§ 1. Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Customs duty now charged on tea shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and two, that is to say, Tea the pound 6d."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ * SIR SEYMOUR KING (Hull, Central)
said he desired to say a few words with reference to the duty and its incidence. He was speaking on behalf of an industry in which thirty millions of British money wore invested, which had caused jungles to be turned into smiling tea-gardens, and which had given employment to hundreds of thousands of persons. The industry was, by the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, doing extremely badly. There were forty-five companies registered in London, with a capital of £9,000,000, or nearly one-third of the total amount invested in the tea trade. In 1897 he found that capital was worth £12,000,000, to-day it was worth less than £7,500,000. Seventy per cent. of the companies engaged in the tea industry were paying no dividend. The result was that large numbers of these concerns had to go to the wall, and that there was a great loss of employment among the coolies. 1356 The Committee would doubtless be told that the present state of the industry was largely due to over-production. There had undoubtedly been a too rapid development of tea-gardens, but in imposing so high a tax upon tea the Government was rather straining its prerogative, and using its giant strength recklessly like a giant. If India were a self-governing colony it would be impossible to impose such taxation, as she would very soon retaliate on cotton or steel goods. No one apparently would stand up for India. There was in the House an Indian Minister, who admirably governed that Empire, but he was perhaps too much a British Minister to stand up for purely Indian interests. That the planters had been quite ready to do their duty by the Empire would be acknowledged when the Committee remembered the brilliant services rendered in South Africa by Lumsden's Horse, a body of men raised and paid for by the planters. They did not mind bearing their share, but they did object to paying the whole of the tax, as they were practically doing. The greater proportion, if not the whole, of the twopence had fallen on the producer, as the retailer was at present selling tea at nearly the same price as before the duty was imposed. The duty was out of all proportion to the cost price of article taxed, and had been most unfairly levied on tea, as compared with similar drinks, such as cocoa and coffee. Cocoa, with a wholesale price of 6d., was taxed only 1½d., and coffee, with a wholesale price of 8d., also paid 1½d.; but tea, with an average wholesale price of 6d., was taxed at 6d., or 100 per 1357 cent. In 1881 the average price of tea was 1s. 5d., with a duty of 6d., or 35 per cent. of the cost price. In 1891 the average cost was 7½d., with a duty of 4d., or 38 per cent. In 1901 the average price was 7d., and, for the last two months, 6d., with a duty of 6d., or 100 per cent. Millions of pounds of tea were sold at 3d., 3½d., and 4d. per pound, so that the duty on that was no less than 150 per cent. All Members professed great devotion to temperance, but that devotion was hardly proved by putting a tax of 100 per cent. on the chief temperance drink. While quite agreeing that the large class of the community who did not pay income tax, or consume alcohol, or smoke tobacco, should contribute towards the war expenses, he could not understand why tea alone should bear the burden. Why should coffee and cocoa, of which there was a largely increasing consumption, be exempted from the increase of taxation? In 1899 the value of the Indian tea imported was £4,467,000, and the duty paid £2,270,000, or, roughly, 50 per cent. In 1901, the value of the crop, although a much larger one, was only £4,025,000, or £450,000 less, and yet the duty charged was £3,450,000. Tea, which was one of the few luxuries of the labouring classes, bore as heavy a burden of taxation as 100 per cent., while wine was taxed only to the extent of 30 per cent. Heavy duties, however, defeated their own object. In America the imposition of a tea duty of 10 cents, or 5d., caused a fall in the consumption from 113,000,000 pounds to 70,000,000 pounds. But in Australia, where the duty ranged from 1d. to 3d. per pound, the consumption per head was 7½ pounds, or 25 per cent. more than in this country. It could not be suggested that 150 per cent. was a fair duty to be put upon an article of such large and universal consumption. The only real satisfaction the tea planters had was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to extract from their pockets any income tax. It was cold comfort, but, at any rate, the result of the duty had been to leave them without any profits to pay income tax upon. It was utterly unscientific finance to tax an article out of existence, but that was the fate threatening the tea industry. He, however, admitted the difficulty of making 1358 a reduction, at any rate, this year, and he was not going to move one; but he could not let the imposition of the tax again this year pass without protest. As President of the Indian Tea Association in London, he represented an absolutely united industry, with £30,000,000 behind it, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would at the earliest possible moment once more reduce the tea duty to its proper level of 40 per cent.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
moved the omission of the words "first day of August," in order to insert "sixth day of March." The resolution passed in 1899 provided that a duty of 4d. should be charged from 1st August, 1899, until 1st August, 1900. In 1900, by the corresponding resolution, the duty was raised to 6d., and made payable from 6th March, 1900, until 1st August, 1901, the effect being that the increased duty was levied for not twelve, but seventeen months. The object of the proposed Amendment was to make the duty in its present form cease on 6th March next. He believed the House would wish to have an opportunity of considering an alteration of the tea duty at the earliest possible moment, and that was the reason for the Amendment. He agreed with much that had been said by the hon. Member for Central Hull. The tax upon tea was unfair upon both producer and consumer. The case of the producer was very serious in India and Ceylon. Several years ago, when he visited Ceylon, the coffee plantations had been practically ruined, and it was the exception to find a coffee planter who had not been or was not bankrupt. Bankruptcy was so common in the Island that it was considered to be no disgrace, and people joked and gossipped about their various positions in the bankruptcy court as though it was the most natural thing imaginable to be in that position. That was about seventeen years ago, and since then a new industry—the tea industry—had been started, and everyone with the interest of the Island at heart had observed with delight how that industry had grown and flourished. There was no portion of the Empire which gave less trouble than Ceylon; in fact, when he was there the whole 1359 Island was held by a brass band. He therefore ventured to put in a plea for the Island, and also on behalf of the consumer, who undoubtedly paid a very large share of the tax, whatever might be the indirect effect upon the planter. With regard to India, that was a country which had over and over again been treated very shabbily in regard to a great many matters, such for instance as the Soudan Expedition. A large number of Members on the Government side of the House considered that, with regard to the Soudan Expedition, India was treated very shabbily indeed by this country, and only their loyalty to the Government prevented their going into the Lobby against the proposal when the question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. In the interests of the consumer at home, and also having regard to the great dependency of India and Ceylon, he hoped that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not willing to give way this year, some alteration would be made in the tax as early as possible next year, and with that object in view he moved the Amendment.
In line 2, to leave out the words 'first day of August, and insert the words 'sixth day of March.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.
said that as an Amendment had been moved, he must confine himself to the question of date. The hon. Member began by stating that in 1899, August was named as the date of the expiring of the tax. The reason for that was obvious. It was necessary to allow sufficient time after the ordinary period of the year at which the Budget was introduced to prevent the clearing of lea in the expectation of an alteration in the duty. It was absolutely necessary, in the interests of the revenue, with regard to such articles as tea, which could be cleared in anticipation of an increased duty, or held hack in anticipation of a decreased duly, that a considerable number of months should be named beyond the date at which the duty might be altered by the Budget of the year, 1360 so as to avoid that sort of thing. Last year, as the hon. Member had said, March 6th was adopted, but that was because, for obvious reasons, the Budget was introduced at a very early date. It was not likely that the Budget would again be brought in so early in the year, and therefore he must adhere to the month of August.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
readily responded to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of adhering to the date named in the resolution were such that could hardly be controverted, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)
reminded the Committee that in the Budget debate last year he complained of the inequality and injustice of the system of levying the tax on tea, and suggested that if possible tea should be taxed on value instead of on weight. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that there was some cause for complaint, and promised to investigate the matter between then and the next Budget night, and see if anything could be done in the matter. He now desired to ask whether the necessary inquiries had been made as to the feasibility of the suggestion. The point was very obvious. The labourer with 12s. a week paid just as much duty per pound on the commonest tea as the rich man with an income of £10,000 a year paid per pound on the best tea, and that was surely most unfair. If the right hon. Gentleman had been too busy during the past year to pay any attention to the matter, would he renew his pledge to consider it? The hon. Member also desired to join in the protest against the tax altogether. While only £1,250,000 was raised on wine, consumed by the rich, nearly £4,000,000 was raised on tea, which was an article consumed by the poor. The question should certainly be taken seriously in hand, and the skill of finance applied to relieve the burden from the poor, and to place it more on the shoulders of the rich.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E)
, In moving to reduce the tea duty from 1361 6d. to 4d. per lb., said that, hard as was the case of India, that of Ireland in regard to the tea duty was harder. From time to time the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he would never consent to make any difference in matters of taxation between Ireland and Great Britain, but, unless he was determined rigidly to adhere to that decision, there could not be a better case for making such a difference between the two countries than that to be found in the matter of the tax upon tea. An enormous amount was paid by way of this tax in Ireland, and the fact that tea was consumed there to a much greater extent than in England proved at once that the tax fell with greater severity upon the Irish than upon the English taxpayers.
