expenditure, which is at least £100,000,000, so that in the coming year the total expenditure will be £300,000,000. The National Debt is stated to have been increased by £59,000,000, and now stands at £688,000,000; but that is not all, there is a further sum of £14,700,000 which the right hon. Gentleman describes as re-productive moneys, so that the National Debt has actually been increased to £702,000,000. That, added to the local debt, which is certainly not less than £300,000,000, makes the total debt of this country £1,000,000,000. These figures are appalling and point to a most alarming prospect, to a state of things which will be extremely difficult for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to handle. At the present time it has been a very difficult matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is far from diminishing the gravity of the facts he laid before the House last night; in fact he had a tendency to exaggerate rather than to diminish the gravity of the situation. I was struck by the tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than by his remarks. He seemed to have come to the House for the purpose of washing his hands of his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman says that his colleagues are to blame for all this, but I am not quite so sure of that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not entirely without blame, for he must share the responsibility. From the year 1895 to 1899 there was a swelling revenue, and we had surpluses every year. But from 1899 up to the present time it has been a very different story indeed. It is Pharaoh's dream over again. In the years of prosperity the right hon. Gentleman squandered the surpluses that he had, and he would not allow scarcely a farthing to go towards the reduction of the debt. There 838 was nobody to whom he would not give a, million, and he was a most extravagant Chancellor of the Exchequer. He not only squandered all the surpluses, but he also laid hands upon the Sinking Fund, a thing which shocked every sound financier. Therefore it could not be said that he was entirely without blame in the matter. It is like the case of the seven well favoured fat fleshed kine and the seven ill favoured lean fleshed kine in Pharaoh's dream. But Pharaoh has awoke, and the prospect is that which the right hon. Gentleman has placed before the House with such great courage, candour, self-denial and readiness. I have never been an absolutely unqualified admirer of the finance of the right hon. Gentleman. I think that when he has in any way departed from the lessons of the great masters of finance he has followed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, and whenever he has done things out of his own head he has often been on the verge of failure. I think he was on the verge of failure when he removed the tobacco duty, a step which he said would bring in a golden harvest, but which he afterwards admitted brought in no harvest at all. He was mistaken also with regard to the Greek Loan. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has the courage of his opinions, and he is not afraid to profess and openly avow to the full extent every proposal that he makes. I for one was sorry to note a sort of tone about him last night as though he was looking forward to defeat upon his Budget, and to a removal of himself from his present sphere of usefulness. Of course the first reason that occurs to one to account for this appalling Budget is the war; but that is not the only reason. Even what the right hon. Gentleman calls the normal expenditure has so increased that he was obliged to say last night that, even apart from the war, he would not be able to give us any remission of taxation.
Putting that aside, I come to the war. I think that in the history of English Government there never has been such a series of miscalculations and falsified promises as those which have arisen in connection with this war. We look to the English Government, who are supposed to be in possession of full and secret information of all sorts from 839 all over the field, for the formation and announcement to us of an adequate opinion as to the probable extent and cost of any undertaking in which they are about to engage. We also look to the Government for proper and adequate financial provision for such undertakings. The Government bad full information with regard to this war. It is not disputed that their Intelligence Department had provided them with absolutely correct information as to the whole of the Boer armaments, and as to their preparations for war, but the Government failed to comprehend that information. This reminds me of the wise man who said—
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom, but with all thy getting get understanding.The Government had the wisdom but not the understanding. They knew the facts, but they were incapable of appreciating them. The result is that in consequence we have to face this enormous Budget. From the very beginning there was, and even up to yesterday there has been, a most extraordinary and a most noticeable optimism on the part of Her Majesty's Government as to the duration and the conduct of the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, up to yesterday, always telling us that the war was going to end before the next time he had to face the House of Commons. He was always explaining to us that his financial demands, which might appear heavy, were purely temporary, and he was always telling us that he would get a large share of the expense out of the Transvaal. In September last the right hon. Gentleman believed that the war was entirely over, that we were in possession of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and that we had obtained possession of them at the cheapest rate ever heard of in history. He made a speech to his constituents in Bristol to that effect. He said on the 29th of September last year—If they considered that from small increases in taxation the country had been able to bring to a conclusion one of the greatest wars—perhaps the greatest war—in which it had been engaged since the early part of the century, he thought they would be satisfied that the Government had not extravagantly wasted the resources of the country…. We had added a territory of vast value to the 840 Empire without imposing on it a greater burden than it could bear. He believed that with a fair field and no favour English manufactures could beat the world, and it was in that belief and looking to the union it had brought about between them and their great colonial possessions he felt that even the war in South Africa would prove in the end to be a blessing to their country.I am only quoting this to show that the right hon. Gentleman on the 29th of September last believed that the war was ended, and shared the extraordinary optimism which His Majesty's Government has shown in regard to it. I have not shared that optimism from the beginning. On the 27th of October, 1899, I warned the House that this would be one of the most unexampled conflicts for its importance and seriousness within living memory. I warned the House that we should have disasters and reverses. I told the House that we were dealing with courageous and capable adversaries, and that the House must be prepared for a long war. I know that I was rebuked at the time by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield and the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, and I was told that I was uttering ridiculous non-sense. When I found the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 29th of September declaring that the war was ended, and that we had annexed these two States at a very cheap rate, I began to think that I had been a false prophet. I told my constituents what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the war was ended, and I got elected. [Opposition cheers.] Alas! it was not myself who was the false prophet, but the false prophet was a person in a higher position than myself. Even now, many months after the 29th of September last, we find Sir Alfred Milner, in February last, saying that he can foresee no definite point of time at which we can consider peace in sight, and he even declares that during the last six months things have