§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 2:—
§ Question again proposed, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
1231§ MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Isle of Thanet)said he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the clause, because he ventured to think that it was a distinctly good one. He had always regarded the abolition of the sugar duties by Sir Stafford Northcote as a most deplorable blunder. It was a foolish act, for which, he, although himself an Under Secretary of State at the time, had declined to assume any personal responsibility, for he looked on it as one of the greatest financial blunders of the generation, with perhaps the exception of the abolition of the registration duty on grain by Mr. Lowe. Now the present Chancellor of the Exchequer tardily came forward to repeal the great mistake made by his colleague. The other day he accused his right hon. friend of being at least fifty years behind the times as regards the purview he took of financial questions, and the right hon. Gentleman had confirmed his opinion within the last few days by refusing an appeal made to him in the House of Commons to enlarge the advantages which we might confer on our fellow colonial subjects in this connection. A suggestion was made that the clause now under discussion afforded a favourable opportunity of making some return for the advances made by our colonies in connection with British trade. What was the reply of the right hon. Gentleman? His reply was that remedies of the kind had been tried and discarded forty years ago. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, still hugged the delusions of past generations. He utterly failed to recognise the Imperial aspects of the question as it presented itself in the twentieth century. The right hon. Gentleman said they could not stand merely on sugar, but if they once accepted the principle embodied in a preferential tariff it must be extended to other colonial commodities. Certainly, and he for one could see no danger in frankly admitting that fact. He would not advocate exceptional treatment for sugar as distinguished from other taxable articles. He could quote the opinions of some of the right hon. Gentleman's most distinguished colleagues, Lord Salisbury and the Secretary of State for the Colonies strongly endorsing the principle of preferential trade within 1232 the limits of the Empire, which the clause now under debate offered a favourable opportunity of giving effect to. The Secretary of State for the Colonies had pronounced an opinion as to the desirability of offering special facilities to trade within the Empire. He said—
There is a universal desire amongst all the members of the Empire for a closer union between the several branches, and in their opinion it is desirable, nay, it is essential, for the existence of the Empire as such. Experience has taught us that this closer union can be most hopefully approached in the first instance upon its commercial side.What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say with regard to that? The speech of his right hon. friend referred rather depreciatingly to the practical effect of Canadian legislation and administration in carrying out the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary. That was not the way to support the Imperial principle which his right hon. friend's distinguished colleague had laid down with such emphasis. But his right hon. friend went further than that. In the discussion on Thursday last, he pointed out what he considered a great danger. He referred to the great difficulty of enforcing a provision such as was proposed, even if it were inserted in the Bill, and he talked about its being necessary to have in that event recourse to certificates of origin and other precautions of that kind. His right hon. friend went still further, and said that that provision could be easily evaded, and he gave hon. Members a geographical lesson by informing them that Cuba was not far from Jamaica; but the contrary statement held equally good, namely, that Jamaica was not very far from Cuba. During the last forty years the difficulties referred to by his right hon. friend had been successfully surmounted by every Government in the world. What did his right hon. friend fear? It was, he took it, that foreign goods would be received in the colonies and dependencies of the Crown, and transmitted to England under the seal of colonial produce. Was it in accordance with common sense to suppose that any colonial Government would for an instant allow its fiscal policy and revenue arrangements to be deranged by such a palpable device? The idea was absurd, as all other Governments 1233 had devised means of checking evasions of that kind. The American Government, under the provisions of the McKinley Act, levied unequal duties on the produce of various countries according as the countries did or did not afford, in the judgment of the American Government, facilities for American trade. Sugar was at the moment a subject of acute controversy, largely a press controversy, he admitted, between the Governments of Russia and the United States, and did anyone suppose that the United States Government would allow Russian sugar to enter that country by Germany or France? It was unquestionable that what his right hon. friend was alarmed at was dealt with every day throughout the rest of the world. His right hon. friend spoke disparagingly of the attempt to enforce the right of this country and of Parliament to afford facilities for trade to the most distant portions of the Empire. The British Empire, so far as foreign nations were concerned, was one vast Imperial unit. Of course, financial arrangements differed in various parts of the Empire, but the object of the denunciation of what Lord Salisbury called "those unlucky treaties"—and he thought he even used a stronger term—was to allow such a policy. His right hon. friend admitted that Lord Salisbury had spoken strongly against the treaties which were now abrogated, but his right hon. friend apparently wished to reintroduce the system which the abrogation of these treaties had abolished for ever. His right hon. friend talked of the danger of reprisals from foreign countries, but was not that understood when the treaties were abrogated. His right hon. friend also talked about the strong feeling in Germany, and he would add that he thought that that strong feeling had intimidated His Majesty's Government into what was a hostile act towards the great Dominion of Canada. He understood his right hon. friend warned the House of Commons against forcing the hand of the Government, or compelling them to assume an attitude which might give rise to offence in foreign countries, but foreign countries did not consider British feeling; they laid on every shilling of duty they could, and consistently framed their tariff arrangements according 1234 to their own necessities and requirements.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)So do we.
