HC Deb 29 April 1901 vol 93 cc99-127

That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and two, sums not exceeding sixty million pounds may be raised by all or any of the following methods:—

  1. (a) by means of the creation of two and three-quarter per cent. Consolidated Stock within the meaning of the National Debt Conversion Act, 1888; or
  2. (b) by means of the issue of further War Stock or War Bonds under the War Loan Act, 1900; or
  3. (c) by means of the issue of Treasury Bills; or
  4. (d) by means of the issue of Exchequer Bonds;
and that the principal of, and interest on, any sum so raised be charged on the Consolidated Fund.

That all expenses incurred in connection with raising the said sums, including any additional remuneration to the Banks of England and Ireland, be charged on the Consolidated Fund."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

said he rose to protest against the loan of sixty millions for the purposes of paying the cost of the infamous war that was being waged in South Africa. He would like to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what price the loan had been placed, as there was a strong feeling on the Irish Benches that the expense of this war should be laid not on the shoulders of the people of Ireland, but upon the shoulders of the men who had been the main cause of it. The expense should be borne not only by the Transvaal, but by the Jews and moneylenders of the London Stock Exchange, to whom, to a large extent, it was due. One hon. Member upon the Conservative side of the House had said in the course of debate that if the war cost 200 millions it would be a very good price for which to obtain the Transvaal, and if that were so, it was not the present generation who ought to pay at all but future generations who would enjoy the fruits of the war we were now waging. So far as Ireland was concerned, nine-tenths of the people opposed the war, and he appealed to the Leader of the House, recollecting his late connection with Ireland, to use his influence to relieve Ireland from the burden she would have to bear if this war tax outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were put upon her. There was no reason why Ireland should pay any more than the colonies paid, in fact the colonies should be made to pay for their enthusiasm and the way in which they had assisted to take the liberty of the Boers away.


said the resolution raised a question of the highest principle and highest importance. For once he disagreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down, who appeared to think that posterity ought to be called upon to pay the costs of the war, and that therefore, the loan was justified. Such a suggestion reminded him of Robespierre's question, "What has posterity ever done for us." He thought those who caused the war should pay a large proportion of the cost. The Government were putting off the evil day. He felt convinced that if the late Mr. Gladstone were alive and in the House, he would denounce in the strongest terms this system of raising money by way of loans instead of by fresh taxation. He was not capable of suggesting the alternative courses to be pursued, but at the same time he could not help thinking it would have been more honest and straightforward to have raised a considerable proportion of the sixty millions required by direct and indirect taxation instead of by a loan at 2¾ per cent. When the Government found that this war was costing so much and likely to last so long, they ought to have made inquiries into new sources of taxation. They might have taxed ground rents and ground values, so that the landlords who draw so much money from those sources should pay their fair share. The Committee was told there was no hope of obtaining any assistance from these wealthy mines in the Transvaal. Why not? And again, why did not the Government instead of having an income tax of 1s. 2d. in the £. have a 2s. income tax with proper graduations, so that it should not fall on incomes of less than £1,000? Such a tax would be a real test of whether the war was popular. It was not honest to put the burden upon generations to come; the proper course was to place it upon the shoulders of the present generation by means of direct and indirect taxation. The loan would go on and other loans would be asked for, and the whole 200 millions would be raised by way of loan, and nally added to the National Debt, and the only share the present generation would pay would be the interest upon that loan. The Government had claimed that the great majority by which they were returned was an endorsement of their policy, but he contended that the true test was by taxation, and, having regard to the way in which the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been met, he thought he was justified in saying the war was not so popular as had been supposed. He protested against the resolution.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the House into his confidence, and tell them more than on a previous occasion he had judged it wise to do. The first question he wished to ask was, why was the whole loan of sixty millions issued so promptly? He had understood that the right hon. Gentleman was only going to borrow some forty millions at present, and that he only took the right to borrow the remainder so that he might be able to do so if necessary during the year. Last year when the right hon. Gentleman took power to borrow thirty-five millions he did not exercise his full borrowing powers, he only borrowed thirty. To-day he had exercised his borrowing powers to the utmost. He also wished to know what was the proportion of the needs of the present year for which this money was borrowed. The great crime of the right hon. Gentleman was that he delivered good moral lectures to the House, and that he complained that the Opposition did not strengthen his hands; but when they came to the actions of the right hon. Gentleman they were hardly up to the level of his speeches. So far as he could make out, sixty millions had been raised by loan, and eleven millions by new taxation, so that out of seventy-one millions raised only eleven millions were raised by taxation. He had seen, the statement that the loan was divided into two parts, and thirty millions were placed with foreign bankers before the issue to British bankers. If he was wrong he would be glad to be set right, but he understood that a large foreign syndicate had in this way an advantage over British bankers, as they knew the precise price at which they could get the loan and could make their arrangements. Another interesting point in this connection was the total amount of national indebtedness after the issue of the loan. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, to say the amount was then 687 millions. Did that include the sixty millions? It probably did not. If it did not, that would bring the total amount up to 747 millions, almost the largest amount at which the Debt had ever stood. So far as he could see, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had strained his powers to the utmost limit, and no doubt that had had a depressing effect on national securities. He hoped some explanation would be given before the resolution was carried.