retrogressed. So that even at this moment, long after the 29th of September, when the General Election has long been passed and a new Cabinet has been formed, mainly consisting of the ablest family in the country, we are still as far off as ever from any ability to name 841 the precise moment when we shall be able to say to ourselves in truth what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to his constituents in September last, that the war in South Africa is over. But if the military authorities miscalculated the military aspect of the war, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer must take to himself no small amount of blame for having so seriously miscalculated the financial aspects of the problem. He has never ceased to tell us that he expected to get a large amount towards the war from the Transvaal. He began to tell us that in October, 1899, at the time I was warning the House that the war would be a long and costly one. He told us that he meant to get a large proportion, or at least a considerable portion of the cost, from the Transvaal, and if possible the whole of it. On the 6th of March he said—I look for the cost of the war first to the Transvaal, and then I look to the other sources of revenue which I have named.I did not even then share his view of the financial possibility of getting money out of the Transvaal, and I ventured then to tell him that he would never get anything at all unless he got it as voluntary contributions from the mines. Therefore it will be seen that in 1900 the right hon. Gentleman believed we should get a substantial contribution from the Transvaal to the cost of the war; but in 1901, after having sent out an expert to obtain evidence as to the precise amount of this financial contribution, he presents to us now a picture of a ruined country and a bankrupt people. He says to-day that it is a hopeless case, and all he has to say about this substantial contribution, upon which he based his system of finance, is, "We will keep alive our claim"—a claim against a ruined country and a bankrupt people. Is it not childish? I think in this part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman showed a little want of that candour and courage which he displayed when he was dealing with the shortcomings of the rest of his colleagues.Now I come to the specific proposals of this Budget. First of all I will take the income tax. My belief is that there is no tax in the world so good as the income tax, if it is levied equally and fairly all 842 round. Let no man tell me that the working man would not cheerfully pay his share of the income tax. I am convinced that the working man is as ready to pay income tax as any man in this country, and more ready to pay any tax that he is persuaded is required by his country, whether a tax of money or of blood. But you must not surround the tax with such conditions as obtain at the present time. The same sum which is produced by an income tax of 1s. would be produced by an income tax of 4d., if instead of only taxing equally all incomes over £700, as you do now, and granting abatements and total exemption to the rest, you were, to tax the whole of them equally, and devise a simple and convenient method of collection of the smaller sums. My belief is that this is not beyond the possibility of achievement by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. At present you charge incomes over £700 1s. 2d. in the £, because you think that other people would not be willing to pay an income tax of 3d. or 4d. in the £. I do not believe this. I believe that if you will make the payment easy to the working man he would be ready to contribute towards any reasonable object, and I believe he would be perfectly ready to contribute towards the war in South Africa, and to pay his 3d. or 4d. in the £ as willingly as anybody else. I think this is the true doctrine of fiscality, that your object should be, not to get large sums from a small number of people over a small area, but you should base your finances upon a system of getting a large, number of small contributions from a large number of people spread over a large area, by simple methods. This is the true method, and it is the method which you already pursue in the Post Office, There it is your penny stamp that produces the enormous revenue of £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 without any danger or trouble to anybody. I commend that process to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I believe it to be the true one, and in future I hope he will try, not to levy large contributions upon a small number of people, but seek more to levy small contributions upon a larger number. So long as this tax is so unequally levied, and abatements and exemptions are allowed, so long as you impose this tax in this way, I think it 843 imprudent, and it is bad finance, to add to the tax itself, while leaving its incidence so partial and unequal. The average income-tax payer is indeed not a person who will openly complain, and the burden of the income tax will be more or less silently borne; but it will not be borne without resentment, which may, upon some future occasion, transform itself into open hostility to the Government. I come now to the sugar duty. There I see a more dangerous experiment. I do not understand what polarisation means. We have had no explanation of it. I do not understand what is to be ascertained by the instrument. Is it the essential part of sugar, which I believe is called sucrose? [An HON. MEMBER: "Glucose."] No, I believe the essential part is called sucrose. Saccharin is a different thing, which makes you think you are taking sugar. I do not understand what polarisation is intended to ascertain. Is it intended to ascertain the amount of the essential part of sugar which I have called sucrose, just as we ascertain the amount of alcohol in wine and spirits? It appears to be an incomplete method, but I pass that for the moment, and what I come to is this—the price of the lowest quality of sugar in this country at present is, I believe, 1¼d. Now that same sugar is imported from Hamburg, and at Hamburg it costs about 3d. The difference between the 3d. and the 1¼d. is paid for us in the shape of a bounty by the foreign country, and thus we get cheap sugar at the cost of the foreign taxpayer. We pay 1¼d. and he pays the other 1¾d., and it is in consequence of the great influx of cheap sugar that a considerable number of important new industries have grown up, and are still growing up in this country. We must all have observed the great increase in confectionery and sweetmeats, but what we may not have observed is that the British manufacturer of preserved fruits is positively driving the native out of the market in places like Germany, Spain, and France, and the reason is the extra-ordinary cheapness of sugar here. Now mark the result. You are going to put, broadly speaking, ½d. per pound on sugar. Don't you think that foreign countries, who have been intending for some time to alter the bounty system, will take this opportunity of getting rid of their bounties— 844 in other words, of depriving our sugar of the contribution of 1¾d. per pound which they now make? They have now, I think, the opportunity of doing a bad turn to England, and it is extremely likely that the imposition of this ½d. per pound may lead to the 1¾d. bounty being abandoned by the foreign country. If so, the result will be that our sugar, instead of being 1¼d. per pound, will be 3½d. per pound. That would be sufficient to kill the whole of these young industries. They are vigorous and enterprising industries, which have sprung up owing to the cheapness of sugar. They are young, and they will fight, and let the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe what I say—they will not have their trade destroyed, as it may be, or injured, as it surely will be by the tax, without a struggle. I am warning the Chancellor of the Exchequer to expect opposition. I have myself received strenuous representations begging me to oppose the duty on sugar, and although I am accustomed to do what I think right without much regard to representations from outside, I am free to say it does add to the difficulty I have in voting for the sugar resolution of the Government.