§ MR. JAMES LOWTHERThe hon. Gentleman opposite says "So do we," but the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned the House of Commons not to exercise its discretion, but to beware of offending foreign countries. He himself did not wish to say anything disrespectful of foreign Governments, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned the House of Commons against exercising the liberty accorded to it by the action of Lord Salisbury, he might be permitted to quote what Lord Salisbury said. In June, 1891, in reply to a deputation, Lord Salisbury said—
With respect to those two unlucky treaties (with Belgium in 1852 and Germany in 1863) that was made by Lord Palmerston's Government some thirty years ago, I am sure the matter of the relation of our colonies could not have been fully considered. We have tried to find out from official records what species of reasoning it was that induced the statesmen of that day to sign such very unfortunate pledges.His right hon. friend would now wish to put the country back into the position from which Lord Salisbury rescued it—of not being able to legislate in concurrence with the colonies without obtaining the leave of foreign Governments. Lord Salisbury continued—But I do not think that they had any notion that they were signing any pledges at all. I have not been able to discover that they realised the importances of the engagements upon which they were entering. I think I can give you with the greatest confidence an assurance that not only this Government, but no future Government, will be disposed to enter into such engagements again.In face of that statement of the Prime Minister, his right hon. friend had now conjured up the foreign bogey, and attempted to prevail on the House of Commons not to avail of that freedom of action accorded to it, but to allow its hands to be tied. Lord Salisbury concluded—We shall be glad indeed to take every opportunity that arises for delivering ourselves from those unfortunate engagements.Lord Salisbury had obtained liberty of action for the Government, but now his right hon. friend showed a disposition 1235 to fetter that liberty. He should have scarcely thought that such a policy would be announced in the House of Commons by a colleague of Lord Salisbury. The action of the Government with reference to Canada was most un fortunate, especially in days when it was desired that the colonies should more cordially approach the mother country He need not recall to the recollection of the Committee the resolution adopted at the Ottawa Conference, which consisted of representatives of the whole Empire. That Conference passed a resolution, he thought with absolute unanimity, urging that liberty should be accorded to the colonies to make fiscal arrangements without reference to any foreign Power. The colonial Premiers, during their visit to England in the Jubilee in 1897, unanimously passed a resolution urging the adoption of the principle of deferential treatment.He asked the House not to be frightened by the bogey raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to realise that the right to establish a reasonable preference for British goods within the British Empire was conferred upon them by the action of the right hon. Gentleman's own colleague. He warned the Committee that it was not a fact that public opinion was not favourable to such a policy. He thought that public opinion was favourable to it. Politics apart, the great mass of Members who had any opportunity of mixing with colonial statesmen were strongly impressed with the view that some solid substantial step in that direction was an essential element of Imperial rule. The colonies, of course, were able to look after their own interests. One saw, day after day, negotiations between the different colonial Governments and foreign countries. He asked a question himself not long ago of the Colonial Secretary as to whether it was not the case that a subsidised steamship line was actually in operation between Canadian and French ports, and the answer was that last year a steamship line involving a payment by the Canadian Government of £10,000 a year had been established between French and Canadian ports. His right hon. friend's speech the other night was a distinct repudiation, on the part of himself as at present responsible for the financial arrangements 1236 of this country, of the advance already made by Canada without any return, and his right hon. friend went so far as to hint that Canada did not know its own business. [Sir M. HICKS BEACH dissented.] He had certainly gathered that from the remarks of his right hon. friend, which, however, he unfortunately had to take second hand. He understood his right hon. friend, by an interpolation during another speech, to intimate that although it was true that trade between Canada and the British Empire had increased since the introduction of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's preferential tariff, nevertheless, Canadian trade with the United States had also increased, although the tariff arrangements did not apply. What did that mean? It meant that Canada would conclude that, after all, it would have done just as well if it had not adopted Sir Wilfrid Laurier's 33⅓ per cent. tariff. That was certainly calculated to discourage the Canadian Government, and he thought it was a most deplorable utterance. He would have been sorry to permit the