§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the additional Excise duty on 81 spirits, imposed by Section seven of the Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and two."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ MR. NOLAN (Louth, S.)said he desired to make a personal appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the duty on spirits. He had little doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman were left to his own instincts in the matter he would not have the slightest hesitation in acceding to the request he was about to make. But he was well aware that the right hon. Gentleman was not free to give effect to his personal inclination, and he could forecast the reply which the right hon. Gentleman would make to his appeal. He would, no doubt, express the wish he entertained to relieve the over-taxation of Ireland, but he would also inform the Committee that the exigencies of the public service prevented the possibility of any amelioration of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman would doubtless point to the increase in the Army and Navy and to the demands on the public purse in connection with the war still proceeding in South Africa, and then would come the refusal to which he was afraid he had to look forward. He was reminded of an incident which occurred on the first occasion on which he visited the House of Commons many years ago. At that time the party to which he now had the honour to belong was led by Mr. Isaac Butt, and from the strangers' gallery he heard Mr. Butt make an appeal to the Treasury Bench, and when he received a reply he said that when he considered the words of Ministers and the action of the Government he was reminded of the saying of his namesake in the Old Testament—"The voice was the voice of Jacob soft and sweet, but the hand was the hand of Esau rough and hard." Ireland received soft words from Ministers of the Crown, but yet the country was left to groan under an intolerable burden of taxation. It was, however, the duty of the Irish Members to protest against this burden of taxaton, and they protested on broad national grounds, because it had been proved by the Royal Commission which inquired into the financial relations between the two countries that 82 Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of nearly three millions sterling a year. He wished further to protest against the tax on whisky, because it was unfair in its incidence to the Irish people. When they compared the tax upon spirits which were used by the great mass of the people of Ireland with the wines consumed by the upper classes they found it told against the working classes. He also protested against the continuance of the additional 6d. levied upon that industry in the previous year, having regard to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he did not make a definite promise, held out a very distinct hope that it was only to be levied for twelve months. It had often been stated that Ireland was a poor country. He protested against such a statement. Ireland had rich resources in herself, and if she was poor it was owing to the excessive taxation from which she suffered, of which this particular tax formed a very important part. At the present time, excluding manufactured goods, Ireland exported to this country goods to the extent of no less than £26,000,000, and if she were not so excessively taxed she would be one of the most prosperous and richest countries in the world. The produce of all the gold mines of the world would not pay for the amount of agricultural produce which Ireland exported to England, and if the return for the produce were not drained out of Ireland year after year by excessive taxation Ireland would not have to appear in forma pauperis before the nations of the earth. The excessive taxation amounted to as much as £3,000,000 at a time when the revenue of the country was £7,500,000, and now that the revenue of the country stood at £10,500,000 its burdens correspondingly increased. With regard to the tax upon whisky, the number of gallons of proof whisky distilled in Ireland last year was 14,500,000, upon which a duty of 11s. was levied. He drew attention to the fact that no rebate was allowed upon whisky exported to Great Britain, and he thought that Ireland ought to be credited with the full amount of duty paid on Irish whisky, whether paid in Ireland or in this country. This enormous impost upon this particular industry 83 had increased from 3s. 4d. in 1853 up to 11s., and it now amounted to more than five times the cost of the product, even of the best class. Charges had been made against the Irish of disloyalty. In the beginning of the last century thousands of Irishmen were fighting for England, and pouring out their hearts' blood on the fields of Spain, and both the general officers of those times and historians of that war admitted that many of the greatest victories won for this country had been won by the Irish troops. What did those who survived and returned to their own country, which they loved so well, find? They found the taxation had more than doubled, and in connection with this particular tax trebled, and the same thing occurred in the Crimean War. Irishmen then fought and bled for this country, to find upon their return to Ireland that fresh burdens had been placed upon the shoulders of the people.