I have only one thing more to say, and that is in regard to the proposed export duty of 1s. per ton on coal. That, I think, is the most important, and I venture to say the most unfortunate proposal of the whole Budget. Will the House bear with me while I read a statement on export duties in general by one of the best of the economic writers—I mean Dr. Bastable. There is no doubt that an export duty is a relic of barbarism. There is no kind of duty that so dislocates trade, introduces such confusion into the operations of commerce, or is so extremely doubtful in its effects in the incidence of the duty and the damage caused. Dr. Bastable says—
As employed in mediaeval times"—It is astonishing how the mediæval argument resembles the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman last night—As employed in mediaeval times it was intended partly to tax those foreigners who used the staple product of the country, and partly as an impost on the producers or owners of natural agents. It is evident that the incidence of the tax will vary according to the 845 position of the article taxed. That the home traders will try to raise the price is certain, but their success in this endeavour will depend on (1) the extent to which outside competition is possible, and (2) the need that foreigners have for the article. Where several sources of supply exist the effect of taxing one will be to turn demand to the others, and where increased price checks demand it tends to bring about a fall. Thus it may be said, that in most cases the export duty is chiefly paid by the country that imposes it. Unless the country has a complete monopoly of the product, and the foreign demand remains unaffected by a rise of price, the whole burden cannot be transferred to the consumers. This case is, it need not be said, rarely found, but an approximation to it will partly pass the tax to the foreign consumers. Still, as a practical result, the bulk of the duty falls immediately on the producers of the taxed product, though it might be shifted by them to the owners of land, skilled labour, or fixed capital concerned in the business. A large number of export duties might even by diminishing foreign trade lower the rates of wages and interest generally.It is always the producer concerned in the business who has to suffer, according to Dr. Bastable, and I entirely agree with him. I believe there is no duty more mischievous in its indirect effects than an export duty. You have to double the task of the preventive staff. They have to look after not only what comes into the country, but what goes out. It changes the character of your preventive service in respect that it doubles the aspect. Now as to this coal tax. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to except bunker coal. What is bunker coal? According to the view of the trade, bunker coal usually is intended to mean coal carried in bunkers for the use of the ship; but that is not the view the right hon. Gentleman takes. But how is the amount of bunker coal a ship is to carry to be fixed? How is bunker coal to be defined? I have never seen nor heard any definition that would include bunker coal and exclude all other coal. There is another question I want to ask. Is the duty to be levied on coal shipped in one English port to be delivered in another English port? [Sir M. HICKS BEACH shook his head.] I presumed it would not. I am right there. Is it to be levied on coal shipped at an English port for an English possession. [Sir M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.] It is well to observe the result. A foreign ship takes bunker coal at Cardiff and pays nothing on that coal, but an English 846 ship goes for coals at Malta and pays 1s. per ton on that coal. You give an advantage to foreign ships bunkering in England. You give them an advantage over the native. If the duty is to be levied on the coal you send from an English port to a British possession, it is certainly a very new departure indeed. The Secretary for the Colonies, whose absence during this interesting discussion I much deplore, proposed to give the colonies special advantages by customs and fiscal regulations, and he even suggested entering into an Imperial Zoll-vereiu, with a view to a closer connection with them. This tax places the colonies at a greater disadvantage, and tends rather to disunion than to union.In the case of the Sugar Tax, what we are to look to is the essential thing, namely, the sucrose. I will use that term while waiting for another from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the case of coal it is coal you are going to tax, but it takes three tons of coal to make a ton of iron, and consequently when you are exporting a ton of iron you are exporting three tons of coal. I know that is refining the argument, but what is good for one product in the way of taxing the essential thing is, I submit, good for another. But that is not my real and main objection. I will take one example. This tax, I think, will act most prejudicially in the case of certain places abroad. Gibraltar is one of the most important of our mercantile coaling stations. It supplies from 500,000 to 600,000 tons of coal to merchant ships in the year. The competition is very keen indeed between the coaling stations at Algiers and Gibraltar. Sometimes Algiers gets the upper hand, as in 1893, when the amount supplied at Gibraltar fell to 300,000 because of the competition. So great importance does the Government attach to the coaling at Gibraltar that in the year 1895–6 they agreed to spend £700,000 on the creation of a coaling mole, of which the Gibraltar merchants are to pay out of the profits of the coal trade £400,000. If you are going to put 1s. per ton on the coal that goes to Gibraltar, and if Gibraltar continues to use 500,000 tons per annum, you are putting a very large tax on Gibraltar. If you are going 847 to put a tax on Gibraltar coal and expose it to the keener competition of Algiers, you may increase the price of coal at Gibraltar, and ruin the coal trade there altogether, rendering it impossible for the coal merchants to pay the £400,000, and you may find that you have expended £700,000 without any prospect of getting the £400,000 you expect in diminution of the amount. If it is thus at Gibraltar I think it probably may be the same in other cases. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
This coal is exported, as I have shown, mainly to ports in Europe and the Mediterranean. They are short voyages, If the merchant chooses he can devote more bunker-space in his ship to coal and less to his cargo, and escape the duty altogether.But the shipowner only carries coal for the sake of carrying cargo, and to say that he may escape the tax by carrying more coal and less cargo is like saying that if a bird had more wings and less stomach it would be very much lighter. But merchants and shipowners cannot be dealt with as if they were Cherubim and Seraphim. If they want wings to fly with, they also want something to sit down upon. I cannot imagine where the Chancellor of the Exchequer got the notion. But he has suggested one still more amusing fallacy as regards coal. He said—I think the law should he framed so as to enable a person who had made a contract here to break his contract, unless the person with whom he made the contract abroad were willing to pay the 1s. duty. That is the effect of the action of the Act of last year, but practically the duty has to be added to the price agreed upon, so the person who might take the delivery of the coal would not pay out of his own pocket.I really think that a doctrine of that kind, coming from a Chancellor of the Exchequer, was never heard of in this House before. If you have made a contract for coal with a foreigner you are to break the contract unless the foreigner will agree to pay the extra shilling per ton which it has pleased the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose on coal—an amazing and impossible doctrine. I think he can scarcely have considered what he said at that moment, and I am quite sure that on reconsidering it he will see that is a 848 kind of doctrine that cannot be acted upon. It would be entirely idle to put such a clause in an Act of Parliament. Now, the whole effect of what I have been saying comes to this. I do earnestly beg and implore His Majesty's Government to drop this duty on coal. I believe if they adhere to it, it will get them into serious trouble at home, and the reason I urge so strenuously that they should abandon it is really largely this—in my opinion, it is of the greatest importance that this Government should stay in office until the war is over. It has no right to imperil its own existence. It appealed to the country to give it a majority to finish the war, and whatever its difficulty may be, and whatever differences may be found within its own ranks, it cannot abdicate its position. The reason it cannot abdicate its position is because there is nothing over there (pointing to the Front Opposition Bench). I should not feel all the anxiety I do, nor express with so much earnestness my desire to maintain the precious life of His Majesty's Government, were it not that I see no alternative Government in esse or in posse, and scarcely the chief of a possible Government. Therefore, I look with the greatest possible apprehension on the situation, knowing that His Majesty's Government may be diminishing their popularity and diminishing their support in large portions of the coal mining districts, and possibly imperilling their existence, because I do feel that after this Government we shall be in the presence of something like political chaos. It is for this reason that I have risen to make these remarks, which were longer than I intended. I thank the House for listening to me. I do earnestly beg His Majesty's Government not to invite danger, not to invite disaffection and loss of seats, small majorities, and all those accidents which are the preludes to the dissolution of a Government, by persisting in the coal tax, which is newfangled and mischievous, and which cannot fail injuriously to affect the industry of the country.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said that as one who had strenuously and consistently opposed the war, not only after it commenced, but in 849 anticipation of it, he was able to look with a considerable amount of equanimity at the consternation exhibited by hon. Members on the other side who strenuously supported the Government and egged them on to the war. Now, when they are asked to pay for the war they begin to whine of the danger to their seats. They ought to have considered that before they egged the Government on to the disastrous course they entered upon. Instead of weakening the hands of the Government in imposing taxation to pay for the war, those who supported the war ought to strengthen the hands of the Government. Those who opposed it were entitled to oppose all payment for it; they were not responsible for the war; but those who were responsible were under an honourable obligation to support the Government, at the cost of popularity and their seats, in getting them out of the mess they had entered upon. The taxation of industries was always an unpopular measure, and it was always an undesirable measure, but if large expenditure was incurred it was always an unavoidable measure. But if they taxed industries they ought to find a method by which the burden would be universally and not locally felt. That was the strong objection to the coal duty in its present shape. If the duty was confined solely to the coal exported the burden would fall unequally. There were some coalfields whose output was almost entirely exported, while there were others that exported practically none. Those districts producing coal