clause to pass without uttering his emphatic protest against what he might call the levity with which a great Imperial movement had been treated by the Government. The Government had adopted the attitude they had without taking into account the unanimous opinion of the colonies. The great Commonwealth of Australia was guided by statesmen who had strongly pronounced themselves in favour of a moderate and reasonable application of the principle of preferential tariffs. There was a general demand throughout the Empire that such facilities should be granted, and he ventured to state there was a very strong and decided opinion in the United Kingdom itself with regard to it. In the position in which they were now in, all he could do was to utter strong and emphatic protest against he short-sighted selfish policy which had been adopted, a policy which was calculated to drive the colonies into making bargains with foreign countries, perhaps to the disadvantage of Great Britain. He thought his right hon. friend was lot fully alive to the great change of pinion on the subject which had taken place, not only in Great Britain, but throughout the Empire.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)My right hon. friend says he is in favour of the general policy of the Finance Bill, but he has taken a most remarkable way of showing it. For a full half-hour my right hon. friend has entertained the Committee with a dissertation on matters on which we all know his opinion, and which have already been, on this clause, the subject of debate for three or four hours on Thursday last. Why did not my right hon. friend take part in that debate? Presumably my right hon. friend was in another and more agreeable place. Why was he not here on Thursday last?
§ MR. JAMES LOWTHERIt was a fiasco.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHBut if my right hon. friend had been present the fiasco might have been avoided, and his opinions might have been given effect to in some better way. As it was, the policy he now suggests was negatived almost unanimously by the House of Commons on Thursday last.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)But my right hon. friend will not say that that was a genuine expression of the opinion of the House.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHMy right hon. friend has described it as a fiasco, but I am quite prepared to admit that the division on Thursday may not accurately represent the amount of support which the principle might obtain.
§ *SIR HOWARD VINCENTI am quite satisfied.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI would ask hon. Members who have had an opportunity of expressing their views and of obtaining the opinion of the House, and who, like my right hon. friend, desire to support the clause generally, to be good enough to refrain from giving the House a repetition of the debate on Thursday last.
§ *MR. LOUGHthought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was a reasonable 1238 one. He quite agreed that if the Committee were to discuss the details throughout the clause there would not be any opportunity of coming to a decision on the general clause. The right hon. Gentleman's reply was not quite convincing, but it satisfied him that the proposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to adopt was a reasonable one, and one which the Committee could accept. He desired to refer to two remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his speech. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman said that for the proposals of taxation the House must accept the authority of the Government. That was quite true, and the Committee was not entitled to reject a proposal of this kind unless it was prepared with an alternative proposal. The second remark was that the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter in a year or two, and if he found in the practical working the Bill did not turn out well it should be modified.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI went further than that. I should not wait as long as two years.
§ *MR. LOUGHthought that nothing could be fairer than the way in which the Committee had been met, and that the result was to enable them to leave the details and approach the main question and discuss whether the tax was a wise one or not, and whether it was the best way to obtain the £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise by this clause. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet had said he was a Member of the Government which abolished the sugar duties, and had said what a foolish thing they had done by so doing, but he would quote what Sir Stafford Northcote, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that Government, had said in 1874—