There was a strong belief in Ireland, and also in Scotland, that the tax put on the general drink of the masses was heavier by a great deal than that placed on the general drink of the masses of England. Those who measured the popular beverage of Ireland and the popular beverage of this country said that whisky paid quite as little as beer when the alcoholic strength of the liquids was taken into account, but he protested against the national beverage of Ireland being compared in this way with beer. There was no analogy between beer and whisky; they were entirely different drinks, and produced by a different process. He would like to know if that was the standaard by which the Government measured the tax on the two liquors; and if so, why? Without entering into the technique of the question, he might point out that 84 lb. of malted barley, fermented into wort at 1,055°, produced 36 gallons of beer for the English consumer; whereas, as far as Ireland was concerned, it produced 4½ gallons of proof spirit. The processes of developing the two kinds of drink were entirely different, and the alcohol which was developed in the one case was allowed to remain latent in the other. There was no getting away from the fact that the capacity for developing this alcoholic strength was in the beer 84 just as in the whisky. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had the advantage of being advised by great chemical experts, would be able to put a different complexion on the matter, but all the men he himself had met with connected with the distilling and brewing industry, and all the chemists he had been able to consult, were of opinion that, as far as the two drinks were concerned, there was no earthly reason why whisky should be taxed at 11s. per proof gallon, while beer escaped with a tax of 11s. for 36 gallons. The Irish farmers' barley, placed in the hands of the distillers, turned out an alcoholic strength of 450°, and paid £2 9s. 6d., while the English farmers' barley, which had within it a possible alcoholic strength of 450°, paid only 11s., the Irishman thus being forced to pay four and a half times as much as the Englishman. Then with regard to wine, which he admitted was, like whisky, a distilled product, if the standard of alcoholic strength was applied to wine, it would be found that a gallon of wine, containing 30°. of alcohol, paid 1s. 3d. Therefore wine registering 30° of alcohol paid for 100 per cent. of alcohol 5s. a gallon, while whisky paid 11s. If alcoholic strength was to be the standard according to which the tax was to be levied, how was it that the product of the Frenchman, the Spaniard, and the Italian was allowed to get off at half the amount imposed upon the product of the Irishman? He, however, looked to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some relief in connection with this particular duty, on account of the promise held out by him when the question was before the House last year. The right hon. Gentleman was reported in Hansard as having stated, after mentioning the amount of the duty for that year—
I think that we may very properly impose another sixpence per gallon on spirit.And then, having said so much, he went on—I wish to say that I look upon it as a temporary addition to the existing taxation, I hope, merely for the coining year.The right hon. Gentleman further said—I propose that the additional taxation shall last until 1st August, 1901—not, I hope, that it will he necessary to levy it so long.85 The hon. Member, therefore, looked forward with considerable interest to the right hon. Gentleman's reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also held out a specific hope with regard to what was called "silent spirit." The amount imported was something like 1,500,000 gallons.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid it would not be open to the hon. Member to consider the question of imported spirit. That had already been disposed of by the Resolution of the Committee.