The latest figures obtainable showed that, whereas the average consumption of tea in Great Britain was 5½ lbs. per head of the population, in Ireland it was 6½ lbs. One might almost say, therefore, that tea was the national drink of Ireland. Would-be facetious Members sometimes pointed out that the Irish people drank too much alcohol, but anybody who studied the figures would find that the percentage of alcohol consumed in Ireland was much less than the percentage in England or Scotland. But if it was desirable to promote the cause of temperance the lust thing that should be done was to make tea dearer. Tea was an article of diet which was necessary for the people, and from the temperance point of view he believed that, if Parliament continued to make tea dearer, the Irish consumer, who was used to taking tea with his principal meals, would in all probability in the end be driven to take alcoholic drinks instead. Before 1817 the tax upon tea in Great Britain was four or five times as much as in Ireland, but then the tax was equalised in the two countries, and the Irish people had suffered accordingly ever since. According to the figures of the hon. Member for West Islington, the taxation of Ireland had grown from £7,500,000, in 1893, to £8,600,000, in 1900, a rise of £1,100,000, but in the same way that taxation had gone up regularly year by year the population had regularly gone down, so that while in 1893 the population stood at 4,600,000 it was now 4,500,000, a decrease of 100,000. The census returns 1362 would doubtless prove that, as the population had enormously decreased, the taxation per head had increased. That was a most extraordinary state of affairs, and one peculiar to Ireland. Certainly, it was one which should cause the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire whether it was not possible in some way so to treat Ireland in the matter of taxation that this extraordinary state of affairs should be discontinued. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he proposed to put an extra 2d. on tea, justified it by saying that the prosperity of Ireland was largely increasing, and he referred to various matters in order to prove that statement, He mentioned savings banks deposits, railway rates, and various other things, to show that the Irish people were prosperous and well able to bear the burden of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman then pointed out in a triumphant way that emigration was on the decrease, and he stated that in 1898 the number of people who emigrated from Ireland was 32,000, or 10,000 less than the year before. He had looked into the figures, and he found that, whereas 23,000 people emigrated in 1898, in 1899 the total was 42,000, and in 1900 no less than 48,000 people left Ireland. It would be seen, therefore, that there had been, since the year referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not a decrease but an increase in the number of people who had year by year left the country. That being so, the prosperity spoken of could not be a reality, because it was impossible for this flow of emigration to gather volume and become greater every year if there existed in Ireland amongst the masses of the people the opportunity of living in comfort and prosperity at home in their own country.
Under those circumstances he proposed that the tax should be left as it was before. In the year 1898–99 £564,000 was paid in taxation upon tea by Ireland. He found that in the year 1899–90 no less than £648,000 was paid by way of taxation in Ireland on tea. What the figures for last year were they were quite in ignorance of, and he thought it was a most inconvenient and improper thing that when they were called upon each year at this period to consider fresh taxation they had not got at their disposal the figures in 1363 regard to what these taxes had realised during the past year. He was aware that there were no fresh proposals in reference to the tax on tea this year, but he refused to consent this year to renew the 50 per cent. tax which was put upon tea last year, until he knew what the tax realised last year in Ireland. Before they were asked to consent to put 6d. upon tea they ought, in common fairness and honesty, to be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much this additional tax yielded in Ireland last year. He did not know when the figures in reference to the amount realised during the financial year ending March last would be given, but as far as he understood the matter those figures never were available until August, when the session was almost over, and when it was impossible to make use of them. All they were able to do at present was to make some sort of estimate. Taking the basis of last year, he arrived at the conclusion that the addition of 2d. per lb. on tea would realise at least £325,000, and if they added to that the sum of £648,000, which was the amount raised by the tea duty before the extra tax was imposed, they would find that Ireland last year contributed by way of taxation on tea a sum not very far short of £1,000,000 sterling.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACH
I will try to have these figures presented earlier next year, for that would certainly be an advantage. As far as I can tell—and I would remind hon. Members that the last year's receipts have been much upset by forestalments—the total amount received last year on tea was £6,250,000, and the Irish share of that would be £875,000.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
said he estimated that it would be over £900,000, and that sum was not far off a million pounds. The figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were no doubt correct, and they showed an increase of considerably over £250,000 at the very least upon the amount paid by Ireland before the extra 2d. was put upon tea last year. In all seriousness, this was a matter upon which they really had a grievance that would be recognised by everybody who inquired into the circumstances. He found that 1364 throughout the length and breadth of his own constituency, comprising between 12,000 and 13,000 electors, tea was the one article of diet above all others which was more largely and regularly used than any single thing which the people put into their mouths. They took tea with their breakfast and at their evening meal, and if they were working in the fields tea was often brought to them in cans—in fact they never took anything else as a rule to drink. Of course the people who went to fairs and markets from time to time often had a drink of whisky, and small blame to them; but tea, which was one of the principal articles of consumption by the poor people of Ireland, had been singled out by the Government for extra taxation. He was not in favour of placing an additional tax on alcoholic beverages, although he was as much in favour of temperance as any other section of hon. Members of the House. He thought alcoholic beverages had been taxed to the utmost extent in Ireland. But although he objected to additional taxation upon alcoholic beverages he thought the Government should have found some means of raising taxation without putting a fresh burden upon the necessaries of life. They knew why an additional 2d. was put upon tea. For the same reason sugar and coal had been taxed this year and the income tax had been raised. This additional burden had been placed upon the people of Ireland, because they had to contribute towards the monstrous state of affairs existing in South Africa at the present time. He did not propose to go into that question now, but he held that the Irish people ought to be exempted from the slightest taxation which had been necessitated by the war. If there was one part of the country where the war had been denounced more than any other it was in Ireland, where they considered that it had been not only most disastrous to the credit of this country, but also unprofitable in every other way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the other night that the people of this country would have to pay for the war, and pay the full cost, and nothing was more striking and straightforward than his statement that it was nonsense and humbug to lead people to believe that the Transvaal 1365 would be able to bear any portion worth mentioning of the cost of the war. That statement meant that the war would have to be paid for out of the hard-earned money of the taxpayer of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. The people of England allowed this war to be brought about, and they applauded it from the commencement. They rended the air with shouts of satisfaction at every fresh expense incurred, and at every fresh detachment of troops which were marched through the streets with bands playing. He thought that if the people of England were polled now they would be sorry that they did that. They were now beginning to realise that the game was not worth the candle, and that it would have been better for the security and the prosperity of the Empire if the Boers had been left in their own country, and if the resources of this country had been devoted to the safeguarding the British Empire as it stood instead of endeavouring to increase it by conquest. The hon. Member for Oldham stated that every lump of sugar put into her tea by an old woman would be firing a shot at Kruger, but he did know whether that statement would be sufficient to arouse the enthusiasm of the women at Oldham. When the British workman was informed by his wife that she had to pay more for her sugar and he had to fork out more money, he would commence to realise that all this jingo bluster and brag could not be none for nothing, that the day of reckoning had arrived, that the spree was over, and the taxpayer was beginning to find that the wine was bad and he had got a headache. The taxpayers of Ireland ought not be called upon to bear a farthing of the cost of this war, as they had hated it from the beginning and they hated it now. He proposed this Amendment upon two grounds. In the first place he thought that any additional taxation upon Ireland on account of this war was unfair and unnecessary, and in the second place he objected to it on the ground that Ireland was already overtaxed for Imperial matters. He moved his Amendment in order to reduce the tax to what it was before last year, on the ground that in this special article of tea Ireland was particularly injured, while they objected to any taxation in any shape or form for the 1366 purposes of this war. They considered that if they must be taxed it was an outrage to take the principal article of consumption in the country, and strike a blow at the cause of temperance by putting a tax upon the principal beverage of the people.
In line 4, to leave out the word 'sixpence,' and insert the word 'fourpence.'"—(Mr. William Redmond.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'sixpence' stand part of the resolution."
§ * MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
thought his hon. friend who had just sat down had put the matter before the Committee very cogently. He had proposed a clean reduction of the tax to its old figure, and if there was to be any reduction that would be the most logical way of meeting the matter. He believed that any attempt to graduate the tea tax would be a failure, and it would be unworkable and would not have the effect which some hon. Members thought it would. Supposing that facilities were given by this House for the free importation and distribution of the commonest kind of tea. You would not do the agricultural labourer any good at all. Common tea was not economical for it was the dearest that the labourer could possibly have, and if this House would take means to prevent the labourer getting common tea and ensure that he should obtain only a good quality in tea and other articles of food it would do him more good than taking means to facilitate the distribution of what was bad. If the tax on tea was graduated as was proposed to be done in regard to sugar the inevitable effect would be to put a premium on the lowest quality, which would beat down the higher qualities in order that the article might come in at the lowest rate allowed by the scale. If any reduction in the duty on tea took place it ought to be an all round reduction such as the hon. Member for East Clare had proposed. He hoped that this matter would be carefully considered by the Government. This review of the tea tax was the first opportunity the Committee had of considering the effect of the additions made to taxation last year on the various articles upon which the rates had been increased. With regard to spirits, the right hon. Gentleman said they had reached the top 1367 limit; but his estimate with regard to wine had not been realised. For the first time he said his beer estimate had not been realised.
Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to tea, and he admitted that although the tax had produced as much as he expected a most disastrous blow had been struck at business by the tax. This raised a question of the greatest economic magnitude which the Committee ought to consider. This was the first increase which had taken place in the tax on tea since that article had begun to be grown so largely in British Colonies. The tremendous growth of the tea industry was one of the most astonishing movements which had taken place in British colonies during the last thirty years. For the first time the House was taking a new step, and it was no light thing when they had reduced the tax to a low level suddenly to increase it. It was very important to look at the effect produced by this tax, for it was such that it ought to make the Government pause before they made such experiments. He would compare the article of tea with sugar. We got 84 per cent. of all the tea used in this country from the colonies, and only 16 per cent. from foreign countries. On the other hand, we got 94 per cent. of our sugar from foreign countries and only 6 per cent. from the colonies. The tea so largely consumed by our people was for the most part produced in India and Ceylon, and undoubtedly the increase in the tax which was made last year had struck a disastrous blow to the industry. The hon. Member opposite had stated that the whole of this tax would fall upon the producer, but he did not think it would. The consumption of tea had been checked, which had caused prices to fall, and thereby the produce had been hit. The consumer also had suffered; if there had been over-production, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, the consumer would have got the benefit, but he had not got it, because he had to pay considerably more for his tea. Before the tax was raised tea had been sold at 1s. per pound, but now it was not retailed at less than 1s. 2d., and it would be of great benefit if the extra 2d. were taken off. Therefore the consumer paid the increase. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contrasted 1368 the position now with what it was at the time of the war with France between 1814 and 1815. It was an extraordinary thing to say, when they remembered how the well-being of the people had increased since that period, that the finding of a great sum of money unexpectedly and for a new purpose might impose almost greater burdens on the people now than it did ninety or one hundred years ago. Although wealth had increased it was invested in great enterprises, and it was not easy suddenly to withdraw the money from those enterprises in order to apply it to any other purpose. Therefore it would be well if the expenditure of the country could be so restricted that the gradual growth of taxation would meet the requirements of the country without putting on new taxes. It would be a great benefit now if the 2d. put upon tea could be withdrawn, and if his hon. friend pressed this motion to a division he should vote with him, because it was a most important question.
When they came to the case of Ireland, certainly his hon. friend had submitted to the House one or two important facts which ought to be carefully considered. There was no way they could hit Ireland worse than by raising the tax on tea or tobacco. Perhaps tea was the most important article of necessity for the Irish people, and nearly £900,000 had been paid by this poor small island last year on this one article. He wished to put one point to the hon. Gentleman who was representing the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that moment. If he might make a suggestion to the Irish Members, he would advise them not to allow the further stages of this Budget to be taken until the figures with regard to the taxation of Ireland for the year ending the 31st of March last were placed before the House. The Government did not intend to put them before the House at the time when they would be the most use. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given them one figure in regard to the tea duty, and there could be no difficulty in supplying the others because the figures must be known to the Treasury. The gross amount realised by all the taxes of the United Kingdom had been quoted, and if that was known then the amount that had 1369 come from Ireland was known and the Irish Members ought to wake up the Treasury upon this question.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO The TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.
I will make inquiries as to the Return, for there is no desire whatever to keep back this information.
§ * MR. LOUGH
said he was an old hand at this game, for he had tried to get the figures every year for six years. He had written to the Treasury for them but the result was that the House never got them until August. He thought he had satisfied the House that the figures wore in existence, and they could easily be laid before the House prior to proceeding with the later stages of the Budget. He thought there was much in the condition of Ireland to make this House pause before it piled upon Ireland such heavy burdens of taxation. The House took most curious action with regard to Ireland in this matter. The House got from Ireland most interesting Returns as to pauperism, emigration, and so forth, but no attention whatever was paid to them. He was told that 48,000 people emigrated from Ireland last year. An Irish Member who recently addressed the Dublin Chamber of Commerce made an interesting calculation regarding what that meant in money. The average age of these emigrants was 22 years. Assuming that each had cost £5 per annum to bring up, Ireland was a loser by £110 for each one of these 48,000 emigrants. They were lost to the country at the time that they had become producers, and might do something to repay to the country the expenditure that had been made upon them. Thus, he proved that Ireland had to pay the terrible price of £5,000,000 in one year for this stream of emigration from the country. This House was doing nothing all the time to help the country, but rather putting increased taxation on it. There was a great article of food in Ireland which was not taxed. He meant the potato. The annual Return given to the House with regard to the potato crop in Ireland showed the alarming fact that last year it decreased 33 per cent.—900,000 tons of potatoes all over the country. Taking it at £3 per ton this would mean a loss of 1370 £2,750,000. This House paid no attention to these extraordinary events with which the poor people of Ireland had to deal. The hon. Member for East Clare put the cost Ireland would have to pay for the war at £2,500,000. No other British dependency paid a penny. Canada had been as much in favour of the war as England or Scotland, but would Canada contribute anything? Not a shilling. Canada sent soldiers, but the Canadians got 5s. per day, while the Irish soldiers got fifteen pence. There was an example of the inequality with which Ireland was treated as compared with other parts of the Empire. With these facts before the minds of the Irish people at all times, was it to be wondered that the representatives of Ireland pressed their claims with such vehemence? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement drew a comparison between what the people of England had to pay this year for this great war and what they had to pay in 1814–15. In 1815 we had the advantage of knowing what Great Britain and Ireland paid respectively. Great Britain paid that year £78,000,000 with a population of 14,000,000. The population of Great Britain had gone up to 36,000,000, so that if she paid the same amount now per head as in 1815 she should pay £195,000,000; but she was only asked to pay £140,000,000, or 25 per cent. less, notwithstanding the great increase in wealth per head of the population, than she paid in the year of Waterloo, and the year before it. What did Ireland pay? Ireland had a population of 6,250,000 then, and paid £6,500,000 altogether, and that was a terrible burden on her. If she paid this year the same proportion according to population as in 1815 she would pay only £5,000,000, but if she paid the same proportion according to population as Great Britain was paving, she would only pay £4,000,000. But she was asked to pay £10,250,000. This single illustration indicated the eighty years financial ill-treatment of Ireland. During that period the contribution of the British per head had decreased 25 per cent., but the contribution of Ireland had been more than doubled. That was the great history of injustice his hon. friends from Ireland were constantly preaching in this House. He thought 1371 they ought to get a careful reply from the Government whether nothing could be done with regard to the important matter of the tea duty.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.)
It would be difficult to make out a stronger case than the hon. Member for East Glare has made for the reduction of the duty on tea. The extraordinary Budget introduced to the House is probably one of the most unpopular that has ever been submitted. The proposal has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to add for an indefinite period at least £11,000,000 to the permanent taxation of the country. I dare say that when the time comes other demands will be made to the House to provide for the abnormal expenditure in consequence of the South African war. Above all other parts of the Empire Ireland should most certainly escape any increase of taxation in connection with the war, because on every possible occasion, both inside and outside the House, the people of Ireland, through their elected representatives, have taken every opportunity to protest against the war. Although they have dissociated themselves in every possible way from it, a tremendous increase of taxation has been brought about, and the Irish people are now compelled to pay the piper, although they did not call the tune. They have to assist in finding vast sums of money, not to speak of other sacrifices which have been made, for carrying on all this insane policy in South Africa. My hon. friend very properly laid great stress upon that injustice. I do not expect that anything I can say will change the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, of course, one of the difficulties under which we labour is that no matter what case we make out for the redress of Irish grievances, we are told that practically we must abide by the results of a partnership to which our forefathers certainly were not parties, and which, if we could by any possible means, we would most certainly shake off.
Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to renew the tea tax of 6d. per pound. It is perhaps remarkable that it was Mr. Gladstone in 1861 who first fixed the duty on tea at 6d. per pound. This country has progressed very much since then, but now, 1372 forty years after that, we find the same proposal made with regard to this most used article of diet. That does not show to my mind that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is acting on progressive lines with regard to the article which has the greatest consumption in the country. In 1898, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a comparatively large surplus, the tea tax was reduced to 4d. per pound, and he also reduced the tobacco tax the same year. The right hon. Gentleman has since then changed his policy, and placed the tea tax again on the people. I agree with my hon. friend that the tax on tea presses on the poor in Ireland in a very peculiar way. Tea is universally used in Ireland, and I am sorry to say in this connection that I fear we are made to pay in another way in Ireland besides taxation. It is a lamentable fact that lunacy in Ireland is largely on the increase. I have acted magisterially in a great number of cases in my own county in which unfortunate persons have had to be committed to asylums, and over and over again medical testimony has been produced that the persons to be committed had largely used tea of an inferior quality. Now, one of the results of keeping up the high tax on tea is that you compel the poorer classes to make use of tea of an inferior quality. I know that some hon. Gentlemen will not agree with that portion of my argument. Some may say that the question of taxation does not enter into the intrinsic value of tea or of its quality as it might appear to do. But I find that we have thrown on to the Irish market very large quantities of inferior rubbish, gathered from London warehouses, which is sold retail at from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 6d. per pound. This tea being offered to the poor Irish people under exceptional circumstances, they buy large quantities of it and use it, not immoderately, but largely. It so happens that being so very poor they mostly live on a vegetable diet, mostly potatoes, and if on the top of that they take this trashy tea, it is easy to understand, and it is not to be wondered at, that that is the cause of the increase of lunacy in our country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us just now that nearly a million of money had been extracted from Ireland during the past year for this tea duty. 1373 That came upon me as a great surprise. I certainly did not think that so large a sum as £875,000 could possibly be collected from our country for this simple article of tea. The right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget in a perfectly frank—almost brutally frank—manner. While the tea duty might be a perfectly legitimate imposition as regards England, it is not so to a poor country like Ireland, which has protested against the war from the very beginning; and the Irish Members are bound to protest against this impost, and to take every opportunity the rules of the House afford them to try and induce the Government to change their mind in regard to the taxation of tea. I would have been in favour of the hon. Member for East Clare moving to exempt Ireland from this tax altogether. I think that would have been the fairest way. The right hon. Gentleman told us that in four years the tax on tea had jumped up in Ireland from £490,000 to £875,000. That is an alarming statement—an increase of almost 100 per cent.—and is a sufficient justification for any action we may take in opposing this resolution. It has been said, very properly, that the imposition of this large tax on tea in Ireland is a discouragement to temperance. I am glad to see two distinguished advocates of temperance on the other side of the House, and I am sure they will agree with me that there is nothing that contributes so much to temperance as to encourage the use of tea.
§ MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON
I did not desire to make any personal reflection and if I have hurt the hon. Gentleman, I beg pardon.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am as strong a teetotaler as he is. The hon. Member for East Clare, in moving this Amendment, pointed out very truly that the poor peasantry in Ireland rarely go to the market towns—only once a week or once a fortnight. They may then take some refreshment, because they may have come long distances, and may not have had much food, and they do sometimes 1374 transgress the rules of temperance; but I do not think complaint can be made against them about their conduct in their own houses or on their small farms. I have seen them in their homes and at work in their fields, and the beverage which they take is tea. The right hon. Gentleman could not confer a much greater favour upon those who wish to see the cause of temperance progress than if he could see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Clare, But the Amendment proceeds on the higher ground of the financial relations between the two countries. In Ireland taxation goes up and population goes down. We cannot believe that it is a good thing to see a country's population going down. For every individual who goes out of the country the country loses a wealth-producing unit, whether the circumstances of the country are good or bad. I have seen it stated that every adult who lauds in a new country means for that country an increase of national wealth of £200 a year. Our people are going steadily away from Ireland, and leaving those behind them to bear a heavier share of the increasing burdens, and I do not know how those who remain will be able to endure it at all, because of the fiscal relations which exist between the two countries. The right hon. Gentleman has been perfectly frank with this House as to the means by which he intends to meet his great responsibilities, but if he could see his way to differentiate between England and Ireland on this matter, it would be only a matter of £200,000 or less. We are entitled to it, because we have been no parties to the cause of your expenditure, and it would afford a substantial relief to the poorest class of our people I know the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he has had to suffer in his own person, it may be said, for the sins of others, and that he has to pay the bill which others have created, I do hope that this Amendment, proposed in all seriousness and moderation, will receive consideration. If the right hon. Gentleman can meet us on this point, we are not so much interested in the coal duty, and might be able to see our way to help him in that other point. And if he does so, he would establish upon the Irish Members, and the people of Ireland generally, a claim to 1375 more credit than perhaps he will get from his own friends behind him.
* SIR MANCHERJEE BHIOWNAGGREE (Bethnal Green, N.E.)
said he was sorry that this truly Imperial question had been reduced to the lower plane of an Irish question. Still, he believed that the remarks of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite had proved two things which should make anyone rejoice who had the good of the people at heart—first, that there was a very large consumption of tea in Ireland, and, second, that whereas two years ago the hon. Member for East Mayo denounced the consumption of tea as a poisonous beverage compared with whisky—[Cries from the Irish Benches of "No, no."] He was speaking from personal recollection, and the hon. Member for East Mayo—who, he was sorry, was not present—said he was in favour of Irish whisky in preference to tea. These were two salient facts elicited in the discussion that night. Taking back the question to the common sense tone given to the discussion by the hon. Member for Hull, he wished in a few words to support the case he had made out for an abatement of the duty on a future occasion. Two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have reduced the duty, but this was not an occasion when he could be expected to do so. They might, however, advance arguments so that whenever it was possible the right hon. Gentleman might be induced to take advantage of the first opportunity to reduce the duty and give an indulgence to a commodity of vast consumption here, and thereby also encourage one of the few remaining large industries of India. His hon. friend had spoken on behalf of the planters, and shown that the tea industry was in a parlous condition. He could speak on behalf of the working class community whom he represented in the House, as well as for large classes of Indian labourers engaged in tea-growing. It was truly both an English and an Indian question, and one on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bestow as much attention as he could. India, as everyone knew, had suffered from famine during the last three or four years, from natural causes, beyond human control—[An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: Prom British government.] He absolutely 1376 denied any sense in that interruption. He did believe they were natural causes, and that the British Government had done everything in its power to meet and redress the sufferings of the people. On account of causes beyond human control, India had suffered immensely, and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a member of a Government which was inspired by a high sense of Imperialism, would not have retained the present high duty on tea if he could have helped it, but would have done all in his power to encourage an industry which supported a large portion of the population of India. The hon. Member for Hull had advocated the case of the Indian tea-planters on strong grounds. He approached the question more particularly from the point of view of the Indian labourer, millions of whom were dependent on the industry. Their very bread depended upon it, and anything that could be done to promote and develop that industry should, in the interests of the Indian labourer, have the indulgence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was exceedingly pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman in his opening statement say that he would not think of increasing the duty on tea. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the duty had reached a point at which it could not be further enhanced, and he gave, as was the general belief, a promise that in future years, when his financial needs were not so great as at present, he would seriously do what lay in him to reduce that duty. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would that night strengthen that belief by repeating his assurance. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he or his hon. friend the Member for Hull had no desire to go into the same lobby with the mover of the Amendment. The resolution before the Committee was one of purely Imperial wants, and should be considered and decided upon sound financial grounds. It was idle to expect that any sensible man would go into the lobby with hon. Members who wanted to reduce existing duties at the present moment when unusually large financial provision had to be made. But, at the proper time, justice should be done to a great industry of immense importance to the people of India, and which provided a necessary article of 1377 food for the people of this country. He believed that this was a health and temperance, besides being an economic question, for if tea could be had at cheaper rates than now, it would help the temperance cause and the working man's household. He could say from his own experience that it was harder in this country to get a cup of good tea than a glass of beer at railway stations and elsewhere. Tea should be freely placed at the disposal of the consumers who were at present induced for want of a good cup of tea to take to alcoholic drinks. He saw the hon. Member for East Mayo now present, and he would therefore repeat what he had said at the commencement of his speech that a couple of years ago that hon. Gentleman had declared that tea was an unhealthy and poisonous drink as compared with Irish whisky.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
Yes, I recollect the occasion very well. What I said was that excessive tea-drinking was extremely unhealthy.
§ * SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE
Yes, but the hon. Gentleman did not say that excessive whisky drinking was unhealthy.
§ * SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE
Yes, but you brought in the whisky. I distinctly remember that you brought in the whisky. I confess I was staggered, as I gave credit to the hon. Gentleman for being a strong believer in what he asserts, and for the moment I accepted his statement, however strange it might be. But I am greatly rejoiced to-night to hear a different version from the Irish Benches and so much said in praise of tea. All things considered, let us return to plain common sense on this question. We are not going into the lobby with the Irish Members, and I shall vote for the right hon. Gentleman's resolution in the firm belief and hope that in another year he will reduce the duty on tea.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said that the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green would have shown both courage and consistency if, on this occasion, he had gone into the lobby to which his convictions would have carried him. Some years ago hon. Gentlemen who 1378 now sat on the Government side of the House, raised this question in the most extreme and effective form in which it possibly could be raised. Colonel Brookfield moved a resolution that this House was unwilling to sanction a Bill which involved the continuance for another year of the tax upon tea. The hon. Member was not only willing to move an Amendment to a resolution of this kind, but was perfectly prepared to throw out the Finance Bill altogether unless the tax upon tea were abolished altogether. And a very large number of hon. Gentleman—indeed the whole of the Conservative and Unionist party—voted, he believed, with that hon. Member. He would venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this was an occasion on which he could exercise the virtue of consistency. The hon. Gentleman said that the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were considerable this year, but that when better times came and when the Budget showed a surplus, he hoped the tea duties would be reduced. He wondered whether that time would ever come? Should they ever see it—any of them at present in the House? He would remind the House that at the time when there was a surplus he had brought forward a motion of this kind, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might then have afforded to give way and made the concession. But the right hon. Gentleman had allowed that golden opportunity to pass by, and now they saw the poorer classes in this country, and the tea industry of India and Ceylon, burdened with a tax which amounted to 100 per cent. of the value of the article which the latter produced. Between 80 and 90 per cent. of the tea imports to this country came from India and Ceylon, and therefore he appealed on behalf of that great industry in India and Ceylon, as well as in behalf of the poor consumers of their tea in this country. There was a time when the poor consumer had the sympathy and attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He recollected the time when the hon. Member for North Islington gave the House some very interesting calculations which showed that the man who earned £1 a week paid 1s. 6d. in tea duty, the man who earned £2 a week paid 1379 1s. 2d., the man who earned £3 paid 1s. 2½d., the man whose income was £10,000 a year paid 10d., and the man whose income was between £10,000 and £100,000 paid between 6d. and 7d. He admitted that the proportions since then bad changed, but only to a very slight degree. There was another view that ought not to be disregarded, namely, the view of the working classes, who had been penalised in the past and were still penalised very largely in regard to taxation as compared with other classes of the community. He challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who knew more about public finance than anyone in the House, to get up and say that the working men of this country in proportion to their income did not contribute a larger share to the State than any other class. If inquiry were made it would be found that they contributed a very much larger share, and hon. Gentlemen who had moved for the total abolition of the tax upon tea had done so upon that ground, he and those who thought with him were of opinion that at the present time, although the circumstances in which the light hon. Gentleman found himself were different from those of other years, they were justified in pressing for a reduction of 2d. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman might reply that the fiscal obligations of the year were such that he could not give way upon this point, but if that reply were made, he would ask were there not certain doles and sops that had been given during the past few years to favoured classes and interests; to those whom the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India described as the "friends" of himself and his party. If those were now taken away, and instead of them a reduction of 2d. granted on an article of large and necessary consumption by the poor, he thought that would be a graceful act on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)
thought the remarks as to doles and sops must have been directed to the agricultural grant, and therefore he thought it was only right that he should say a few words upon this subject. There was no doubt that tea-planters and merchants had in times gone by 1380 been making very considerable profits, whereas the people in the agricultural districts had to eke out a precarious existence by growing wheat at 40s. and selling it at 30s. Yet they made no complaint to the Chancellor or anybody else. Whenever an agricultural Member ventured to talk about finance, hon. Members generally thought he was going to advocate protection. He could, however, indicate certain sources of revenue by which the right hon. Gentleman could close the mouths of hon. Gentlemen with reference to tea, and also give some help to the agricultural interest. The agricultural interest were altruistic first and agricultural afterwards. What they desired was the greatest good of the greatest number. Nothing would induce him to put his hand on the ark of the covenant, or suggest a duty on wheat, or a registration duty on corn, any more than he would talk scandal about Queen Elizabeth or talk disrespectfully about the equator. But there were, for example, £90,000,000 worth of foreign manufactured goods which came into this country every year, one of which was called flour, which would bear a 2s. duty.
* THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now travelling rather wide of the resolution before the Committee.
§ MAJOR RASCH
said under these circumstances he should not pursue the subject further, but would reserve his observations until a more favourable opportunity arose. He would be glad to see the duties on tea, sugar, and coal doubled, in order to get a reduction of the general taxation of the country.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.E.)
said although the reduction of the duty upon tea was of very little consequence to the rich man, owing to the small quantity of tea which he used, it was very material to the poor, and when the constituents of the hon. Gentleman heard that he advocated doubling the tax they would be very much dissatisfied with the action of their representative. The hon and gallant Member was like other hon. Gentlemen who sat on his side of the House; although they frequently made speeches in favour of Amendments 1381 moved by the other side they were very seldom found voting in the same lobby. Some extraordinary figures had been put forward with regard to this tax. It seemed that Ireland paid no less than £900,000 in respect to the tax upon tea, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the poverty of that country, would be doing a gracious thing if he accepted the Amendment proposed and reduced the duty.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACH
My hon. friend the Member for Central Hull and the hon. Member for West Islington have approached this matter from the point of view of India and Ceylon, but I hope I have shown that I have not been wanting in sympathy with the tea interest there in what I have already said with reference to this subject. I am quite aware that the tea interest is a most important one, and that at present it is in anything but a satisfactory position; but I rather attribute that state of things to over-production than to increased taxation. My hon. friend compared the taxation of tea at 6d. per lb. with the taxation of cocoa and coffee, and he suggested that the tax on cocoa and coffee ought to be raised. But I would remind my hon. friend that when the taxation of tea was 6d. in the lb. the taxation of coffee and cocoa was the same as now, and that when the tax on tea was lowered, cocoa and coffee remained as they were. My hon. friend said that in his opinion the increased duty last year had been paid, not by the consumer in this country, but by the producer, and that the price of tea has not been increased on account of excessive production. I think there is a good deal of truth in those statements. I do not say that the extra duty of 2d. imposed last year has not been to some extent an increase of burden on Ireland, but my belief is that, owing to the reduced cost of the article, apart from the duty, although those who live in Ireland have had to bear a larger amount of the total sum raised from tea than before, they have had more tea for it. The increase of duty, therefore, has not been, to the full extent represented by hon. Members, a loss to Ireland. I confess that although I sympathise with the great industry of India and Ceylon, vet I think in dealing 1382 with this question we must first consider the interests of our own taxpayers. If I could reduce the tea duty I should be glad to do so, but to talk of a reduction this year is, to my mind, simply impossible. It has been suggested by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway that if we chose to abolish what are called doles—in other words, the grant under the Agricultural Rating Act to English tenant-farmers—we might devote the money to reduce the duty on tea. I think hon. Members opposite were a little ungrateful in this matter. That grant was made the reason, and I think a sound one, for giving them, under the Irish Local Government Act, a very large grant from the Imperial Exchequer for Ireland.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACH
No, No. Although I may not discuss the question now, I may make this one allusion to that fact, that the grant under the Agricultural Rating Act for England, was the beginning of that additional grant for Irish purposes from the Exchequer. I think hon. Members from Ireland have also rather forgotten what I am attempting to do this year. I have, been obliged to suggest to Parliament the raising of a very considerable sum by additional taxation. I do not know whether they have ever given me credit for having some regard to the views of Irish Members on this matter, for some recollection that Ireland is a poor country compared with Great Britain, and some desire to do what is possible without entirely dislocating our system of taxation to be lenient to the Irish taxpayer. What have I done? Here again I can only allude to the matter without discussing it. In the scheme of taxation I have suggested I have included a tax not one penny of which can fall on Ireland—namely, the coal duty. What was my reward? Not only has there not been the faintest allusion to the exemption, but when the resolution was proposed imposing that duty, to a man hon. Members from Ireland were against it. Why?
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACH
I have heard many objections to the duty, but I have not yet heard that it will raise the price of coal. But of course I must not elaborate that argument. My only reason for alluding to it at all was that I am anxious that hon. Members from Ireland should see that in my own proposals about taxation I am endeavouring not to impose upon them more burdens than is absolutely necessary, and that I have regard to the poverty of Ireland in the proposals which I make. I do not know that there is anything else to which I ought to allude except the point raised by the hon. Member for Leicester. In the course of the debate on this question last year, the hon. Member for Leicester suggested that an ad valorem duty would be much fairer to the poorer classes. The hon. Member for West Islington has answered the hon. Member for Leicester. He knows a good deal of the trade, and he knows very well—probably much better than I do—that more than half a century ago ad valorem duties on tea existed, and they were found to be such a nuisance, owing to the constant friction and quarrels between the Crown authorities on the one side and the merchants on the other, that they were abolished by unanimous consent. The hon. Member for Leicester has always advocated advanced opinions, but in this matter he is somewhat retrograde, for whatever the House of Commons may do with respect to taxation, I do not think it will revert to an ad valorem duty on tea again.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
Not even on sugar either. The right hon. Gentle-man's argument is just as applicable to sugar as to tea.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACH
The duty on sugar is not an ad valorem duty. It is a duty of 4½ per cwt. on crystallisable sugar, whether that quantity of crystallisable sugar be contained in 1 cwt. of refined sugar, or in 2 cwts. of the lowest class of raw sugar, and that is the reason of our proposals with regard to sugar. I hope I have not by my remarks invited the Committee to discuss a matter which is beyond the scope of the resolution before it, and I trust that hon. Members, however in favour of a reduction of this 1384 duty they may be, will remember that the financial conditions of this year make the imposition of a sixpenny duty even more necessary than last year, and that, therefore, they will not support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Clare.