The sugar duties are a source of revenue which does more harm than it produces good; their removal would be permanent…. England would become the great entrepot of the sugar trade….and the result would stimulate and support the commercial interest of the country.Those were the opinions of Sir Stafford Northcote, and it was highly interesting to consider them twenty-seven years 1239 after. One prophecy Sir S. Northcote made was not fulfilled—the removal of the duties was not to be permanent; but a great many of his prophecies had been fulfilled. Sir Stafford Northcote said he hoped the island of England would become the entrepôt of the sugar industries of the world, and what progress had been made in that district since the duties had been abolished? The consumption of sugar per head of the population in this country was 90 lbs., which worked out at a figure of at least 1,500,000 tons coming into our ports and distributed throughout the kingdom every year, or, in other words, 5,000 tons per week. This country had truly become the entrepôt of the sugar industries; the consumption of sugar in this country was double that of any other country in the world. The next great consumers were Denmark and Switzerland, with a consumption of 45 lbs. her head; then came Germany with 30 lbs., France with 26 lbs., and Austria with 17lbs. her head. All those countries were sugar-producing countries, yet owing to the wise act of Parliament nearly thirty years ago they produced not for themselves, but for the purpose of putting their products on our tables. As a result of that legislation there had been a steady improvement in the quality of Austrian sugar sent to this country, and the sugar sold in Prague at 4d. a pound was sold in this country at 2d. These were some of the advantages which were engendered by the wise act of twenty-seven years ago. The Committee must, however, consider that sugar was not only prepared food, but also the raw material forming the basis of hundreds of manufactures in this country. Great industries had been set up; the production of jam and marmalade had stimulated the growth of fruit in country districts; the manufacture of biscuits, confectionery, chocolate, and aerated waters had developed. No less than 150,000 tons of sugar were used in brewing in one year. When the Committee remembered these things they would see that it would be an evil day for this country when Parliament set itself to reverse the policy of 1874.Having thus surveyed the practical effects of that policy he would ask the Committee to consider the principle which 1240 led, after great consideration, to these duties being removed. Adam Smith in his great work on economics, in that chapter in which he dealt with "the most just taxes for the people," laid down principles for every good tax. The first principle was that the subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government of the State as nearly as possible equally according to their respective abilities, with respect to the earnings which they enjoyed under the protection of the State. This tax set that principle at defiance in the most bold and open way. In 1776 Adam Smith treated sugar as a luxury, but no man to-day would deny that it was one of the most vital necessities of the people. Every good tax should be imposed in such a manner that all contributed in proportion to their wealth; in this case there was the exactly opposite effect. The rich man, if anything, used less sugar than the poor man, and £2,000,000 out of the £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman hoped to obtain would be wrung out of the scanty pittance of those who could not afford to pay any tax whatever. Mr. Charles Booth showed that in London 40 per cent. of the population had to live on something that was below the proper margin of subsistence; all those people eat sugar, and the vice of the sugar tax was that, although the people could be made to pay, it was only to be done in the same manner as would be done by taking away a proportion of the food from an animal. The result of such a tax was that these people would become less efficient in their work, so that in a round-about way it would fall back upon he rich in the shape of higher wages or a smaller development of work. The second principle laid down by the same authority was that the tax an individual vas bound to pay should be certain and not arbitrary. The amount in this case was not certain. No less than twenty-four different rates of duty were embodied in the Bill, and no purchaser abroad could tell exactly what was the rate at which his sugar would be admitted into this country. Adam Smith aid down the principle that it was better to lay on a heavy tax that was certain than a lighter one that was not, but hat principle had also been set at defiance. The third principle was that 1241 every tax ought to be levied at the time And in the manner which was most convenient to the contributor to pay, and it certainly did seem convenient that when one bought an article he paid a small contribution; but Adam Smith also laid it down that it was the luxuries and not the necessities that should be taxed, and that if a barrier was placed between a man and what was necessary to him as great injury was inflicted upon him, and the State was not assisted. The best example of the luxury was beer. Nothing could be more proper than that on every glass of beer a contribution should be made to the State, because beer was not a necessity, and those whom necessity compelled to avoid the tax could very well abstain from using it. Sugar, however, stood in a different category, and the additional price would fall heavily on the people. The fourth principle was that every tax ought to be so laid as to take as little as possible from the people in excess of what was paid into the Exchequer. That was the most vital principle, and one reason why he opposed this tax was that he believed it to be a most extravagant tax; millions would be wrung from the pockets of the people which would not find their way into the Exchequer at all.