§ MR. NOLANsaid it was not merely the question of the imported silent spirit, as there were no less than 14,500,000 gallons of that liquor manufactured in this country. What became of that spirit? A portion was used for its legitimate purpose, namely, the making of varnishes, etc., but a large amount found its way into the Scotch and Irish whisky vats. In the interests of the revenue, as well as of the health of the population, steps ought to be taken by the Government to prevent unscrupulous traders using this vile product, faking it up, and selling it as Irish or Scotch whisky. He suggested, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have to derange his plans, that this 6d. per gallon should be devoted to some useful Irish purpose, such, for instance, as the recently instituted Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. That Department, which was established with an honest and genuine desire to improve the condition of Ireland, had a very wide field to cover; almost everything connected with the undeveloped resources of the country came within its purview; and, at least, it would be able to indicate a way in which the money, amounting to between £300,000 and £400,000 per annum, might be applied. But whether the money was devoted to that particular object or not, it surely was not an extravagant request to ask that it should be applied to some beneficial and specific Irish purpose. The war in South Africa was costing £1,500,000 a week, and surely it was not asking too much when they expressed a wish that this money, raised in Ireland by increased taxation, should be devoted to Irish purposes to the extent of one-third of the amount 86 which was being poured out weekly on the veldt in South Africa. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give special attention to the points he had raised, and make some effort in the direction of restoring a portion of the money which had been unjustly levied upon Ireland.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said he joined with his hon. friend in protesting against the re-imposition of this additional duty on spirits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured them at the time would only be levied temporarily. Nothing could be more distinct and less ambiguous than the undertaking given them by the right hon. Gentleman that this additional 6d. was only to be a temporary duty. This tax more than any other exemplified in a striking manner the unfair way in which taxation weighed upon Ireland. At the present moment indirect taxation in England had been reduced by 48 per cent. of the whole, while it remained in Ireland at 73 per cent. The tax on whisky proved up to the hilt that indirect taxation had been levied very unfairly upon Ireland. He was anxious to see the consumption of alcohol in Ireland largely decreased by voluntary efforts, but that was not the question before the Committee. What they had to consider was what the tax produced, how it was levied, and what effect it would have on the country upon which it was levied. In 1823 the tax in England upon whisky was 11s. 8d. and in 1852 it was reduced to 7s. 10d. In 1823 in Ireland the whisky tax was 2s. 5d., butitwasraisedinl852to 2s. 8d., and at the present moment it stood at 11s. That was a four-fold increase in the duty upon the national beverage of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might argue that the same taxes were levied indiscriminately in Ireland as in England, and that there could not possibly be any unfairness in that. That was exactly what they complained of. By picking out those particular articles which were greatly used in a certain country, as whisky was in Ireland, under the pretence of fairness and equality, they inflicted a great injustice upon the country. Whisky was the national beverage in Ireland, and by taxing that they placed a direct tax upon the people, while those people who consumed beer got off with 87 much lighter taxation. They had a right to claim that this extra sixpence ought to be discontinued. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would argue that, like tobacco, whisky was a luxury. Mr. Sexton, in his Report of the Financial Relations Commission, said—
Whether tea or tobacco, beer or whisky, is a luxury or not, is a question to which no absolute answer can be given. The question is not whether any commodity of common consumption is a luxury or not, but simply what part of the Imperial Revenue the people in each country can fairly contribute in proportion to what they can afford to spend, no matter how they may think proper to spend it.He would give an illustration of this. Supposing the finances of France and England were joined, it would be quite unfair to the French to levy a heavy tax upon coffee and a light tax upon tea. They might say to the Frenchman, "Coffee is a luxury; why do not you drink tea?" The French would reply that coffee was their national beverage, and that they would not be treated equally with England by putting a heavy tax on coffee and a light one on tea. The same argument applied between England and Ireland with regard to whisky and beer, the national beverages of those countries. Upon this question Sir Robert Giffen observes—The amount contributed by Ireland to Customs and Excise revenue which is frequently considered by itself a sign of relative resources, is only evidence that in matters of taxation Ireland is virtually discriminated against by the character of the indirect taxes which happen to hit articles of specially Irish consumption.That was part of their whole case in regard to their financial relations, a question which he hoped would be dealt with at no very distant date. Really the whole argument and the whole proof of the unfairness of the taxation of Ireland, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer got £3,000,000 more than he was entitled to, rested upon the basis of indirect taxation. There was another view of the question, and that was to compare the whisky tax with the beer tax of this country. Irishmen paid more on the alcohol they consumed than Englishmen, although they were more temperate. He objected to the