§ for export would be heavily taxed, and other districts not less responsible for the war would escape altogether. He would prefer that the tax should be made not an export duty but an Excise duty of 1s. per ton on all the coal produced in the country. It would then fall on the coal consumers, and that would be the entire country. Every householder—with the exception possibly of the very poorest class, who ought to be exempted, he meant the Crofters of the Highlands and Wales and the peat burners of Ireland—would feel the imposition of an Excise duty on coal. He entirely agreed with the view expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the working classes ought to be made to feel the burden of this war as well as any other class. They might be the victims of misrepresentation, like other parties, but they willingly fell into it, and they were as intollerant as any in not permitting a contrary expression of opinion to what they felt. He would like to draw the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to a further point.
§ This observation excited some laughter, as the Treasury Bench was at the time entirely deserted. The, hon. Member then moved to report progress.
§ Motion made, and Question put. "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 127; Noes, 171. [Division List No. 132.]
853| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Colville, John | Furness, Sir Christopher |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Gilhooly, James |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud | Craig, Robert Hunter | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Cremer, William Randal | Grant, Corrie |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Cullinan, J. | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Daly, James | Hammond, John |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bell, Richard | Delany, William | Harmsworth, R. Leicester |
| Boland, John | Dillon, John | Harwood, George |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Donelan, Captain A. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Burt, Thomas | Doogan, P. C. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- |
| Buxton, Sidney Charles | Duffy, William J. | Healy, Timothy Michael |
| Caldwell, James | Duncan, J. Hastings | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Dunn, Sir William | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Emmott, Alfred | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Holland, William Henry |
| Cawley, Frederick | Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) | Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Farrell, James Patrick | Joicey, Sir James |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Field, William | Jordan, Jeremiah |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Joyce, Michael |
| Kennedy, Patrick James | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Labouchere, Henry | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Lambert, George | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northnts |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Strachey, Edward |
| Leamy, Edmund | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Lough, Thomas | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Thomas, Dav. Alfred (Merthyr |
| Lundon, W. | O'Dowd, John | Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower) |
| MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Thompson, E. C (Monaghan, N. |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N. | Tompkinson, James |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | O'Malley, William | Tully, Jasper |
| M'Arthur, William (Cornwall | O'Mara, James | Ure, Alexander |
| M'Crae, George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| M'Dermott, Patrick | O'Shee, James John | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| M'Govern, T. | Partington, Oswald | White, George (Norfolk) |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Power, Patrick Joseph | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Rea, Russell | White, Patrick (Meath, North |
| Minch, Matthew | Reddy, M. | Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Mooney, John J. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Redmond, William (Clare) | |
| Murnaghan, George | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Murphy, J. | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Mr. Bryn Roberts-and Mr. William Jones. |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Schwann, Charles E. | |
| Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N. | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lawson, John Grant |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham |
| Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden | Duke, Henry Edward | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart | Leighton, Stanley |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S. |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Finch, George H. | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Fisher, William Hayes | Macartney, Rt Hn. W G Ellison. |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose- | Macdona, John Gumming |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Flower, Ernest | M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs. |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol | Gibbs, Hn AG H.(City of London | Malcolm, Ian |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Bigwoud, James | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Bond, Edward | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow. |
| Brassey, Albert | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Graham, Henry Robert | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Brookfield, Col. Montagu | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Depford |
| Bull, William James | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y | Mount, William Arthur |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Butcher, John George | Groves, James Grimble | Muntz, Philip A. |
| Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. | Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Hamilton, Manp of (L'nd'nderry | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc. | Heath Arthur Howard (Hanley) | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Heath, James (Staffords. N. W. | Parker, Gilbert |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Higginbottom, S. W. | Percy, Earl |
| Colomb, Sir John Chas, Ready | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Pilkington, Richard |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Horner, Frederick William | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh. | Purvis, Robert |
| Denny, Colonel | Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) | Randles, John S. |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Remnant, James Farquharson. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) | Renwick, George |
| Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Keswick, William | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (St'lybr'dge |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Law, Andrew Bonar | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T. |
| Doughty, George | Lawrence, William F. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Ropner, Col. Robert | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.) |
| Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W. | Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Rutherford, John | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Stroyan, John | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Valentia, Viscount | Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George |
| Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Warr, Augustus Frederick | Young, Commander (Berks, E. |
| Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wason, John C. (Orkney) | Younger, William |
| Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) | Webb, Col. William George | |
| Smith, H. C. (N'rthb., Tyneside | Whiteley, H (Asht'n-und-Lyne | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) | Sir William Walrond and |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell- (Bir. | Mr. Anstruther. |
| Spear, John Ward | Willox, Sir John Archibald | |
| Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) | Wills, Sir Frederick |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.I am anxious to say that I think the hon. Gentleman opposite was under some misapprehension. I had not the slightest intention of showing any discourtesy to him. I was called out to speak to another hon. Member for one moment, and should have been here in another second.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that he had not moved to report progress owing to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, as he had been listening to the debate most patiently all the time, and he was quite aware that the light hon. Gentleman had gone out of the Chamber for a minute on business. But at this hour of the night, half-past ten o'clock, there ought to be some Member of the Government to represent the Government, and it was because there was no Member of the Government in the House that he moved to report progress. He had been dealing with the question of the coal duty. His contention was that there should be an Excise duty of 1s. per ton rather than an export duty, because then the burden would be felt generally, instead of by only a few coal dealers. An Excise duty of 1s. per ton would bring in no less a sum than eleven millions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The total output of coal last year was 220,000,000 tons, and an Excise duty of 1s. per ton on that amount would, as he had said, yield £11,000,000, which would be felt by the whole country. That was the only principle on which direct taxation should be levied. The only consistent course would be to select for taxation some article of universal consumption, and not confine it to one or 854 two industries of a local character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he would take into consideration the question of existing forward contracts. The hon. Member for King's Lynn suggested that contracts with foreign dealers should be cancelled, but he would point out that these contracts would not be enforced in this country by our courts of law, but would be taken to foreign courts, who would pay no attention whatever to our legislation. It was true that the contracts could not be enforced against property in this country, but they could against the property of the contractors abroad, such as stores and depots. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be absolutely futile. It operated successfully in the case of the tea duties, but it was because the tea was consumed in this country, and, therefore, the persons who took advantage of the breach of contract were subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.