The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he had borrowed that scale from the United States. He had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that within four years of the United States Government adopting that scale a great industrial combination had grown up in America called the Sugar Trust, which probably wrung from the pockets of the people as much as was got by the Revenue. He held that a tax imposed in such a way gave great opportunities—he would not say for fraud, but for practices which were very hurtful to the Revenue, and which no one who wished to see the tax voluntarily paid would approve. This sugar tax violated every one of the four vital principles which had been laid down by that great economist, and we were now to reimpose a tax which twenty-seven years ago had been abolished "for ever." He submitted that the Committee ought to be very slow to go back into the dark era out of which the country had come. He could not enter 1242 into a discussion upon the Finance Bill without remembering that in this case there were two islands to be dealt with—Great Britain and Ireland. The duty would press with peculiar weight upon the people of Ireland. In that country 75 per cent. of the whole taxation was indirect and paid by the poor, and 25 per cent. was direct and paid by the rich, and this new duty, which imposed an additional burden of £500,000 a year on Ireland, would raise the proportion of indirect taxation to nearly 80 per cent. It would have been far better in the interest of trade and of the whole kingdom if, instead of the sugar and coal duties, 4d. had been added to the income tax. The sugar duty was certainly a bad and retrograde proposal, and he hoped it would be rejected by the Committee.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said he did not oppose the sugar tax because he desired that less taxation should be raised this year. Indeed, he thought the Government had not imposed sufficient taxation to meet the expenses of the war and the ordinary expenditure of the country. But there were three other branches of taxation to which it would be better for the country, for trade, and for the consumer if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone for the additional revenue he required rather than to sugar and coal. He believed it would have been better to have increased the income tax to a larger amount. The yield of that tax had increased in ten years by some £120,000,000, which showed that there was very good ground for further increasing that tax. Apart from the question of income tax he differed from the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that further taxation could not be imposed upon wines, spirits, and beer. He doubted very much whether those particular liquor interests could not stand a considerable increase of taxation. At all events, an appreciable sum might have been raised by a large licence duty on public-houses. But assuming that that branch of taxation was exhausted, he would have much preferred an increase of the duty on tea or tobacco to the creation of a new duty, for the reason that the duty on tea and tobacco was practically a duty on the consumer, 1243 and only to a very slight extent did injury to trade. It would have been better to increase the duty than to disturb two great trades such as the sugar and coal trades for the comparatively small sum to be raised. The principle upon which our fiscal policy had for many years been based was that of freeing from taxation as far as possible articles of food and the raw materials of industry, and he opposed the sugar duty because it violated that principle. Its effect upon the consumer was the least important side of the question, the serious aspect of the new taxation was its effect upon trade. With regard to the consumer, it was perfectly obvious that the imposition of a heavy tax upon sugar must hit very hardly the consumer, especially the consumer in Ireland, and, as was always the case with this sort of indirect taxation, the poorest classes were hit the hardest. The incidence of such a tax as the sugar tax, in the first place, whatever it might be in the ultimate result, must necessarily fall on the poorest classes, while in this particular case it would, he was afraid, fall more on the women and children than on the working men themselves. But putting aside the consumer, the gravity of the imposition of this tax was greatly increased from the fact that it was a new tax, which, for the first time for many years, would interfere in a most harassing and destructive manner with many industries throughout the country. The annual consumption of sugar per person worked out at 90 pounds, but in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken exception to that figure, stating that the personal consumption was only 56 pounds. That meant that the other 34 pounds per head were used in the different industries, so that a large proportion of the whole would not affect the consumer, but would do more harm by interfering with trade. In 1860, when Mr. Glad stone made a considerable number of alterations in the financial system of the country, he decided not to reduce the tea and sugar duties on the ground that those duties were simply revenue duties, and did not in any way interfere with trade, as they affected only the consumer, and he preferred to remit taxation which interfered with or disadvantaged trade. The same argument was used when the 1244 sugar duty was finally repealed. The people of the country were in a very different position now from that of twenty-five years ago, when that duty was repealed. At that time the duty was practically a mere revenue duty on consumption, and the total consumption, per head of the population was about 20 pounds per annum. It had now risen to 90 pounds, of which only 56 pounds were consumed by the individual, the remainder being used by the various trades. The total imports of sugar then were about £7,000,000, while now they were no less than £12,000,000. Therefore this duty on its reimposition would be a totally different thing from the duty repealed twenty-five years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that no real disadvantage would arise from the duty, because in 1893 the price of sugar was considerably higher than at present, and that it was since that time these different industries had to a large extent sprung up. But those industries had arisen chiefly because sugar was free, and could be dealt with in a free way, and because the trades believed it was cheapening, as it had cheapened. It seemed to him that it was no argument at all in favour of the imposition of the tax to say that at a time when the conditions were totally different the price was lower, and that therefore the tax could be imposed without interfering with or harassing trade.
In connection with this question of trade he might point out that, thanks to the policy of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, our import duties had been reduced in every possible way. Last year the number of heads and subheads of our tariff upon which taxation was levied, and which had therefore to be examined by the Customs officials, was forty-six. At one sweep the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adding eight heads and no less than twenty-three subheads to the tariff, making a total of seventy-seven, instead of forty-six duties. This was in a free trade country, whose policy had been to free the tariff as far as possible. That meant the examination of all these imports and the handling of every parcel, with the result that much damage was done and great delay caused, while the freedom of trade, which was of the greatest possible benefit 1245 to the wage-earning classes, was very largely restricted. He did not desire to criticise tie way in which the Customs authorities discharged their duty; he believed they did it as far as they could to the best possible advantage, but it was perfectly obvious that in any Customs system there must be a large amount of red tape, delay, and expense, and, still worse, a considerable uncertainty on the part of importers and others as to what new regulations might be sprung upon them at any particular moment. Recent debates in Committee had shown the impossibility of any goods of this sort being examined without leading to all sorts of harassing regulations and vexatious proceedings on the part of the Customs authorities against the importer.