§ MR. DILLON
said he wished to allude to the points as regards Irish taxation which had been raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He desired to say, as an Irish Nationalist Member, that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in supposing that there was any man on those benches who had not appreciated the efforts he had made on one or two occasions to recognise the grievances of Ireland in regard to taxation. He, himself, had not forgotten the concession made in the tobacco tax, in deference to the protests made from the Irish Benches, and he recognised now in the coal duties an attempt to deal justly with Ireland, for undoubtedly the duty on exported coal was a duty calculated, so far as it went, to lighten the burden on Ireland; and if it were true that Irish Members opposed the coal duty, and would continue to oppose it, they did so, not because they regard it as unfair to Ireland, but because they had resisted, and intended to resist, all supply and taxes for carrying on a war they looked upon as iniquitous. That was the ground, and the only ground, on which he and his colleagues had opposed the coal duty. With regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the agricultural grant, he desired to point out that though that grant was a large sum given to Ireland it was given in a most wasteful way, and one of the reasons why he objected to the general policy of the grant was that once a grant of that character was made it could not be revoked. He admitted that under the agricultural grant Ireland did better than England, but the Government so altered the distribution of the grant as regards Ireland, that out of the £728,000 allocated to that country about £500,000 went into the pockets of the Irish landlords, and so was lost for ever to the axpayers of this country.
He desired to refer to a most shocking attack made on him personally by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who 1385 declared that in this House he heard him (Mr. Dillon) some years ago advocating the copious use, of Irish whisky, and saying it was more wholesome than tea. It was the first time he had been accused of preferring Irish whisky to tea. What he did say was that he preferred to see the tobacco tax reduced, because, first, it would relieve the taxpayers more, and, secondly, the excessive consumption of tea by the poorer classes was, in his judgment, an evil, for he believed it was detrimental to health. During this debate he had been anxious to raise his voice in support of the good old Liberal ideal of a free breakfast table. Nothing had surprised him more, and the surprise grew as the years rolled by, than the change that had come over the spirit of this House in respect to that ideal. When he first entered this House the great ideals of the Liberal party were peace, retrenchment, and economy, and at that time when a Minister dared to propose increased taxation he was sure to meet with the strongest opposition, even from his own supporters in the House. Not only had the ideal of the free breakfast table been forgotten, but economy also had been banished to be replaced by Imperialism. We were told the other day by the Member for Oldham that the English people might console themselves for the sugar tax by remembering that every lump of sugar they put into their tea was a shot fired at old Kruger; but he thought the taxpayers of England would soon tire of that amusement. Some hon. Members on the opposite side of the House deplored the tea tax, but said they recognised that it was now impossible to remove it, though they hoped there might be a prospect of doing so in the future. He would like to know how this prospect could arise with the ever-increasing, ever-swelling expenditure. This question was important, because Ireland was bound to these taxes as permanent, and this permanent taxation was entirely due to the disgusting, demoralising, and ruinous policy of Imperialism. When he first protested against this policy his voice was as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, but now he found that others outside those benches shared his views, and were alarmed by the enormous growth of the expenditure. He saw them walking about the lobbies with their pockets filled 1386 with letters and telegrams from their constituents clamouring against the increased income tax, the new sugar tax, and the coal duty. A patriotic poet wrote a poem some time ago, the refrain of which, "Pay, pay, pay!" might well be plastered on the walls of this House. He held that as these taxes were permanent there should be some reasonable justification for them. And what was the justification put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In the speech he delivered when introducing the Budget, he said he believed that, as the working men of England were in favour of the war, they would not be unwilling to share in the burden of it. Was it true to say that the working men of England could be held to be responsible for the war? A large number of them were misled and deluded by the corrupt press of England, and we all knew how that press was influenced by the Stock Exchange and the wealthier classes. It was not true that the working classes were responsible for the war. In the Amendment he moved in the House in October, 1899, protesting against the war, he had the support of nearly the whole of the Labour Members. Since that time we had had the horrible scenes in the city arising out of the Mafeking relief and the return of the C.I.V.
§ MR. DILLON
maintained that those ought to pay for the war who made the war, and substantially speaking the people responsible were the payers of the income tax, and especially the larger payers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his supporters had always asked—"If you object to our proposals, what is your alternative?" That question left the Irish Members untouched, because they had opposed the war from the beginning, and it was a grossly unjust thing to inflict any portion of the cost of this war on the people of Ireland, seeing that five-sixths of them had opposed it. But it he were asked his alternative, it would be to put the income tax up to 1s. 6d., and let the shipowners and mineowners and others who had made millions 1387 out of the war pay for it. Besides, that would really be the wiser course. In connection with this, the Irish Members were entitled to quarrel with the position of the Chancellor. This tax was really a war tax—a tax necessitated by the enormous yearly growth of the expenditure of this country What was the hon. Gentleman's attitude with regard to the expenditure? For four years the House had been listening to him in emphatic tones condemning the extravagance of the Government, and we heard the same thing a few days ago. On 16th May last† he drew an appalling picture of the steady annual increase. He pointed out the increase of £4,000,000 on the previous year, and said it was a real danger, which had gone on in spite of the efforts of himself and others. Well, he was a member of the Government, and responsible for what the Government did, especially for the finances. What, then, were they to think if the right hon. Gentleman were to go down to the country and condemn the finances of the Government to which he belonged?
§ MR. DILLON
Yes. Did he not say it was a danger to the country and was increasing in spite of his efforts? Was it not the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that some proper system of finance was followed? On what principle could the right hon. Gentleman remain a member of a Government which was increasing the annual expenditure to such an extent that he felt it his duty to go down to the country and say what he did say? The country was entitled to expect that in this Budget there should be some appearance of the influence of his views. It was mocking the country. If the finance of the Government was right, the right hon. Gentleman had no right to condemn it.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACH
The hon. Member does not know, though I think hon. Members will do me the justice to believe that what I say to this House and in the country I say to my colleagues. I have never denied, and I† Speech at Bristol.1388 never should deny, my full responsibility or the expense incurred, but I do feel it my duty whenever I find a proper opportunity to point out to everyone—to the country at large—the danger of a great increase of expenditure.
§ MR. DILLON
said his point was that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having year after year pointed out to the country and the House—he was not finding fault; on the contrary, many on that side of the House admired his courage—that this great growth of the ordinary national expenditure was a great danger, and found that his opinion was not followed, he was bound to do something more than that. But a strange development was taking place under their very eyes, and he would have to ask if this question, like the Catholic University question, was to be treated as an open question. The Leader of the House declared that he was in favour of the Catholic University, but said that it must be treated as an open question—a doctrine that was perfectly novel. It appeared to him that a like attitude had been arrived at with regard to this question of the financial policy of the country; in other words, that the responsibility of Ministers no longer existed. It appeared to him a most amazing and extraordinary doctrine, and it bore directly on the present tax, because he maintained that they were now engaged in considering a permanent tax. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked about the opportunity which would arise in future years for reconsidering taxation, but if the present principle which governed finance were adhered to they would have to look forward, not to a reduction, but to an increase of taxation. He thought they had a right to complain, and to comp ain most bitterly, of the deception which had been practised on the House from the outset of the war with regard to the financial obligations to which they were being pledged. The taxation they were now considering was part of the whole system, and could not be considered apart from it, because were it not for the burden which had sprung directly from the war they might possibly have hoped for a reduction of taxation. But the House was being led on by a system of delusion into a swamp, 1389 in which they would soon find themselves up to their necks, and from which they would find it impossible to extricate themselves. Some of his hon. friends and himself had raised their voices in warning against the result which would follow from the outrageous policy of the Government with regard to finance, but they were laughed at, and the House persisted in taking a roseate view of the situation. One of the points regarding which they had specially complained was the persistent statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the greater part of the cost of the war would be recovered from the Transvaal.