whole system under which taxation was levied 88 at present in Ireland. The Nationalist Members considered it fair that the tax should be reduced to something more in accordance with justice and with sound principles of financial equity. With regard to the proportion between whisky and beer, he thought it would be allowable to quote the statement of a gentleman whose name at the present moment was known probably to every newspaper reader in the civilised world. He referred to Sir Alfred Milner. It was admitted by Sir Alfred Milner when he was Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue—that whilst the tax on spirits—the article more generally consumed in Ireland—is equal to from two-thirds to three-fourths of the price, the tax upon beer, which is the popular article of consumption in England, is only about one-sixth of the price.The case was stronger in regard to spirit duties. In whisky the duty on patent still whisky was nine-tenths of the price, and on pot-still whisky seven-eighths of the price. The whole of this system of taxation—this apparent equality of the rates of duty in both countries—was based on wrong principles, and with regard to the poorer country the Government discriminated against her with almost awful injustice. There was another view of the case in connection with this additional tax on spirits. A high tax on spirits tended to produce bad whisky; at any rate, it tended to put a large amount of bad and unwholesome whisky into consumption among the people, because the temptation to adulteration by the use of imported spirits was increased. That imported spirit was mixed with honest Scotch or Irish whisky, and it was placed on the market with large profit to the publican, but, unfortunately, with the most destructive effects on the bulk of the people who consumed it. Methylated spirit was used for burning old paint off doors and shutters, and whisky adulterated with that spirit was calculated to burn the stomachs of the unfortunate people who consumed it. This was owing to the high duty levied on the whisky. Why should they discriminate against Irish whisky? In connection with silent spirit, as it was called, whether imported or made in this country, he thought they were entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 89 to cause inquiries to be instituted as to where it was made and what it was made from, and to try to follow it through its various ramifications in connection with the spirit trade. When Mr. Gladstone brought in the Budget in 1854 in connection with the expenditure for the Crimean War he increased the duty on beer by 50 percent., but now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make no increase whatever on the beer duty. If it were to be a question as between keeping the increase of 6d. per gallon on the whisky or increasing the beer duty, the Nationalist Members should support the latter. It had been pointed out and proved to demonstration that whisky was most unfairly taxed as contrasted with beer. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not agree to lop off the additional 6d. per gallon, at any rate he should not violate their intelligence by pretending that the tax was imposed in the interest of fair play and financial equality between England and Ireland in regard to these matters. The Nationalist Members trusted that they would be able to raise this whole question of the financial relations between the two countries in a more formal manner than was possible in a debate on a single tax. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to assure Irish Members that this tax would not be continued beyond next August, as the right hon. Gentleman said last year that it would only be a temporary tax. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He was not standing there as an advocate of intemperance or of the increased consumption of whisky. Far from it. He should like to see the consumption of whisky in Ireland at any rate reduced very largely, and he should like to see the consumption of honest Irish whisky increased in this country on the ground of temperance, because it would then drive out of the market bad and deleterious spirit, which was doing an enormous amount of harm to the health of the community.
§ MR. SAMUEL YOUNG (Cavan, East)said he considered the duty on whisky was too high at 11s. per proof gallon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him that it did not even pay him to put that tax on. It would pay 90 the Chancellor of the Exchequer better at 10s., and it would be better for the country. There was a point at which it was dangerous to tax an article, and he thought they had not only reached that point in whisky, but they had gone beyond it. Patent still whisky was used enormously in this country, and to make a gallon twenty-five over proof by that process cost 1s. 3d. On that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to be paid 13s. 9d. of duty The proportion of duty to cost in whisky was out of all proportion as compared with any other article on which duty was levied. Beer was probably the nearest thing to it, but the proportion between beer and whisky was as 2s. 3d. to 11s. He did not say the duty on beer was too little, but he distinctly said the duty on whisky was too much. It was not good for the community, and it was not good for the revenue to put so large a tax on whisky. He wished to disabuse the public mind with regard to the great evil which was said to take place in this country from the use of silent whisky. Silent whisky was German whisky which came in here, and he believed it was rarely used in this country as a beverage. It was only used for methylation. He was really not much afraid of a further duty being put on spirits, not because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have any qualms of conscience in increasing the duty, but because he was satisfied that it would not pay, and that it would be detrimental to the public interest. He had asked a question that day as to whether the 6d. could not be taken off, and he did not get a favourable answer, but he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the matter.
§ MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)said that after the unimpassioned and impartial speech just delivered, he was afraid that anything he could say would fall very flat. He desired that the country should understand that the Irish Members were not unanimous in protesting against this tax. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish benches: Yes, we are.] Not even three-fourths of them. He thought that the feeling of that part of the country which he had the honour to represent towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that 91 his Budget dealt very impartially with all interests and sections of Great Britain; and if there was one section of the House more than another which had a right to be grateful it was surely the representatives for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had not added to a single tax which bore on that country. [Cries from the Irish Benches of "Sugar!"] He desired to give the heartiest support to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he would have been better pleased had the right hon. Gentleman increased the duty on whisky. There was a meeting of the National Temperance Association that afternoon in the Mansion House, with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the chair, and he had sent a telegram expressing regret that he could not be there to support the Archbishop, because he felt it his bounden duty to remain in the House to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)said that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken would tax whisky on religious grounds. [Mr. JOHNSTON: Why not?] Well, most of the bad whisky came from the hon. Gentleman's own constituency. It was very important that the House should know how the people of Ireland had been treated in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave last year a clear and specific promise that this tax would only last a certain period. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House should bear in mind that that promise had not been kept, and that probably the promises of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the coal and sugar duties would be as evasive as that with reference to the whisky duty. It was very unfair to increase the tax on an important Irish industry, which had already reached the breaking point, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted in his opening statement. From the very instructive set of figures supplied by the hon. Member for West Islington he found that in 1893–94 the total revenue from whisky was £2,234,684, but when the duty was increased to 11s. per gallon the revenue only amounted to £2,471,000, or an increase of £236,000. He thought hat was a very clear indication that the tax on whisky could not be further increased with any profit to the revenue. 92 They could tax an article out of existence, and if the Government continued this tax on a legitimate Irish industry it would be killed. The effect of the increased tax on Irish whisky had been to drive it out of the British market, and to introduce a cheap German spirit, manufactured from sawdust and sulphuric acid; and in a great many cases that obnoxious compound had been palmed off on the British public as good Irish whisky. Good, well-matured Irish whisky was as little intoxicating as some of the German wines. After all whisky was the wine of Ireland, and was used for medicinal and other purposes, besides driving people into the ways of intemperance. He found that on 72s. worth of beer the taxation was 8s.; on 72s. worth of wine the taxation was 9s.; on 72s. worth of coffee the taxation was 9s.; but on 72s. worth of spirits the taxation was 29s. 6d. That meant that on a 1s. worth of beer a man paid only 1⅓d. of taxation, but on 1s. worth of whisky he paid 5d. When the British working man, who shouted for the South African War, drank 1s. worth of beer he only paid 1⅓d., but the poor Irishman, who had objected all along to that iniquitous war, drank 1s. worth of whisky he paid 5d. Not only had the taxation on whisky reached the point at which it ceased to be profitable, but it was driving the good Irish stuff out of the market and introducing an impure foreign stuff. They could not go into a decent public-house in this country and get a glass of Irish whisky which could be safely drunk. It was not Irish whisky at all, but a deleterious German spirit. Irish whisky had been unfairly treated in the matter of taxation. The hon. Member for South Belfast seemed to think that the whisky industry in Ireland should be extinguished altogether.
§ MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONHear, hear!