On the general question, the courage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been deservedly recognised, but he could not compliment the right hon. Gentleman without qualification, for while the Chancellor had expounded courageously to the House the true facts of the case, when he came to grapple with the situation which resulted from those facts he did not display equal courage. What was the position? This lamentable war had cost us in round numbers £150,000,000; but did any man in or out of the House believe for a moment that, even if the whole mess was wiped up and the war stopped to-morrow, that sum would cover the whole cost? Why, the cost would be found to be at least £200,000,000. Now, how was that to be met? The Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly said that he would be no party to carrying on a war of this 855 kind and throwing the whole debt on to posterity. He ought to have gone further, and said that he would not throw the principal part of the cost on to posterity. He thought that the whole of the debt ought to be placed on the present generation. On what conceivable ground could it be said that this generation ought not to show as great a patriotic feeling as our fathers did in the days of the Crimean war? The timidity which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown in this respect was not his own timidity, but had been forced upon him by his colleagues, and indicated what was the real opinion of His Majesty's Government as to the popularity of the war. If they really believed in the patriotism of the country in making this war on the small and brave nation of Boers, and that the country thoroughly supported the war, why should they shrink from imposing the chief burden on the people? They shrank because they knew in their hearts that the patriotism was false and spurious, that it was not the better sense of the country, that if the country had time to realise its thoughts it would repudiate with indignation responsibility for the war. Hence the rushing of the elections, and if it had been possible they would have rushed the Budget. Unfortunately for them, the Bill would have to be met after the war was at an end. Only when the people have recovered their senses, and when the worthier portion of the community were able to make their voices heard, would there be seen the appalling disparity between the causes of the war and the consequences of the war. The cause of this war was simply a question of two years for the franchise for the Uitlanders. On what ground could the throwing of the greatest part of the cost of the war on to posterity be justified? It was said it was to maintain the Empire. No, it was not to maintain the Empire; it was to throw the expenditure caused by the blunders of the Government on to the shoulders of posterity. What right had they to throw the punishment of their mistakes on to unborn generations? Did anybody believe for a moment that if Mr. Gladstone had been alive, and if the Liberal party had been in office, and had been actuated and governed by the principles of Liberalism, this war would ever have 856 been undertaken? It would have been impossible. This war and the whole expenditure was due to the blunders of the Government, and the first blunder was the Jameson raid.
* THE CHAIRMANI do not think that the hon. Member is entitled to go into that question in discussing the resolution before the Committee.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that his point was that the war was due to causes that were avoidable, but supposing that even by the exercise of perfect wisdom it was unavoidable, it was not reasonable to put the cost of it on posterity. The whole initiative came from this country. By the admission of the Government, and of the Colonial Secretary himself, we interfered with the internal affairs of the Transvaal, a thing we had no right to do. And it was that interference on our part, at the instigation of big capitalists in South Africa who had the Colonial Secretary under their heel, it was owing to that criminal blunder that we were led into this war. Further than that, they would not have made that blunder had they not thought that the result would not be war. So that the whole expenditure of £150,000,000 was the disastrous result of a foolish attempt to bluff the Transvaal Government by the Government of the day. Why should posterity pay because we had a foolish Government which thought that they could serve the capitalists in South Africa by a little bluffing? Was not that unreasonable? He would go further, and say that if we threw this loan on posterity, posterity would be perfectly justified in repudiating it. He did not agree with Henry George in everything, but he did in this, that if a loan for the purpose of carrying on a wanton and wicked war was thrown on posterity, posterity would have a perfect right to repudiate it.