said that, in his opinion, if the loan was to be raised at all, it should be charged on some special matter. The Government should charge it upon the new colonies which they had annexed, but not yet conquered, and call it the "Transvaal Loan." Unless the loan was charged on something it would entirely disappear in the National Debt, and the gentlemen interested in the Rhodesian companies would devise some plan by which it should never be charged on the gold mines of the Transvaal. Those mines were the richest in the world, and the capitalists who had encouraged the war should be made to subscribe to the cost of it. Therefore the loan should be known by a special name, so that any future Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to levy it upon the Transvaal. The more honest method of raising the money would be by taxation, as was done at the time of the Crimean War, which had been reckoned the greatest blunder of this country in the past, as the South African war would be in the future regarded as the greatest crime which could have been perpetrated. What was about to be done was neither honest to the present or just to future generations, and he was astonished that the proposal to issue such a loan did not meet with a vigorous protest from the Liberal party, having in view the enormous burden there would be on the country when that party came into power. The loan should bear the distinctive title of Transvaal War Loan, and be imposed on the new colonies to start them with a debt. Capitalists who encouraged the war should not escape from their financial liability.


thought the hon. Member had treated the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather hardly. The right hon. Gentleman had been abused in all the moods and tenses for having issued the loan. Individually, he considered the policy of the war a most infamous policy. It was the blackest proceeding in which any Government could be engaged; but the right hon. Gentleman had no other course open to him. Not so long ago the right hon. Gentleman at Bristol, speaking at the Colston banquet, said that, so far as he was concerned, the mine-owners would bear the expense of the war; that he would not allow them to ride roughshod over the people, and saddle them with the expense. Nevertheless, the wealthy companies had got off scot-free, and the people were to be taxed, and those for whose benefit the war was made were to escape. The fact was that the Government dare not tax the mine-owners of the Transvaal, because if they did the Rhodes-Hawkesley correspondence would be published.


pointed out that the resolution authorised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise £60,000,000 by any one of four specified methods, whereas he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had already decided upon the particular method by which he would raise the money.


It was necessary to give the alternatives in the resolution, in order that everybody might not know the precise form in which I desired to raise the money. Of course, the Bill itself will apply only to the particular method adopted.


I would suggest that the resolution, as now before the House, is, as to methods (b), (c), and (d), absolutely unnecessary. What I was going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman was that he should pass the resolution in the only form in which it will be effective—that is to say, he should take power to raise £60,000,000 by method (a), that being the form in which, as he has now told us, he has made arrangements for raising the money.


We are now merely asking the assent of the House to the resolution passed by the Committee. It will not make the slightest difference whether it is passed in this form or in the form suggested by the hon. Member. If, however, it were to be passed in another form I should have to bring in another resolution, pass it through Committee, and then pass it through the House.


There is one defect in this otherwise admirable Budget which I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to remedy before he brings in the necessary Bill to sanction this loan. I desire to see some clear and definite pronouncement by Parliament, which would have the effect of providing that an adequate proportion of the cost of this war shall eventually fall upon the new colonies. We have had statements from the right hon. Gentleman—


The hon. Member's observations would be more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when the whole scheme will be before the House. This resolution has to do with the specific question of raising the money by loan.


I would merely express my regret that the loan has not taken the form of a Transvaal loan, charged on the revenues of the colony and guaranteed by this country. It is not as if we were wholly without information as to the riches of the Transvaal. We know that the profits of the gold mines have, in the past, been very great, and we have no reason to suppose that those profits will be diminished under British rule as opposed to that of President Kruger. In addition to that, we have the knowledge that the old Transvaal Government owned very valuable property, such as mining property, and banking and other shares. We therefore know enough of the new Government of the Transvaal to be certain that it will be possessed of vast assets and large revenues. Consequently, I should have been glad to see a large portion of the cost of the war raised by a loan directly and primarily charged on the Transvaal and its revenues. If it is too late, as I suppose it is now, to get that done, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would be possible, in the Bill sanctioning this loan, to provide that by some date to be fixed now or hereafter the whole or a substantial portion of the loan will be charged upon the new colonies.