§ MR. DILLON
said that it would appear to be relevant if he were heard to the end. [An. HON. MEMBER: Order, order!] Hon. Members who had just entered the House and knew nothing about the rules were always ready to call an hon. Member to order, who had at least had some experience. He was quite prepared to submit to the ruling of the Chair, but not to amateurs. To his mind, the gravity of the situation was that such was the financial condition of the country that they had no chance of reducing the tea duty unless the Committee decided to adopt the course he had suggested. It was impossible for him to argue the question of the tea duty properly without some reference to the general financial position. They were asked how they proposed to reduce the tea duty in view of the necessities of the war, and they would have to meet that by making some alternative proposal, and by generally discussing the way in which the country had been brought into its present condition. What he was about to say might perhaps be more-relevant to the loan resolution.
* THE CHAIRMAN
; That was the occasion on which the matter was discussed before, and on the Report stage of that resolution or on the Bill itself would be the proper time to raise the subject.
§ MR. DILLON
said he would have an opportunity on the Report stage of the 1390 loan resolution to say what he had intended to say. He would only add that it was customary in dealing with Budget resolutions to discuss their general bearing. He would, however, accept the ruling of the Chair, and postpone the discussion.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)
said he rose merely for the purpose of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a further explanation of one sentence he made use of when he spoke last. Before doing so he wished to identify himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Mayo. The Labour Members in the House of Commons, eight in number at least, were entirely against the war from its very inception. Their objection was strong, and was gathering strength. The Chancellor of the Exchequer prided himself on the fact that he was imposing a duty which pressed equally on all classes. He demurred entirely to that proposition. Equality was a relative term, and 2d. per pound on tea, in the case of two families, one having only an income of 10s. or 12s. a week, the other with an income of as many pounds a day as the other had shillings, would not be an equal tax, simply because a larger proportion of the burden would be borne by the poorer family. He decidedly objected to any indirect duties whatever being placed on the necessaries consumed by the working man and his family. The remark to which he specially desired to call attention was that none of the coal duty would fall on Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer congratulated himself on the statement, and tried to conciliate the Irish Members by it. He did not represent any constituency in Ireland, but he was bound to say that he represented many thousands of Irishmen. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question which might be considered hypothetical, but which would be found not to be hypothetical before the discussion on the coal duty was finished. The coalfields of the North of England, and especially of Durham—
* THE CHAIRMAN
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said what he did in reply to an observation from the other side of the House, and I cannot allow the discussion to continue.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON
I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his statement. I want merely to nail it to the counter if I can, as it will form a very important part of the objection of the working man to this coal duty.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I cannot permit a discussion on the coal tax. If the hon. Member will turn his attention to the question of tea he can discuss that.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was said in reply to an observation from the other side of the House. Obviously I could not prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making that reply, but I cannot permit the discussion to continue.
§ MR. CAINE (Cornwall, Camborne)
said he desired to make it clear, while admitting that revenue must be raised in some way or other, why he objected to the particular form of raising it which was proposed. As long as the Government persisted in their determination to renew the various doles to which objection had already been taken, he would oppose every other form of taxation until that particular form was removed. If 1392 the doles which were now given were brought back into the Treasury there would be an available revenue of two or three millions sterling, but as long as they remained as they were he would be bound to oppose every other form of taxation. He had some experience of the lives of the poor in London and other cities. The poor bought tea in small quantities—in one-ounce, two-ounce, or four-ounce packets, and in every instance the paper was invariably weighed with the tea, and the poor paid the same duty on the paper as they did on the tea. In a shop in South London there was being sold tea at 1d. per ounce. Tea cost about 4d. per pound; the 6d. duty was added, and it was then sold at 14d. or 15d. per lb., and a far larger profit was obtained on the duty than on the tea itself. The objectionable feature of indirect taxation on articles of daily consumption was that profit was got on the duty as well as on the article itself. There was another reason why the tea duty was objectionable. When it was put on very strong protests were made by various classes of the community, which he thought demanded more consideration than had been given to them. The persons who took capital and enterprise into India and Ceylon developed the great tea industry, and an enormous amount of money was brought into the pockets of the tea planters in those dependencies. The price of Indian tea had fallen about 1½d. per pound in consequence of the imposition of the duty, and the depression which at present prevailed in the tea districts in India and Ceylon was largely due to that fall in price. The tea industry had been the greatest possible boon to the coolies and farm labourers in the tea districts. It was of far greater advantage than any other industry employing Indian labour, and if for no other reason than because hundreds and thousands of Indian peasants were employed on tea plantations, the duty on that article should be taken off. Tea was the one great luxury of the poor. It was the luxury they valued more than anything else. People talked about the drinking habits of the working classes, but if anyone went to a group of workmen employed away from home he would find six of their dinner cans containing tea to 1393 one containing beer. Therefore the tax manifestly pressed very hardly on the poor, and their case ought to meet with more sympathy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members had no right to object to any particular form of taxation unless they were prepared to suggest an alternative. The alternative he would suggest was that the grants that had been given to agriculture in various forms should be removed. When the Agricultural Rating Act came up for revision, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the bull by the horns and drop the Act he would be able to reduce the tea duty by 2d. and earn the gratitude of the country.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
said that when he moved his Amendment he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would be good enough to make arrangements that in future, when they were discussing the Budget resolutions, figures with reference to the previous year should be laid before the House, so that hon. Members might be bettor able to judge of the proposals of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he thought the request a reasonable one. It would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would go a little further, and give a promise that before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill a Return, dealing with, at least, Ireland should be placed in the hands of Members. Before the tea tax was finally passed Members should be in a position thoroughly to understand how much this additional tax realised in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he estimated £875,000 were raised last year in Ireland from tea. No doubt those figures were accurate.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACH
pointed out that the sum he gave was not the actual, but an estimated amount, and therefore he could not guarantee its accuracy.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
said that made it all the more necessary that his demand should be acceded to, as Members were entitled to have figures showing exactly how this tax had operated during the year. He therefore desired to 1394 press two points upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer—first, that for the future arrangements should be made by which before the Budget discussion the figures up to 31st March each year should be in the hands of Members, and secondly, and particularly, that he would, if possible, by a little extra labour on the part of the officials, enable the Irish Members before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to know exactly how this tax had affected their constituents.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACH
was understood to say that he had already promised to do what he could to supply the figures asked for, but he reminded hon. Members that the tea and other duties would be before the House after the Second Reading of the Bill. It had also to be remembered that these Returns must give the same information from one year to another, in order to give the necessary comparisons. It was desirable that the figures given for last year should be absolutely accurate and not merely estimated, so that Members should be in possession of the actual facts.
§ MR. LOUGH
urged that it would be better to have a bad return than no return at all. A really practical discussion of Irish finance could not be had without these figures. The figures of a year ago could be given, but of what interest were they in regard to these taxes? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that an extra £900,000 was put on Ireland last year. That was the most serious thing in regard to taxation which had happened to Ireland since 1801; and yet, when hon. Members asked to know the facts and figures before discussing proposals to impose a further large sum, there was a difficulty about getting such a statement. If the right hon. Gentleman would supply the information before the Committee stage commenced, it would go a long way towards serving the purpose. Even though some slight estimate had to be made to get the return through, the figures would he quite near enough.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 146.)1355
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Butcher, John George||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud||Caldwell, James||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Causton, Richard Knight||Dorington, Sir John Edward|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Cautley, Henry Strother||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cawley, Frederick||Duncan, J. Hastings|
|Austin, Sir John||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Dunn, Sir William|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Baird, John George Alex.||Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.||Emmott, Alfred|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Channing, Francis Allston||Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Chapman, Edward||Faber, George Denison|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds||Charrington, Spencer||Farquharson, Dr. Robert|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Fenwick, Charles|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Finch, George H.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Colville, John||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-|
|Bill, Charles||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond|
|Black, Alexander William||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Flower, Ernest|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Forster, Henry William|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Craig, Robert Hunter||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Cranborne, Viscount||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Brassey, Albert||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Brigg, John||Crombie, John William||Garfit, William|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cityo'Lond.|
|Brookfield, Col. Montagu||Cust, Henry John C.||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Dalkeith, Earl of||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Bull, William James||Dalziel, James Henry||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn|
|Billiard, Sir Harry||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml'ts|
|Burt, Thomas||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||M'Crae, George||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, AY.||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Simeon, Sir Harrington|
|Groves, James Grimble||Malcolm, Ian||Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire|
|Hain, Edward||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Smith, H. C (N'th'mb., Tyneside|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn L'd G. (Midd'x||Markham, Arthur Basil||Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.||Spear, John Ward|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (North'ts|
|Harmsworth, B. Leicester||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Middlemore, John. T.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Harwood, George||Mitchell, William||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Strachey, Edward|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)||Stroyan, John|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Helder, Augustus||Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uni.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Henderson, Alexander||Morrison, James Archibald||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, F.)|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Moss, Samuel||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd||Moulton, John Fletcher||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)||Mount, William Arthur||Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Thomas, J. A. (Gl'm'rgan, G'w'r|
|Holland, William Henry||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheff'ld, Brightside||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Tomkinson, James|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Myers, William Henry||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.||Norman, Henry||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)||Ure, Alexander|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Partington, Oswald||Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield)|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Joicey, Sir James||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wallace, Robert|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Percy, Earl||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Philipps, John Wynford||Warde, Col. C. E.|
|Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh||Pierpoint, Robert||Warner, Thomas C. T.|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Pilkington, Richard||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Keswick, William||Plummer, Walter R.||Wason, E. (Clackmannan)|
|Kimber, Henry||Price, Robert John||Weir, James Galloway|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Priestley, Arthur||Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunt'|
|Kinloch, Sir John George S.||Purvis Robert||Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Knowles, Lees||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.|
|Lambert, George||Rankin, Sir James||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Langley, Batty||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||White, Luke (York, E. B.)|
|Law, Andrew Bonar||Ratcliffe, R. F.||Whiteley, H (Asht'n-und-Lyne|
|Lawrence, William F.||Rea, Russell||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Lawson, John Grant||Reckitt, Harold James||Williams, O. (Merioneth)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)|
|Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)|
|Leng, Sir John||Rentoul, James Alexander||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Renwick, George||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Rickett, J. Compton||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Rigg, Richard||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd|
|Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Lough, Thomas||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wylie, Alexander|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Round, James||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Russell, T. W.|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Rutherford, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Ambrose, Robert||Bell, Richard|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda||Atherley-Jones, L.||Blake, Edward|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Boland, John|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Dowd, John|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh S.)||Joyce, Michael||O'Mara, James|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leamy, Edmund||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Crean, Eugene||Lundon, W.||Reddy, M.|
|Cremer, William Randal||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Cullinan, J.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Daly, James||M'Dermott, Patrick||Roche, John|
|Delany, William||Minch, Matthew||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Dillon, John||Mooney, John J.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Doogan, P. C.||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||Thompson E C. (Monaghan, N.|
|Duffy, William J.||Murnaghan, George||Tully, Jasper|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Murphy, J.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)|
|Hammond, John||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry M'd||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
Bill read the third time, and passed.