He proposed to move an Amendment to the resolution. They had been reminded more than once that it was only right the Transvaal should pay a great part of the cost of the war. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not yet abandoned the hope that it would be made to do so. At any rate, he fancied 857 that the right hon. Gentleman wished to keep the hope alive, and, consequently, he desired to assist him in that very laudable undertaking. When he spoke of the Transvaal they would readily understand that what he really meant was the gold mines of the Transvaal, for there was no other taxable property in that country. What he had to propose was to leave out of the resolutions the words, "Consolidated stock within the meaning of the National Debt Conversion Act, 1888" in order to insert the words, "Transvaal Land Stock to be secured primarily by a charge on the assets of the Transvaal Colony and guaranteed by the United Kingdom." This would mean the creation of a 2¾ per cent. Transvaal Loan, and the floating of such a loan would be equally as easy as one based on the Consolidated Fund, because it would have behind it the guarantee of the British Government. At the same time it would constitute a notice to everybody concerned, and to the mine-owners in particular, that it was intended that in due time those gentlemen should pay a great part of the cost of the war. No doubt strong objection would be made by the South African capitalists to the proposal. They had already bad a book written and published for the express purpose of deprecating any attempt to throw this burden upon their shoulders. But it had been pointed out that, by their own admission, one result of this war would be a saving of five millions in the working of the mines. That was the minimum benefit which they themselves anticipated deriving from the war, and that in itself represented a capital sum nearly sufficient to pay two-thirds of the cost of the war. But was it reasonable that they should sacrifice nothing but the increased profits which they expected to accrue to them from the war? His answer to that was an emphatic negative. He held that, if possible, every shilling of the expense should fall upon their shoulders, seeing that they instigated the war, and that it was entered into entirely in consequence of the agitation which they organised, financed and buoyed up in every possible way. They exercised influence in high quarters in this country in order to support their schemes. True, the result might be that their anticipations might be falsified. Indeed, a 858 good many anticipations had been falsified in the course of this war. At first it was thought that ten millions sterling would cover all the necessary outlay, and that three months would be the outside of time required for bringing the war to a conclusion. There was not a single miscalculation made by the Government that was not put practically into their mouths by the capitalists of South Africa. It was said that the Boer Army was small and ill-equipped for the conflict. That bubble had certainly been pricked. Who was it that said that? Was it the Army Intelligence Department? No, it was Mr. Cecil Rhodes. They were told, too, that the Boer Army would not fight. True, they did not fight until they had exhausted every effort to avert and avoid war. They made concession after concession, they reduced the franchise qualification from fourteen years to nine years and even to seven years—
* THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I fail to see what these remarks of the hon. Member have to do with the Amendment.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he was asking that the capitalists who led the country into the war by their misrepresentations should be made, as far as possible, to pay the cost of it. He was showing that they were responsible for the war, and that they were the men who ought to pay. He was asking the House to make the loan a primary charge upon their properties. He was proving to the Committee that they were the people responsible for making the representations which led the Government into the war, and he was suggesting that they and not the innocent British taxpayer should bear the burden. He was arguing that every miscalculation which had resulted in great loss of life and treasure to this country was due to the misrepresentations of the Transvaal capitalists. Why then should they not pay? He quite recognised what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said with regard to the probability that they would get no immediate help from the Transvaal in the payment, of the cost of the war. But, at the same time, he held that they should show their determination to throw the entire burden on the mines, even although 859 they might not be able to recover a single shilling for two or three years. There was no reason why the stock should not now be created as Transvaal stock, and the liability at once placed upon the colony. It was true that the interest for this year, next year, and the year after might not be paid by the colony, and that this country might have to pay a large proportion of it for a great number of years. But that was no reason whatever why the burden should not be placed primarily upon the colony. Among the inducements held out in order to induce the Boers to surrender was the promise to give them representative government at the earliest practicable moment. Nobody supposed that the grant of such a government could be made coincident with the conclusion of the war. But the liability for the payment of the debt should at once be placed on the right shoulders. Unless the burden was now definitely placed upon the Transvaal, was it likely that, when representative government had been given and Home Rule practically established, this country would be able to induce the Colonial Government to take over the debt? They certainly would not do it willingly, and in the event of their refusal, how would it be possible to make them accept the liability? Could we do it by force? We had had some experience of that in the past, and he did not think that that experience was such as to induce a revival of the experiment. It was necessary that Parliament should make clear its determination to compel the mineowners to pay the expense. They might grumble and groan as much as they pleased, but the taxpayers of this country were fully justified in compelling them to bear the consequences of their own misdeeds. It might be argued that many of the shareholders in the mines were not British subjects. He did not know how many of them might be the subjects of Germany or France. The more the better, so far as he was concerned, for his contention was that if they chose to entrust their money to the people who engineered this atrocious war their property should be made to pay the cost of it. He begged to move.
§
Amendment proposed—
In line 5, paragraph (a), to leave out the words from the words 'per cent.,' to the end of the paragraph, in order to insert the words 'Transvaal Loan Stock to be secured primarily by a charge on the assets of the Transvaal Colony and guaranteed by the United Kingdom.'"—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe hon. Member desires by this Amendment to place the loan, which it is necessary now to raise, upon the mine-owners or capitalists or other persons in the Transvaal whom he considers the authors of the war.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHPrimarily, but I do not want to discuss that matter at all. I am as anxious as the hon. Member can be that those who own the wealth of the Transvaal should make a contribution, as I have always said, towards the expenses of the war. But let me point out to the Committee that the object of the hon. Member will not be gained by passing this Amendment, through which he would get nothing from these mine-owners or capitalists, or from the wealth which they own. I was obliged to admit last night that the Transvaal at present is not in a condition to pay anything towards this loan, or even to pay the interest on it.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHQuite so, but it cannot at present, and therefore there is no question of charging the Transvaal or anybody in the Transvaal at present in this matter. The effect of substituting a 2¾ Transvaal stock for an Imperial Government security would be to saddle the taxpayers of this country with a much larger charge than I have ventured to propose to the House. It is very well known to any one who studies these things that English Government stocks command a much higher price in 861 the market than the stocks which merely have the guarantee of the English Government, and the effect of the hon. Member's proposal, therefore, would be that we should have to issue this stock at a lower rate than we issue the security of the kind I propose. But more than this. I venture to say it would be deluding the public. What is the use of issuing a security which is nominally a charge on the Transvaal for the cost of the war at a moment when we know that the Transvaal cannot pay the interest? I do trust that the Committee will not sanction any such suggestion as the hon. Member has made. It is in the interest of the taxpayers that we should raise the loan on the best terms we can—that is, on our own credit. I can assure the hon. Member that I have so arranged the borrowing which has hitherto taken place that it is necessary from time to time during the next ten years for those borrowings to come under review by Parliament, and then, of course, will be the time for any contribution obtainable from the Transvaal to be obtained. May I make an appeal to the Committee? I trust we may be permitted at any rate to come to a decision on the Amendment without delay and to pass this resolution this evening. Last night I appealed to the Committee to pass the resolution then, but in deference to an appeal from the hon. Member for Waterford I did not press it, thinking it quite reasonable that further time should be given for the discussion. But the position is this. Of course I was obliged in my Budget speech to announce the fact that I proposed to go to the market for a considerable loan, and directly that announcement is made by a Chancellor of the Exchequer all kinds of rumours get about and all kinds of dealings and speculations take place, and there are persons who make it their interest to lower certain stocks to the utmost possible point in order that they may be able to obtain any new loan more cheaply. I cannot put it too strongly to the Committee in the interests of the public and of the taxpayers of the country that they should come to a decision upon this resolution to-night. I cannot as Chancellor of the Exchequer take the responsibility of holding the matter back any 862 longer. It is necessary for us to act upon this. If the Committee consider that the Amendment is preferable to my proposal, let them accept it, or, if they decline to sanction the issue of the loan, let the resolution be rejected; but I entreat the Committee to come to a decision to-night.