I hope the House will not pursue this debate at any length, because it must be remembered that this is but a formal resolution, and a full opportunity for debate will be afforded on the Second Reading of the Bill—which will be a separate Bill from the Finance Bill. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for York, I would remind the House that it was raised and discussed on a former occasion, when I think I received the practically unanimous assent of the House to this principle, namely, that in the present condition of the Transvaal which I have myself described, it would be misleading and useless to issue a Transvaal loan, for a contribution to the cost of the war, guaranteed by this country, rather than a loan secured on the credit of this country, and that the effect of doing so would be to saddle the taxpayers of this country with a larger rate of interest than they would otherwise have to pay. Of course, I quite agree with my hon. friend that we must keep the matter in mind. I said so in my Budget speech, and I pointed out then to the Committee that for several years to come—for at least ten years—the loans which we have already borrowed on account of this war will, from time to time, be falling in, and then will be the time, if possible, to make some such arrangement as is desired. Several Members below the gangway opposite have criticised this resolution, but on different grounds. The hon. Member who commenced the debate said he did not want any taxation imposed upon Ireland. This is not a tax; it is a loan resolution. Another hon. Member said he disagreed with his hon. colleague, and thought that all this money should have been raised by taxation. Yet the hon. Member is among those who have invariably opposed all the proposals of taxation which it has been my duty to make. The hon. Member for West Islington asked some questions with regard to the issue of the loan. I hoped to have satisfied the hon. Member for once in a way, because I remember that in the last speech he made upon this subject he pressed me to inform him precisely how I intended to borrow, and urged that it should be by Consols. I am very glad that in that, at any rate, I have satisfied the hon. Member. Now he asks why I raised the whole sum at once. I did so because in that way I could raise it to the best advantage and spread the whole of the payments for the loan over a longer time, and thus cause much less inconvenience to the Money Market than if the payments had to be made at shorter intervals. Further, it was of great importance to the public interest that the loan, so to speak, should be got rid of, and that the Stock Exchange should be relieved from the feeling that a large issue was still impending. That was my reason for issuing the whole at one time. But as I have already stated, there is a considerable amount of Treasury bills falling due, and I shall be able to utilise any surplus of the loan, if the course of the war should permit, in paying off the Treasury bills as they become due. The hon. Member asked why I issued half the loan to certain large firms—whom he quite wrongly characterised as foreign firms—and only issued the remaining half to the public at large. Anybody who has considered these matters knows that to borrow sixty millions at one time is a financial operation of considerable magnitude, and while I wished, on the one hand, to obtain for the loan as good a price as possible in the market, I desired even more strongly on the other that there should be no risk of anything but a most successful issue. The morning after my Budget statement Consols touched 94½. I am afraid that my speech, with the statement that it would be necessary to borrow a large sum, necessarily rather lowered their value. But I rather pride myself upon having, shortly before Consols touched that point, agreed with certain large financial houses in the City to take half the loan at 94½. If the House compares that operation with the operation, for example, which Sir George Cornewall Lewis had to undertake at the commencement of the Crimean War, when he announced an issue of fifteen millions, and 3 per cent. Consols being at 90, he could only obtain 87⅝ for his issue, I think I may venture to say that I did better for the taxpayer than did Sir George Cornewall Lewis. Then the hon. Member for West Islington says that the result of this borrowing has been to considerably depress securities. I think, on the contrary, that if the hon. Member looks into the matter he will see that securities are now rising. The knowledge that a large loan was to be raised undoubtedly did depress securities, but they are now distinctly rising again. Though, of course, you cannot borrow large sums of money in the Money Market, and you cannot engage in very costly wars—[Nationalist cheers]—you cannot engage in costly but necessary wars—without lowering the value of securities, yet I do not think that the way in which I have borrowed the sums required has had any such effect as the hon. Member suggests.


Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the total amount?


The total amount of what?


The total amount to which the loan brings up the Debt.


The total amount of the loan is £60,000,000. If the hon. Member will add that to the amount of the Debt, which I stated in my Budget speech—I have not the exact figures here—the amount will, of course, be increased by that sum.


I only asked the question because, when I stated the amount just now, it was met with ridicule on the other side of the House. £687,000,000 was the amount mentioned in the Budget speech, and £60,000,000 added to that brings the sum to £747,000,000. merely ask whether my figures are correct.


I have no doubt that, if the hon. Gentleman's first amount is right, his figures are correct. I think I have now answered all the points which have been addressed to me.


said the right hon. Gentleman had not explained why he was borrowing now, notwithstanding the fact that, in October, 1899, he said he would not borrow except for a first-class war.


I fully explained that in my Budget speech. That statement related to a war which, it was then anticipated, would be a comparatively small war. I pointed out that the cost had grown so enormously that the circumstances were entirely altered, and that I was justified therefore in issuing a funded loan.

MR. JOYCE (Limerick)

I feel that I must voice my feelings, and the feelings of the great majority of my constituents, in condemnation of this war and all its belongings. We are asked to vote a loan of £60,000,000 towards the cost of one of the most unholy and unjust wars ever waged, but I for one will protest against any payment in connection with that object, whether the amount be £1 or £160,000,000. The Government plunged into this war in the most reckless manner; and the people who backed them in so doing ought to pay in a handsome manner; but those, whether they be in England or in Ireland, who have all along opposed the war, ought not to be called upon to bear the burden. There is another point to which I should like to refer, and that is with regard to the children of some of my constituents who have been dragged out to South Africa to fight your battles. Some of these boys were not fifteen years old, and should have been at school—


These are matters which it is not open to the hon. Member to discuss on this occasion.


Very well, Sir. I will just give my idea, from a nautical point of view, with regard to this war. The Government drifted into the war, thinking they could sail off with a trade-wind and on a summer sea, and that a harbour of safety was before them, in which they could cast anchor whenever they got tired of fighting. Before they had been very long embarked, squalls arose—whether those squalls took the name of De Wet, or Botha, or Delarey, I know not, but the Government soon found themselves in a very sad condition. But not only did the Government drift into the war, they are now drifting into the taxes tired of fighting. Before they had been very long embarked, squalls arose—whether those squalls took the name of De Wet, or Botha, or Delarev. I know not. Exchequer quite apprehended the point which the hon. and learned Member for York desired to make. It is admitted on all hands that it may be some years—let us say ten—before we can really call upon the Transvaal to make any effective contribution towards the money we are now raising or going to raise by way of loan. But there is a danger that, when those ten years have expired and the Transvaal is in a position to make such an effective contribution, the matter may have passed out of mind, and, unless something is done at the present time to record the intention of the Government, it may be forgotten. I think the House, in giving power to raise this loan, may very fairly ask the Government to put on record that it is their intention—one cannot say more—at some future period to get back as much of this money as may be fair and reasonable from the Government of the Transvaal. Governments come and go. Who can say what may be the position of things in ten years time? The position of any future Government which has to deal with the question will be very different if, in bringing this matter forward, they can refer to some definite expression of intention, recorded at the time of issuing the loan. I would suggest that it would be very easy to do this when the Bill is introduced by reciting that, whereas such and such is the intention Government which has to deal with the question will be very different if, in bringing this matter forward, they can refer to some definite expression of intention, recorded at the time of issuing the loan. I would suggest that it would be very easy to do this when the Bill is introduced by reciting that, whereas such and such is the intention of the Government, in the meantime it is necessary to raise the money by loan. The then existing Government would be able to refer to such a recital, ant there would be a solid foundation for making proposals which otherwise might be looked upon as stale, and as having no reference to any then existing state of circumstances.