§ MR. TULLYBut Ireland was naturally a favourable country for producing all the materials for making good Irish whisky. What would the Germans or French say if it were proposed to wipe out the production of wine, for which those countries were naturally adapted? It was very important that 93 hon. Members on both sides of the House should carefully weigh how the Irish Members had been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question, and how his promises had been broken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that the Irish people had a grievance in this matter, and had been unfairly treated, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not give some indication of the intentions of the Government in regard to discontinuing the tax. He admitted that this Budget was the first for many years in which Ireland had not been treated unfairly, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bearing in mind his promise last year, would give the Irish Members some assurance of relief which they could tell to their people at home.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for the admission he has just made that in this year's Budget I have not striven to deal unfairly with Ireland. I can assure the hon. Member that with regard to the additional taxation imposed last year, in that also I tried to deal fairly with Ireland. Last year that addition was expected by me and by the House to be temporary, and I have explained already to the House the circumstances in which it was necessary to continue it. I only propose to continue it in these resolutions and in the Finance Bill for another year, because I hope that by that time I may be able to review the financial position and consider how these taxes may be dealt with. I can not, however, make any promise now as to the future until I see what expenditure I have to meet. I shall be just as glad as the hon. Member to get rid of this and other additional taxation, but if the country has to meet expenditure like the present I am afraid it cannot be done. The additional tax on spirits has been criticised in its relation to the tax on beer. The general taxation of spirits is doubtless higher in proportion to the amount of alcohol, and I can only say it has always been, and I believe still is, the recognised principle of the taxation of alcohol that the stronger the liquor in which the alcohol is contained the heavier the tax. That is a principle 94 which holds good not only in this country, but all other countries which deal with taxation of this kind. The hon. Member has been almost as eloquent upon the virtues of Irish whisky as the hon. Member for the Sudbury Division upon the virtues of English beer. I am surprised to hear that it is principally used for medicinal purposes, and has no great intoxicating Power. I am not a large consumer of Irish whisky, but I should be rather afraid to attack it with such views as those.
I think hon. Members who have discussed the relative taxation of whisky and beer have really omitted to consider that the burden on Ireland of the further taxation of spirits is to be measured not so much by the production of spirits in Ireland as by the consumption. Irish Members make it a grievance, whisky being an Irish export, that by its export Ireland is so much the poorer. I cannot myself regard the taxation upon Irish whisky from that point of view. No doubt there is a larger proportionate consumption of spirits in Ireland than in England, but I believe the disproportion is steadily diminishing year by year, and that beer and porter are becoming more popular. For Ireland's sake I am glad of it, because I would much prefer that people should drink ale and porter rather than spirits; not on the ground of revenue, but from the point of view of health. I do not believe much silent spirit, as it is called, imported from Germany, is used here for drink. I believe it is used in manufacture. On the whole question, which has been only lightly touched upon, and which could only be lightly touched upon, on this resolution of the relative taxation of Ireland, I am quite willing to admit that the tax on spirits does pro tanto press more heavily on Ireland than on England. It is a part of our general system which has that effect, whereas other parts of that system bear more lightly on Ireland than on other parts of the kingdom. Whether it is fair or not I will not now discuss; but I believe the objections which hon. Members from Ireland raised to the taxation on spirits are due not so much to a wish on their part that spirits should be lightly taxed so that they might become cheap, and be more 95 largely consumed than at present, as to a desire to diminish the taxation which Ireland bears. That is a question which we cannot now discuss for reasons with which hon. Members are well acquainted, and I must ask the House
§ to sanction this additional tax, at any rate for another year.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided; Ayes, 342; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 157.)
97| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Green, Walford D (Wednesbury |
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Coddington, Sir William | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Gretton, John |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) |
| Aird, Sir John | Colomb, Sir John Charles R. | Groves, James Grimble |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc Stroud | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Gunter, Sir Robert |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Archdale; Edward Mervyn | Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Hall, Edward Marshall |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Craig, Robert Hunter | Halsey, Thomas Frederick |
| Amold-Forster, Hugh O. | Cranborne, Viscount | Hambro, Charles Eric |
| Asher, Alexander | Cremer, William Randal | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hamilton, Marq of (Lnd'nderry |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Rob. W. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Cust, Henry John C. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Dalkeith, Earl of | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Austin, Sir John | Dalziel, James Henry | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Haslett, Sir James Horner |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Bain, Colonel Jaines Robert | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale- |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Dickson, Charles Scott | Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir A. D. |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Heider, Augustus |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D. | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Doughty, George | Higginbottom, S. W. |
| Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E) |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol | Edwards, Frank | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Hornby, Sir William Henry |
| Bill, Charles | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Black, Alexander William | Faber, George Denison | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Fardell, Sir T. George | Hoult, Joseph |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Fenwick, Charles | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc. | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Hughes, Colonel Edwin |
| Brigs, John | Finch, George H. | Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Fisher, William Hayes | Jessel, Capt. Herb. Merton |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Burns, John | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh |
| Burt, Thomas | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Keswick, William |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Forster, Henry William | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Caine, William Sproston | Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ. | Knowles, Lees |
| Caldwell, James | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. | Langley, Batty |
| Campbell, Rt Hn J. A (Glasgow) | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lawrence, William F. |
| Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Fuller, J. M. F. | Lawson, John Grant |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Garfit, William | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Gibbs. Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond. | Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Godson, Sir Augustus Fred. | Leigh, Sir Joseph |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gordon. Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts | Leng, Sir John |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- | Leveson-Gower, Frederiek N. S. |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Levy, Maurice |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Goschen, Hon. George J. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Chapman, Edward | Graham, Henry Robert | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Charrington, Spencer | Grant, Corrie | Lloyd-George, David |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Penn, John | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | Porks, Robert William | Tennant, Harold John |
| Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.) | Pierpoint, Robert | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.) |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings |
| Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Plummer, Walter R. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R. |
| Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison | Pretyman, Ernest George | Tomkinson, James |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Price, Robert John | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Priestley, Arthur | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) | Purvis, Robert | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Pym, C. Guy | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Randles, John S. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Malcolm, Ian | Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter |
| Manners, Lord Cecil | Rea, Russell | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Reckitt, Harold James | Wallace, Robert |
| Maple, Sir John Blundell | Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | Reid, James (Greenock) | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Remnant, Jas. Farquharson | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Martin, Richard Biddulph | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Rickett, J. Compton | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire | Rigg, Richard | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| Melville, Beresford Valentine | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Milward, Colonel Victor | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney | Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton |
| Mitchell, William | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Loyd |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Ropner, Colonel Robert | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Round, James | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose) | Russell, T. W. | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Morton, Arthur H. A. (D'ptford) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Moss, Samuel | Samnel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Mount, William Arthur | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Schwann, Charles E. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute | Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Murray. Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Myers, William Henry | Sinclair, Louis Romford | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N. |
| Newnes, Sir George | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (York.) |
| Norman, Henry | Sinith, H. C (Northmb Tyneside | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) | Soares, Ernest J. | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Palmer, George Win. (Reading | Spear, John Ward | Wylie, Alexander |
| Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Parker, Gilbert | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Younger, William |
| Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) | Stroyan, John | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n | Strutt, Hn. Chas. Hedley | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham) | Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier | |
| Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley | Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hemphill Rt. Hon. Charles H. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Connor, Jas. (Wieklow, W) |
| Blake, Edward | Joyce, Michael | O'Doherty, William |
| Boland, John | Kennedy, Patrick James | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Boyle, James | Leamy, Edmund | O'Dowd, John |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Lundon, W. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | O'Mara, James |
| Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Cogan, Denis J. | M'Cann, James | Reddy, M. |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Dermott, Patrick | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Cullinan, J. | M'Fadden, Edward | Roche, John |
| Delany, William | M'Govern, T. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Doogan, P. C. | Mooney, John J. | Tully, Jasper |
| Duffy, William J. | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | White, Patrick (Meath, N.) |
| Elibank, Master of | Murphy, J. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N) | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan. |
| Hammond, John | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | |
| Harrington, Timothy | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md |
§ Resolution to be reported to-morrow, at Two of the clock; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.