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that evey Member of the House of course recognised that the passing of this resolution was only the first step, and it did not imply they would have no further opportunities for discussing the subject. It had already been announced that on the following Tuesday the matter would be brought up on Report, and in addition to that, other opportunities would arise for discussing the various stages of the Bill which would have to be introduced. While he entertained the strongest possible opinion against the whole policy of the resolution, he could not, in fairness, deny that the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a reasonable one. Hon. Members in every quarter of the House were under a great obligation to the right hon. Gentleman for the perfect candour and courage with which he had put the full facts of the financial situation before the House, and, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, he certainly should advise his hon. friends around him not to prolong the discussion. But, having met the right hon. Gentleman in that fair spirit, he thought he was entitled to make an appeal to the Leader of the House on another matter. It had been intimated that there was an intention to take the next stage of the Army Annual Bill that night. The Bill was one which involved considerable discussion, and he hoped that the Government would allow it to stand over instead of making it necessary to sit after midnight. With regard to the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for the Eifion Division, while he was in entire sympathy with every opinion he expressed, and while he had the highest possible respect for him, he was bound to say that he did not think the Amendment would have the effect of competing the mine-owners to pay the cost of the war.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Member for Waterford has most fairly met the appeal of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the appeal which he has made to me, although it is important that we should get on with the Army Annual Bill, I am very unwilling to put any unreasonable pressure upon hon. Members, and if the House will allow the Bill to pass up to the point on which it is non-controversial, we might then move to report pro-progress.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWhen will it be resumed? Will it be on Monday, and, if so, will it be taken before Twelve o'clock?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt must pass before the end of the month. I will do my best to bring it on at as early an hour as possible.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDMay I be allowed to say that if there is really no controversial matter before Clause 4, the right hon. Gentleman will gain nothing by getting these clauses. I do not know whether there is any matter requiring discussion in the clauses before Clause 4, but I really think the right hon. Gentleman would not be endangering the rapid and convenient passage of the Bill by letting the whole matter stand over.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf the hon. Gentleman tells me he has no desire to—if I may use the term—obstruct, I am quite prepared to meet him, and will accept his statemnt.
§ MR. BAYLEY (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)I rise to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he had taken the same excellent advice in the case of coal as he did in the case of sugar—
* THE CHAIRMANAn Amendment having been moved, the discussion must be confined to that until it is disposed of.
§ MR. LOUGHAs my hon. friend has got a sympathetic answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps 864 he would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has treated the subject very satisfactorily, and he has pledged himself over and over again to get all the money he can out of the Transvaal I do not believe he will be able to get anything out of it, but I think it would be unfair to load the taxpayers now with the large interest which would be the result of adopting the Amendment of my hon. friend. I would therefore appeal to him to withdraw it, in order that something may be said about the resolution itself in the short time now left to us.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with reference to the matter raised by the Amendment? He has told us that it is his intention to make the Transvaal goldfields pay a substantial contribution towards the cost of the war. Assuming the Transvaal becomes a Crown Colony, will the right hon. Gentleman say how he purposes to collect any contribution which he may levy on the goldfields in the Transvaal? Has he thought of any means by which the proposed contribution would be levied apart from that suggested in the Amendment of my hon. friend? If he has, of course that would simplify matters very considerably, but unless he has some scheme it seems to me that some such safeguard as that embodied in the Amendment is absolutely indispensable. As has been pointed out, we have no power to enforce taxation on a colony of the Crown, and no power to collect it even if we sought to enforce it, and in the event of these patriotic mine-owners refusing to pay the contribution asked from them, what steps will be taken to forestall them, in the possible contingency of their refusal, by obtaining some lien over the still untouched wealth of the goldfields of the Transvaal? The question seems to me to be one of considerable moment, and I trust the right hon. Baronet may enable my hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment by giving the House some assurance that his desire to obtain a contribution towards the cost of the war from the Transvaal goldfields is something more than a desire.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe hon. Member is asking me to cook the hare before I have caught it. He must remember that in the first instance the Transvaal will, of course, be a Crown Colony under the Imperial Government, and it will be for the Imperial Government to deal with the matter as soon as the finances of the Transvaal are able to bear it. Of course, when a more responsible Government is given to the Transvaal, arrangements will have to be made in the matter, as has frequently been done. There will be no difficulty in the matter.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Borough)As this will not be the last war loan, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us an assurance that, in the event of further money being raised, the particular way in which this sixty millions is to be raised will not be treated as a precedent, and that the hands of the Government will be free to deal with the matter as circumstances arise.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHI have often been found fault with for the variety of ways in which I have borrowed, on the unfortunately numerous occasions on which I have been obliged to go into the money market for loans. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the fact that I am borrowing in a particular way now will not be treated as a precedent for the future.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I am afraid unless we look a little more carefully into the matter these toads will be able to get outside the harrow; but my hon. friend should remember that we will, on a future occasion, be able to take a vote on his Amendment. At the present moment, undoubtedly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an excellent case why the resolution should be passed before twelve o'clock, and it seems to me that my hon. friend would consult his own views and the views of the many who agree with him if he would not take a division to-night, but bring forward the question on a future occasion.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSI desire to withdraw the Amendment, and, in 866 doing so, I wish to state that I do not withdraw in any sense or form from my determination to get if possible this money from the Transvaal. I may say that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a member of a Tory Government. I have some amount of confidence in his declaration that he will make every effort to get this money from the Transvaal. I recollect the very sturdy speech, he delivered when Mr. Cecil Rhodes endeavoured to get the cost of his railway from this country, and I hope he will be equally determined in this matter.
§ Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. BAYLEYI am now in order in speaking on the question of the export duty on coal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not get the same advice in regard to coal as he did with regard to sugar. The question of coal was not as well thought out. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really realise how far-reaching this duty on coal will be? Whose interests is it going to affect? It will affect the interests of the miners, the mine-owners, the railways, and the owners of ports, and harbours in this country, and will also affect very much the interests of Manchester and the Ship Canal. The coal export trade is a struggling one in many of our new ports, and I sympathise very much with the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, who knows perfectly well that if this duty is carried on the lines proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer there is not the slightest chance of any supporter of the Government being again returned for King's Lynn.