hoped the House would never be so foolish as to attempt to put any part of the cost of the war on the Transvaal. He held this view, not from any any sentimental reason, but purely on the ground of policy. If any of the cost were put upon the Transvaal, this country would have to engage in a second war to collect it. What happened in the case of America? We went to war to protect our American colonies against France. The colonies were delighted to have our assistance, but the moment they were asked to pay a penny towards the cost they revolted. Exactly the same thing would happen in the Transvaal.


The question of levying a tax in the Transvaal cannot be discussed on this Vote.


said he would not pursue the subject further than to say that, if the Government adopted such a recital as had been suggested, they would set against this country not only the Dutch but also the English in the Transvaal, because it would become their interest to sever their connection with Great Britain. There was one point to which he wished to call attention in regard to the method by which this money was being raised. He understood that those who took up the loan obtained £100 worth of stock by paying £94 10s., so that the country would eventually have to pay for £5 10s. which it did not receive. It was always said that that was the great mistake Pitt made, but when there was a war the lessons of history were forgotten. He should, however, like some explanation as to why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was following this plan of paying £100 for every £95 10s. he obtained, because, under that arrangement, we should have to pay £60,000,000, while receiving only about £57,000,000.

MR. HAVILAND-BURKE (King's County, Tullamore)

Speaking on behalf of the younger and newer members of the Irish party, I feel that I should be failing in my duty if I did not protest against this loan, no matter how it is raised, because it is a consequence of the evil spirit of militarism which threatens to ruin industry and trade, and which sacrifices every social and industrial interest for a policy of aggression, miscalled Imperial expansion. We often hear the cry that trade follows the flag, and that you have only got to hoist the Union Jack over any territory in order to secure immediate practical benefit to the industrial and commercial classes of this country. It is very strange that a Ministry using such an argument should have ordered steel bridges in the United States and guns in Prussian arsenals. I think it would have been better occupied in protecting the markets we have already got, and developing our undeveloped resources, instead of going on these wild and sanguinary expeditions to acquire new markets, which are so uncertain both as regards the present and the future. The next reason why I oppose this loan is that I look upon it as a prelude to a system of conscription. In introducing his great scheme of Army reform, the Secretary of State for War told us that he only supported the voluntary enlistment system so long as it gave him a sufficient number of men.


Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling quite outside the question which is before the House.


My contention is that the tax for the war should fall upon those who are responsible for the waging of the war. It is against every principle not only of sound finance, but of sound statesmanship, that the people of any country should be encouraged to plunge into a war policy in the knowledge that the burden will not fall upon them selves but upon the people who come after them. To my mind there are other and better outlets for this £60,000,000 which is to be borrowed for the waging of a wasteless, useless, and unnecessary war. I will not trespass upon the time of this House at any greater length, but I wish to say, in conclusion, that in this protest against expenditure for so-called national expansion my hon. colleagues who are members of the Irish party and myself are ready to face the cheap and easy charge of treason and disloyalty to the Empire and the Crown which has been levelled in this House against some of the greatest statesmen who ever trod its floor, when they stood up against a reckless policy of war and ruinous expenditure. It was raised against Chatham when Court newspapers clamoured for his impeachment; against Burke when he urged the Irish Parliament to prevent the Irish Militia being used against the revolted American colonists; against John Bright, Cobden, and Gladstone when they protested against what they considered to be an evil war policy. The members of the Irish party will protest to the last against this war Vote at every stage, and we will have it recorded of us that, whatever our faults, we said and did everything we could against the war in order to leave a clean record behind us, and in order that it might be said that Ireland's hands were free from responsibility for spilling the blood of free men, and that Ireland protested to the best of her capacity against a policy of adventure and aggression, which we believe will be as ruinous in the end as it is disgraceful now.


While I intend to vote for this resolution, I wish to again express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not raised this loan in a different form, and that he has not imposed a three per cent. war loan on the Transvaal, guaranteed by this country, for in this way the contention of the hon. Member for North Hackney would have been secured. If this had been done the loan would have been earmarked. We do not know what changes of Government may take place, and I hold that the Transvaal is quite able to pay this war tax even to the extent of £100,000,000. [An HON. MEMBER: You have not got the Transvaal yet.] The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not need to wait for the Report of Sir David Barbour, although I cannot see why that Report should not have been presented to the House by this time. The whole actual, well-ascertained wealth that exists within an area of twenty-five miles round Johannesburg is in possession of the British forces, and all that wealth will accrue to the mineowners under Government rule and order. There is no need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wait for a Report form Sir David Barbour. The mines are not ruined, £200,000 will repair all the damage done to machinery, and there is no difficulty whatever about opening them up once more.

*MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

, who was greeted by loud cries of "Divide!" said: I have no intention of entering upon the policy of the war, but before we go to a division it is important that the grave economic issues involved in the resolution before the House should be seriously weighed. The question before us is the justification or the non-justification of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in placing £6 out of every £7 of the cost of this war upon the taxpayers of the future instead of £1 out of every £2 as was done in the case of the Crimean War. The policy adopted is not only inconsistent with the professions of the right hon. Gentleman made in his speech when he said that nothing could induce him to deviate from the sound policy of placing a reasonable proportion of the cost of the war upon those who had to pay taxes at the time the war was waged. It is not only inconsistent with that, but it also constitutes a grave danger to the future of this country. [Ministerial interruptions.] If hon. Members have not studied the economic results of the policy of charging the cost of a war to loans, I think in time their constituents will enlighten them. [Interruptions.] I am addressing myself strictly to the question before the House, and I have a right to expect to receive fair treatment and a fair hearing from hon. Members opposite. My contention is that this Budget places a ridiculously small burden upon the income-tax payer, and the vast cost of the war—£127,000,000 out of £150,000,000—is to be saddled upon the taxpayers of the future. That means that the richer men are not paying their proper share now, and will not be paying it in the future, and that the larger proportion of the expense will be placed on the poorer taxpayers in the future as well as in the present. The policy of raising the money for the cost of the war by loan means economically the taxation of labour itself, the transfer to the workers of the burden which should fall largely on the income tax, the true tax for war purposes. The policy of charging to a loan means the withdrawal of a large amount of capital from productive uses and devoting it to unproductive uses, lessening to that amount the fund available for the employment of labour. [Loud cries of "Divide, divide!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Such a policy has been strongly condemned by John Stuart Mill. The Government are not only piling up the expenditure of the country higher and higher, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to admit that the ordinary expenditure of the country had greatly exceeded even the increases of the revenue, and that he could not have remitted the war taxes of the previous year even if the war had been over. The Government has not the courage to place adequate taxation upon the shoulders of the wealthy classes in order to prevent this enormous burden being saddled upon posterity. This Budget is only the climax of the policy of the Government for the past six years of protecting the interests of the rich and denying fair taxation to the poor. Instead of borrowing this money and charging posterity with it, it should have been charged upon the persons who have been really responsible for this gigantic expenditure—the great capitalists, and the noble Lords of both parties in the State, and all those who have clamoured for this policy of wild and reckless Imperialism. If I could have my way I would not carry a penny of the cost to a loan, but would place the whole of this £60,000,000 upon the shoulders of the millionaires of Park Lane and Johannesburg who had forced the country into this infamous and disgraceful enterprise. [Loud Ministerial cries of "Divide!"]

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you, on a point of order, whether this assembly of gentlemen is not the most disorderly in the world?


Order, order! The hon. Gentleman himself is not in order.

MR. REDDY (King's County, Birr)

Mr. Speaker, you would not allow Irishmen to go on in that way.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

I think that on a question of this magnitude, when it is proposed to pace a permanent burden of £60,000,000 upon this country, we are entitled to discuss it, seeing that we have only discussed it for such a very short time. I think the speeches have been very short and to the point, and this really is a matter of considerable importance. We do not propose to discuss the war, but this is pre-eminently the time at which we should discuss the question whether or not this loan should be added to the National Debt of this country. I think British Members of Parliament are entitled to enter a word of protest against that course. How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer defend the raising of this money by a permanent loan? He said that the Transvaal cannot be expected to pay more, and that we have arrived at a stage where we can begin to borrow permanently upon the basis of the revenues of the country. How is the House of Commons to know whether the Transvaal can pay more than this sum? The House has not got the Report of Sir David Barbour, and this is part of the complaint which we have against the Government. We are asked to come to a decision upon evidence which is in the possession of the Government, but which they have not given to the House.


was understood to say that this was not the case, and that he had given to the House the full effect of the information possessed by the Government.


I understood that it was the rule of this House that once you quote a document you ought to lay it on the Table of this House. I want to know how it is that this Government seems to be exempt from the rule which compels every other Government to be fair and frank to the House of Commons. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer quotes from a document which he considers is of sufficient importance to justify him in putting a permanent burden of £60,000,000 upon this country, I say that the House of Commons, which is primarily responsible, ought to have the whole of that document in its possession. Speaking from memory, I think that Report was, as far as it went, favourable. Sir David Barbour said the mines were very wealthy and productive, and could pay a considerable sum of money. He stated that not only could they look forward to those mines paying a considerable sum, but he said that there was unlimited wealth in the country outside those mines. If that is so, how is it that we are now borrowing £60,000,000? Take the case quoted by the hon. Member for Forfar of Mr. Hays-Hammond, who stated that the result of the war would be a saving to his group of companies of £3,500,000. That means the capital value of these properties is increased by £120,000,000. Surely it is not unfair to ask these companies to pay 50 per cent. of that amount?