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Myers, William Henry|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gordon, Maj Ev'ns- (T'rH'mlets||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Norman, Henry|
|Archdale Edward Mervyn||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Austin, Sir John||Gretton, John||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||Percy, Earl|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Groves, James Grimble||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Powell, Sir Francis Shaip|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Hain, Edward||Purvis, Robert|
|Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)||Hall, Edward Marshall||Randles, John S.|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x||Rankin, Sir James|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.||Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.||Ratcliffe, R. F.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bigwood, James||Holder, Augustus||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Bill, Charles||Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter||Renwick, George|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Higginbottom, S. W.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Brassey, Albert||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.||Round, James|
|Bronkfield, Colonel Montagu||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Russell, T. W.|
|Butcher, John George||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Kenyon-Slaney, Col, W. (Salop||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Keswick, William||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Cecil, Evelyn, (Aston Manor)||Knowles, Lees||Simeon, Sir Harrington|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Law, Andrew Bonar||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)||Lawrence, William F.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Lawson, John Grant||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Smith, Hon. W. E. D. (Strand)|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S||Spear, John Ward|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lowe, Francis William||Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r'|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Macdona, John Cumming||Valentia, Viscount|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm||Maconochie, A. W.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)|
|Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Majendie, James A. H.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Doughty, George||Malcolm, Ian||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H E (Wigt'n||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Middlemore, John T.||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Milton, Viscount||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. E (Bath)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J (Manc'r||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Finch, George H.||More, Robt Jasper (Shropshire)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Morrison, James Archibald||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford||Younger, William|
|Flower, Ernest||Mount, William Arthur|
|Forster, Henry William||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Garfit, William||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bnte||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Abraham, William (Cork N.E.||Gilhooly, James||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud||Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Mara, James|
|Ambrose, Robert||Hammond, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil||Partington, Oswald|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hayden, John Patrick||Priestley, Arthur|
|Bell, Richard||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||Rea, Russell|
|Black, Alexander William||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Blake, Edward||Helme, Norval Watson||Reddy, M.|
|Boland, John||Hemphill, Rt Hon. Chas. H.||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Boyle James||Holland, William Henry||Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfriessh.)|
|Brigg, John||Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)||Rigg, Richard|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jacoby, James Alfred||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Roche, John|
|Burt, Thomas||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Caine William Sproston||Jordan, Jeremiah||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Caldwell, James||Joyce, Michael||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kennedy, Patrick James||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Kinloch, Sir John George S.||Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lambert, George||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Langley, Batty||Sullivan, Donal|
|Colville, John||Layland Barratt, Francis||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Leamy, Edmund||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Crean, Eugene||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lough, Thomas||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r|
|Crombie, John William||Lundon, W.||Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.|
|Cullinan, J.||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Tomkinson, James|
|Daly, James||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Cann, James||Tully, Jasper|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Crae, George||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||M'Dermott, Patrick||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Delany, William||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Weir, James Galloway|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Markham, Arthur Basil||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Dillon, John||Mooney, John J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Duffy, William J.||Moss, Samuel||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Murnaghan, George||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Edwards, Frank||Murphy, J||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd|
|Farrell, James Patrick||O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry Mid||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Field, William||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Dowd, John|
§ Original Question put.1398
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 130. (Division List No. 147.)1399
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bond, Edward||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bousfield, William Robert||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Brassey, Albert||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bullard, Sir Harry||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Austin, Sir John||Butcher, John George||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Bain, Col. James Robert||Cautley, Henry Strother||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwichr||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Doughty, George|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc')||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Charrington, Spencer Spencer||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Churchill, Winston Leigh||Duncan, J. Hastings|
|Bill, Charles||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.||Renwick, George|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge-|
|Finch, George H.||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lowe, Francis William||Round, James|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Flower, Ernest||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Russell, T. W.|
|Forster, Henry William||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (City of Lond.||Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Macdona, John Cumming||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rHmlets||Maconochie, A. W.||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Simeon, Sir Harrington|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Majendie, James A. H.||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Malcolm, Ian||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Gretton, John||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Spear, John Ward|
|Groves, James Grimble||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries.||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Middlemore, John T.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Hain, Edward||Milton, Viscount||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn. Ld. G (Midd'x||Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Hamilton, Marq of (L'donderry||Morrison, James Archibald||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Mount, William Arthur||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Helder, Augustus||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Henderson, Alexander||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)|
|Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter||Nicholson, William Graham||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)||Norman, Henry||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.|
|Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.||Parkes, Ebenezer||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Percy, Earl||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Pierpoint, Robert||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Plummer, Walter R.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Keswick, William||Purvis, Robert||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Randles, John S.||Younger, William|
|Knowles, Lees||Rankin, Sir James|
|Law, Andrew Bonar||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lawrence, William F.||Ratcliffe, R. F.||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Lawson, John Grant||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Craig, Robert Hunter||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud||Crean, Eugene||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Cremer, William Randal||Gilhooly, James|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Crombie, John William||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Cullinan, J.||Hammond, John|
|Bell, Richard||Daly, James||Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Black, Alexander William||Dalziel, James Henry||Harmsworth, R. Leicester|
|Blake, Edward||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Boland, John||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Delany, William||Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.|
|Boyle, James||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)|
|Brigg, John||Dillon, John||Holland, William Henry|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Doogan, P. C.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Caine, William Sproston||Duffy, William J.||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Caldwell, James||Edwards, Frank||Jameson, Major J. Eustace|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)-|
|Cawley, Frederick||Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Farrell, James Patrick||Joyce, Michael|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Field, William||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Colville, John||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Kennedy, Patrick James|
|Kinloch, Sir John George S.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Lambert, George||O'Dowd, John||Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.|
|Langley, Batty||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||O'Mara, James||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r|
|Leamy, Edmund||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Partington, Oswald||Tomkinson, James|
|Lough, Thomas||Power, Patrick Joseph||Tully, Jasper|
|Lundon, W.||Price, Robert John||Ure, Alexander|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Priestley, Arthur||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|M'Crae, George||Rea, Russell||Weir, James Galloway|
|M'Dermott, Patrick||Reckitt, Harold James||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Reddy, M.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Mooney, John J.||Redmond, William (Clare)||Whiteley, Geooge (York, W. R.)|
|Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Moss, Samuel||Rigg, Richard||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Moulton, John Fletcher||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Murnaghan, George||Roche, John||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Murphy, J.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'fi'ld|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)||Soares, Ernest J.||Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Sullivan, Donal|
§ Resolved, "That the Customs duty now charged on tea shall continue to be charged until the first day of August nineteen hundred and two, that is to say, Tea, the pound sixpence."