I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the effect of his proposals. Take a place like Port Said Coal sent there from this country will have to pay this duty, and will have to compete with Australian coal, so that actually if this duty is carried we will be putting Australia in a far better position than ourselves. The same applies to our other colonies. It would have been far better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a bolder 867 course, for there is always safety in boldness, and made the income tax 1s. 4d. That would have been more satisfactory to the country. Take my own constituency. It is a large mining constituency and exports a great deal of coal which goes through the Manchester Ship Canal to all parts of the world. If this duty is passed the quantity of coal exported will decrease from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. I think the ratepayers of the city of Manchester, who have a very large interest in the Canal, will have something to say as to why this money could not have been found in a way which would not inflict such an injury on Manchester and the Ship Canal. My constituency—Chesterfield and the neighbourhood—is more or less dependent on the mines, and if this duty is passed the value of the mines will go down from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. If that goes on for three or four years the value of property in Chesterfield will decrease from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. It is a very serious matter to cripple in this manner one of the fundamental industries of the country. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider this question, and that he will think out some other means of finding the money required. The present proposal is certain to be exceedingly unpopular in the country.
§ MR LOUGHI think it is a great pity that the suggestion which I understood you, Sir, to make yesterday, and which I think commended itself to the First Lord of the Treasury and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not more strictly carried out this evening. I thought when we discussed sugar and coal last night that these subjects would be then postponed, so that we might have an opportunity of discussing this very important resolution. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, however, devoted himself almost exclusively to the subjects which were discussed last night, but I should now like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a few words of explanation with regard to the steps he intends to take on this important matter. I myself was not able to join in the very enthusiastic congratulations made on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's 868 statement last night. He said, however, that he would not be the man to come to the House and ask for power to borrow an undue proportion of any charge for war, and he suggested that as long as he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he would insist on raising a fair proportion of the sum required for war from taxation. Now, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he has done so on the present occasion. I will take an immediate test. Last year we were also at war, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a deficit of thirty-seven millions. He insisted on raising twelve and a half millions, or a third, by taxation. This year he has a deficit of fifty-five millions, and he proposes to raise eleven millions, or one-fifth, by taxation, so that he is borrowing four-fifths this year, whereas he only borrowed two-thirds last year. The main point I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. He has created a great deal of discontent in financial circles in London by the way in which he has raised money up to the present time. He has had Exchequer bonds, Treasury bills, and war loans, but I think the present proposal is the worst of all. The right hon. Gentleman claims the right to take one large loan in Consols instead of short loans. Anyone familiar with the City knows that there is a great deal of discontent at the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised his money. The story is that, having taken advice through the usual channels, and having got a unanimous opinion, he did exactly the opposite. The result has been that within the last year or two we have seen the most alarming fall in securities, especially consols, that we have had in this country for a generation or two. Consols have fallen 20 per cent. during the last few years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must acknowledge that he is responsible to a large extent for this unfortunate circumstance. The question of the price of Consols is of great importance, because it affects other securities, and the alarming fall in Consols has brought down home railways and every other good security. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might do something to avoid increasing the evil. The advice he got was to raise the money by a plain addition to the National 869 Debt. The mistake he made in the earlier stages of the war was to take too hopeful a view of the situation; now, I believe, he takes rather too pessimistic a view The right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of temporary loans, and I think the Committee might have an assurance from him that he would raise the money now required by a simple addition to the National Debt. At any rate the market would like a definite announcement as to the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At present no one knows what he intends to do, and surely he
§ ought to take the Committee into his confidence.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHIf I could take the Committee into my confidence without also taking everyone else into my confidence, I should be glad to do so; but at present I think I had better keep my own counsel.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 186; Noes. 117. (Division List No. 133.)
871| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Dunn, Sir William | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Leighton, Stanley |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S. |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Finch, George H. | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Fisher, William Hayes | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Eitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Forster, Henry William | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond. | M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | M'Calmont, Col. H. L B (Cambs. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Malcolm, Ian |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Bill, Charles | Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rfi'mlt's | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Bond, Edward | Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings Lynn | Graham, Henry Robert | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. |
| Brassey, Albert | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y) | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford |
| Bull, William James | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Mount, William Arthur |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. | Groves, James Grimble | Muntz, Philip A. |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nde'y) | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.) | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore. | Harris, E. Leverton (Tynemth. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Charrington, Spencer | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Percy, Earl |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.) | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Henderson, Alexander | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Price, Robert John |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Purvis, Robert |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside | Randles, John S. G. |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Renwick, George |
| Denny, Colonel | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Joicey, Sir James | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Keswick, William | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Dorrington, Sir John Edward | Law, Andrew Bonar | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Doughty, George | Lawrence, William F. | Round, James |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lawson, John Grant | Rutherford, John |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Thornton, Percy M. | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Valentia, Viscount | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B; Stuart |
| Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Warr, Augustus Frederick | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Smith, H. C (N'th'mb., Tyneside | Wason, John C. (Orkney) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Smith, James P. (Lanarks.) | Webb, Col. Wm. George | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne | Younger, William |
| Spear, John Ward | Whitmore, Charles Algernon | |
| Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Willox, Sir John Archibald | Sir William Walrond and |
| Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart | Wills, Sir Frederick | Mr. Anstruther. |
| Stroyan, John | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. | |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm.(Cork, N. E.) | Hammond, John | O'Kelly, James (Rossc'mm'n N. |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Malley, William |
| Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud) | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | O'Mara, James |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry | Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale | O'Shee, James John |
| Harry, E. (Cork, S.) | Healy, Timothy Michael | Partington, Oswald |
| Boland, John | Helme, Norval Watson | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Brigg, John | Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. | Priestley, Arthur |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E | Rea, Russell |
| Burt, Thomas | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Reddy, M. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Caldwell, James | Jordan, Jeremiah | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Joyce, Michael | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Kennedy, Patrick James | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lambert, George | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Leamy, Edmund | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Colville, John | Lewis, John Herbert | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lundon, W. | Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (North'nts |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Cremer, William Randal | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Cullinan, J. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Thomas, David Alfred Merthyr |
| Daly, James | M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall) | Thomas, J. A. (Gl'm'rg'n, Gower |
| Delany, William | M'Crae, George | Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N. |
| Dillon, John | M'Dermott, Patrick | Tomkinson, James |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Govern, T. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Doogan, P. C. | Minch, Matthew | Tully, Jasper |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Mooney, John J. | Ure, Alexander |
| Duffy, Wm. J. | Murnaghan, George | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Murphy, J. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Nannetti, Joseph P. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Norman, Henry | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Field, William | Nussey, Thomas Willans | |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Mr. Lough and Mr. Schwann. |
| Grant, Corrie | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| O'Dowd, John | ||
| Haldane, Richard Burdon | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
§ It being after midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday 872 next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
§ Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.