The wise rule that has been followed up to the present is that every generation should pay for its own wars. This course was followed with regard to the Crimean War. It is true that a certain proportion of the money was borrowed at that time, but it was a much smaller proportion than in this case. After the Crimean War we borrowed something like one-half, but the country was not then so rich as it is now. We are much wealthier now, for the revenue has been going up by leaps and bounds, and how is it that we are now only paying some 10 or 15 per cent. towards the cost of the war and borrowing the rest? The Government are committing a great blunder in statesmanship by departing from the rule. We ought to make it as difficult as possible for people to go to war. Formerly, when wars were the result of the intrigue of kings, then we could say that we had no responsibility. Now the danger is that we are rushed into war by popular clamour, and those people who clamour for war and rush us into it ought to bear the burden of it. It is a dangerous thing to lay down the principle that one generation can go to war and leave it to the next generation to pay half the burden. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that the bulk of the taxation which was originally levied to pay for a portion of the burdens of the war went simply to meet ordinary and normal expenditure What has now become of the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman of taxing ourselves in order to bear some share of this burden? The right hon. Gentleman laid down some very exalted principles of statesmanship which he said ought to guide himself and all Chancellors of the Exchequer. [Ministerial cries of "Divide."] I assure hon. Members that they are not curtailing this debate by their interruptions. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in a speech delivered a few days ago, described the House of Commons as the one place where a minority is allowed a fair hearing. It will be a mistake to ruin that reputation of the House in order that a few Members may go to their dinner a quarter of an hour earlier. The right hon. Gentleman has not kept up to the level of his own statesmanship, for, instead of borrowing £60,000,000, he ought to have found it by means of taxation. He ought to have made the Kimberley diamond mines bear a fair share of this war. It was the mine-owners who influenced the press and supplied the "copy" about the alleged grievances and outrages which roused public opinion up to the pitch of excitement which was necessary to support the Colonial Secretary's war policy.

I only make one other observation. The Crimean War proved, I think, the folly of embarking on this policy of borrowing money to carry on wars. What happened in the Crimean War? It was quite as popular as the present war, and yet seven years after the war was over The Times newspaper said that the war was a blunder, that Austria and Germany had far greater cause to go to war with Russia than we had, and a short time ago the present Prime Minister said that then we backed the wrong horse. Supposing the statesmen who were then at the head of affairs had adopted the same principles as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had carried on the war with borrowed money, had exhibited their patriotism on borrowed money, if the feathers in their cap had been borrowed plumes—it strikes me the Secretary for the Colonies is strutting in borrowed plumes—supposing they had borrowed money then exactly as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is borrowing it now, what would have been the result? The generation who made the war would have escaped the penalty, and the generation that discovered it was a mistake would have had to bear the burden. Is that a fair thing to do? It is easier to judge of a war twenty years after it is over than at the time. You have the passions of the moment, you have what Herbert Spencer calls the bias of patriotism, which rather clouds the intellect at the time. It is rather difficult to judge impartially of a question in which your own country is involved; but in ten, twenty, or thirty years reason returns, and you can judge of events. It is singularly unfair that future generations should have to bear the brunt of expenditure incurred by their forefathers. This war is not over. Already we are increasing the permanent burdens of the country. I think it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that the estimate of £58,000,000 was based on the assumption that the war would be over in four months.




I should like to know what the basis was, if that is not so. It cannot have been on the basis that it was going to last another twelve months. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the previous Budget was brought forward the basis on which he was borrowing, and he said then that the war at full speed would be over by September, and that at half speed it would be over in February. We know how that calculation was realised. Not only are we spending as much money now, but we are spending more. It is admitted now that we are spending £1,500,000 a week. There is progressive expenditure. I ask the Government whether they are borrowing money now on the assumption that this war is going to be over in four months. If not, how are we going to meet the deficit? Is it going to be borrowed as a permanent loan, or is taxation to meet it? The whole estimate on which this loan has been based is not a fair one to the country. The Government know perfectly well in their own minds that the balance of chances is that this war will not be over in four months. If so, why do not they give a clear and straightforward statement to this House? The representatives of The Times at Bloemfontein and Pretoria said there was a chance of the war going on two years. Sir Alfred Milner has said that the war has gone back within the last six or seven months, and we are in a worse position now thau when we had before us the last bill for borrowing money. There is a large part of our own colony in the hands of the enemy. I was looking at the reports in the Blue-book the other day. I find that in Cape Colony and Cape Town the Volunteer Defence Corps was enrolled for three months. That was to be the term of service for these Volunteers. They have already been four and a half months in the field. It shows that all these calculations are wrong. I do not know what they are based on. One would like to know if they are based on anything Lord Kitchener said, or is it some wild conjecture of the War Office?


I can explain why £58,000,000 was taken in the War Estimates for the cost of the war in South Africa and China. The total cost of this war last year, ending the 1st of April, was £68,000,000. I have taken in this loan sufficient to enable me to provide as much in the current year as the war in South Africa cost last year.


I know that, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer forgets that the estimate given by the Secretary of State for War is that the cost of the war has gone up a quarter of a million per week since then. That shows how these Estimates are made. It is evident that there is no sort of consultation between one department and another. That shows that even now this Estimate is wrong. What will happen as the weeks go by? We will probably be asked for Supplementary Estimates. Nobody thinks that we can carry on to the end of the financial year with the money already voted. When will we get the Government to tell the whole truth to the country? It is perfectly evident from the reports that are coming from the front that we are not getting it. We get reports of successes, but we do not get reports of reverses.


The hon. Member is now discussing the conduct of the war. That matter is not at present before the House.


I do not challenge your ruling for a moment. We are asked to add £60,000,000 to the Debt of the country on Estimates which are not correct, and I say we ought to get all the information the Government have got. They have estimated that the war would cost £58,000,000 in the course of the current year. I say that upon the facts which come, not from Government sources, but from correspondents, it is perfectly clear that things are worse now in South Africa than they were twelve months ago, and we are entitled to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, with regard to what is transpiring in South Africa, and then we will be in a position to know whether, instead of going on adding to the permanent Debt—which, as the hon. Member for Northampton points out, will eventually fall on the workmen—it would not be infinitely better to make terms with the enemy which would be honourable to both parties.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)

said he wished to enter his protest against the manner in which the speakers on the Opposition side of the House had been treated by hon. Members who seemed to be in very great haste to arrive at the end of the discussion. He did not think it would be found to pay, even looking at it from the lowest motives, to attempt to bring the debate to a stop by shouting hon. Members down, or, at any rate, by strenuous interruption on the part of hon. Members on the other side. The resolution to raise £60,000,000 on loan now before the House came on the top of other loans raised since the war began. He thought there was sufficient at the present juncture to give any hon. Member pause, to make any man who had financial economy at heart think whether the proposal of the Government was justifiable or not. He was not going into the question of the war, but he would deal with the manner in which the Government proposed to raise the money. At the General Election a few months ago hon. Members were catechised by the constituencies whose suffrages they sought. He did not think any question was asked him more frequently than this: "If you are elected will you vote that as large a proportion as possible of the cost of the Transvaal War should be levied on the Transvaal and the Orange Free State?" He challenged hon. Members opposite to say that the same question was not put to them. Did they not, with great promptitude and gusto, say, "Oh, yes; undoubtedly we think that, this war being undertaken on behalf of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, as large a sum of money as could possibly be levied by way of taxation, on the people of the Transvaal and the Free State, should be levied"? Now they had an opportunity of making good their pledges. The sum of £60,000,000 to be raised by loan might very well be levied on the Transvaal and Free State hereafter, but at the present juncture they were all agreed that they could not expect very much from them for several years to come. The revenues of the Transvaal would be strained, and they would not be more than sufficient to pay the charges in connection with the Transvaal Government. But statesmen had to deal not only with the present, and the immediate future, but they had to cast their eyes ahead. What would be the state of affairs in the Transvaal five or six years hence? Let them take it for granted that the war would come to an end in the next few months, and that the expenditure, so far as it concerned the military, would cease. Surely, British Government in the Transvaal ought to be what Mr. Rhodes called a financial asset. Surely, we might expect that the improved methods of our government would soon restore financial order in the Transvaal, that taxes would be paid, and that the ordinary expenses of the government of the Transvaal would be paid. But there were in South Africa gold and diamond mines, and the scheme of taxation applied to coal in the present Budget might be adopted for raising money in connection with the export of gold and diamonds.


said the hon. Member was going far beyond the subject before the House. He was now going on to discuss the mode of taxing the Transvaal.


said he was only going to suggest an export duty on gold and diamonds, but he would not proceed with that. On the question whether it was desirable that this money should be raised by loan, the hon. Member said that in his judgment it was a very objectionable practice to remit to posterity the obligations we ought to meet ourselves. It was making war on the cheap, and rendering the conduct of military operations easy. It was favouring the growth of militarism through the country. If they could with a light heart plunge into war, and then, instead of finding all the necessary sinews of war in the way of financial requirements, place the cost on the shoulders of posterity, they were only encouraging these wars at the present time.

MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)

said that for his part he regarded this large sum as one of the least objectionable features of the Budget. If he had been an Englishman he should have regarded the loan as perhaps the weakest portion of the Budget, because he considered that the borrowing of £60,000,000 on Consols, £30,000,000 by the war loan of last year, and £37,000,000 by various short loans—in all £127,000,000—and the raising of £11,000,000 by the new taxes proposed to be imposed this year was exceedingly bad finance. It was throwing upon posterity the burden of paying for the war. The present generation of taxpayers who shouted in the streets, and whose newspapers pressed on the war, were not paying for the war. As an Irishman he was more or less pleased that there was to be a large loan instead of the imposition of fresh taxes on his already overtaxed country. He sympathised with those who said the burden of the war should be put on the gold mines of the Transvaal. He should like to see some of the cost of the war raised by a Transvaal loan secured by the £400,000,000 or £500,000,000 the gold mines were said to be worth. Referring to the way in which a former war loan was issued, the hon. Member said the large finance houses benefited, while the general public did not benefit in the way they ought to have done by the low price at which it was issued.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Austin, Sir John Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bain, Colonel James Robert Bartley, George C. T.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Baird, John George Alexander Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin
Arkwright John Stanhope Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Blundell, Colonel Henry
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Bond, Edward

said Englishmen had made this war and Englishmen ought to pay for it. Irishmen from the beginning had spoken strongly against it, and now they objected to pay a share of the cost of the war. The Members on the Treasury Bench felt that if they had tried to raise the whole of the cost by direct taxation, they would alienate the people whom they had hoodwinked by false promises and pitiful excuses as to the necessity of going to war. In connection with all previous wars in which this country had been engaged the money required had been fairly divided between loans and direct taxation. In nearly all cases the proportion was a half. In the present case the proportion was ninety to a hundred per cent. The Government did not take the manly course of paying for the war they brought upon themselves, but rather handed on the debt to be paid by posterity. So far as the Irish were concerned their hands were clean. They were not stained with the blood which had been shed unnecessarily in this unfortunate and disgraceful war. The capitalists of England and the Transvaal had brought about the war. The mines of the Transvaal were the object which this country had in view when it entered upon this war. Why was it that these mines, which they all knew were worth hundreds of millions, were left scot free, and that the working men of Ireland. Scotland, and England, and future generations of these countries were to be compelled to pay for the war, which should be paid for by the mines through which the war had been brought about? He wished to enter his protest as an Irishman against this immense loan. Irishmen felt that they had had no part in this expenditure, and they had a right to enter their protest against it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Aves, 213; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 158.)

Boscawen, Arthur Gritffith- Greene, W. D. (Wednesbury) Myers, William Henry
Bousneld, William Robert Grenfell, William Henry Nicholson, William Graham
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Groves, James Grimble Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Brigg, John Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Parker, Gilbert
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hambro, Charles Eric Pemberton, John S. G.
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Hamilton, Rt Hn Lrd G. (Midd'x Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bullard, Sir Harry Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm. Plummer, Walter R.
Butcher, John George Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Harris, Frederick Leverton Pretyman, Ernest George
Cautley, Henry Strother Haslett, Sir James Homer Purvis, Robert
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Pym, C. Guy
Gavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. Helder, Augustus Randies, John S.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Henderson, Alexander Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Hermon-Hodge Robert Trotter Reid, James (Greenock)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (W're'r Higginbottom, S. W. Rentoul, James Alexander
Chapman, Edward Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead Renwick, George
Charrington, Spencer Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Rigg, Richard
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hope, J. F (SherIield, Brightside Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hoult, Joseph Ropner, Col. Robert
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Howard,John (Kent, Faversh.) Round, James
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Russell, T. W.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hudson, George Bickersteth Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Jacoby, James Alfred Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Cox, Irwin Edward B. Johnston, William (Belfast) Seton-Karr, Henry
Cranborne, Viscount Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Keswick, William Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry King, Sir Henry Seymour Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cust, Henry John C. Knowles, Lees Smith, AbelH. (Hertford, East)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lawson, John Grant Smith, H. C (Northumb. Tynesd
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Spear, John Ward
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n) Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Dickson, Charles Scott Llewellyn, Evan Henry Stock, James Henry
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stone, Sir Benjamin
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Stroyah, John
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cocklield Lowe, Francis William Struct, Hon. Charles Hedley
Dorington, Sir John Edward Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Doughty, George Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Thornton, Percy M.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Tomlinson,Wm. Edw. Murray
Doxford, Sir William T. Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Duke, Henry Edward Macdona, John Cumming Tritton, Charles Ernest
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton Maconochie, A. W. Valentia, Viscount
Faber, George Denison M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Fardell, Sir T. George M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) Walker, Col. William Hall
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W. Wanklyn, James Leslie
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r Majendie, James A. H. Warr, Augustus Frederick
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Malcolm, Ian Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton
Finch, George H. Manners, Lord Cecil Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannalyne Massev-Mainwaring, Hon. W. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Fisher, William Hayes Max Well, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. Wills, Sir Frederick
Fitz Gerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose- Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Milton, Viscount Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Milward, Colonel Victor Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Fletcher, Sir Henry Mitchell, William Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Forster, Henry William Molesworth, Sir Lewis Wolft', (Justav Wilhelm
Foster, Sir M. (London Univ. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wortley, Rn. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Garfit, William More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond. Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. Wylie, Alexander
Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans. Morrison, James Archibald Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Mount, William Arthur Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Gordon, Hn J. E. (Ehun & Nairn) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts Muntz, Philip A. Tellkks fob the Ayes—
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Sir William Walrond and
Graham, Henry Robert Murray, Charles J. (Coventry Mr. Anstruther.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Ambrose, Robert Blake, Edward
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Atherley-Jones, L. Boland, John
Allan, William (Gateshead) Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Boyle, James
Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Burke, E. Haviland-
Burns, John Kearley, Hudson E. O'Malley, William
Burt, Thomas Kennady, Patrick James O'Mara, James
Buxton, Sydney Charles Layland-Barratt, Francis Partington, Oswald
Caine, William Sproston Leamy, Edmund Paulton, James Mellor
Caldwell, James Leigh, Sir Joseph Pirie, Duncan V.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Leng, Sir John Power, Patrick Joseph
Causton, Richard Knight Levy, Maurice Reckitt, Harold James
Cogan, Denis J. Lewis, John Herbert Reddy, M.
Craig, Robert Hunter Lloyd-George, David Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Crean, Eugene Lough, Thomas Rickett, J. Compton
Crenier, William Randal Lundon, W. Robertson, Edmund (Dundee
Delany, William MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Robson, William Snowdon
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roche, John
Dillon, John MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Schwann, Charles E.
Donelan, Captain A. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Doogan, P. C. M'Dermott, Patrick Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Duffy, William J. M'Fadden, Edward Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Esmonde, Sir Thomas M'Govern, T. Sullivan, Donal
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) M'Kenna, Reginald Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Fenwick, Charles Mansfield, Horace Rendall Tennant, Harold John
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Mooney, John J. Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Flynn, James Christopher Morton, Edw. J. G (Devonport) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Moss, Samuel Tully, Jasper
Grant, Corrie Murphy, J. Ure, Alexander
Griffith, Ellis J. Newnes, Sir George Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Nolan, Col. John P. (Gatway, N.) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Hammond, John Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Weir, James Galloway
Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Norton, Capt. Cecil William White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Harrington, Timothy O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) White, Patrick (Meath, North
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Helme, Norval Watson O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Holland, William Henry O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Horniman, Frederick John O'Doherty, William Yoxall, James Henry
Joicey, Sir James O'Donnel'l, T. (Kerry, W).
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. O'Dowd, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Channing and Mr. George Whiteley.
Jordan, Jeremiah O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Joyce, Michael O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.

Forward to