Another point worthy of consideration was that, while at present sugar could be sent into the country, at any port the importer desired, and could be despatched direct to any place he wished, the imposition of this tax would of necessity lead to bonded warehouses for sugar, which would involve the sending of sugar to certain ports only. A large proportion of the sugar was imported by a few big firms, who would have their own bonded warehouses, with every facility, and so the small importer would suffer in competition by the difficulty he would have in clearing his goods and so on. He was afraid that one of the results of this policy would be the creation of great trusts, from which America had suffered so severely. The tendency of the legislation now under consideration would be to place these matters more and more in the hands of the great importers, to the detriment of the smaller men, and might ultimately result in a trust in sugar. The fact was the Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked too glibly about broadening the basis of taxation. Broadening the basis of taxation of necessity meant equivalent restrictions on trade; and though it might be necessary to increase taxation, he regretted that the Government had not taken more trouble to avoid the disastrous results to a large number of industries in the country, and the destruction of many of the smaller ones in which sugar was largely used, which would arise from the harassing and vexatious nature of the duties. Instead of thinking, as the right 1246 hon. Gentleman the Member, for Thanet had suggested, that Mr. Lowe and Sir Stafford Northcote were unwise in repealing the sugar duty, he thought the country had been fortunate in that for twenty-five years there had been, complete freedom from the duty. It might be said that there was want of foresight on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that date in relinquishing that particular branch of revenue, but it would have required a great deal of foresight to have anticipated the advent of such an extravagant Government as the one at present in power. It had to be remembered that in those days the revenue was very buoyant, the expenditure was kept down, and the system of throwing away money by means of doles had not been invented. If it was a question of foresight, they might rather attack the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the large sums of money given away in doles and the greatly increased public expenditure of the last few years. He should certainly vote against the proposal of the Government, not on the ground that so much taxation ought not to be raised, but because it might have been raised with much less distress to the consumer, much less injury to trade, and much greater advantage to the country as a whole.
§ MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)said that if there was one subject more than another which interested the electors at the recent election in the Saffron Walden Division it was the imposition of the tax on sugar, and on behalf of those electors he desired to protest against the unfairness of the tax especially in its effect upon the poorer classes. He wished the Committee to realise how hardly the tax would press upon the poor and how little it would affect the rich. Recently he applied to a large co-operative store, which supplied 1,300 customers, 1,200 of whom ware wage-earners, and asked how many articles they were about to raise in price in consequence of the imposition of this tax, and the fist he received in reply contained the following twenty-seven articles—biscuits, home-made beer, blacking, bottled fruits, British wines, cake flour, cakes, candied peel, candy, chocolate, cocoa, condensed milk, preserved fruits, 1247 health salts, jams, marmalade jellies, lemon cheese, lemon curd, sugar sweets, pickled bacon, lemonade, lime juice, pomfret cakes, sherbet, syrup, and treacle. If these articles were not directly increased in price there was an inferior article supplied as a direct consequence of the imposition of this tax, or the amount in bulk was reduced. The tax seemed to have not only disorganised the trade, but an increasing quantity of inferior sugar was being sold to consumers. He wrote to one of the largest grocers he knew in his constituency, and asked him how the tax affected his business, and he replied as follows—
In reply to your inquiry respecting the operation of the sugar tax, our own experience is—and we supply a large number of small shops—that the sale of all kinds of sugar has decreased quite 20 per cent. Consumers amongst the working classes are purchasing an inferior quality. Retailers have only advanced their price ½d. per lb. The probable consumption of sugar per week in an average labourer's household is 6 lbs. per week. Of course, the increased cost of many other articles owing to the sugar tax bears very heavily on the working classes.This grocer lived in a district where there was a great deal of grass land. Where there was a great deal of grass land the humbler classes could purchase milk, and for that reason they had a less quantity of sugar. On the contrary, where there was little grass, and where it was nearly all ploughed country, as was the case with the bulk of the county of Essex, a larger proportion of sugar was purchased by the working classes, and instead of 6 lbs. per week the quantity varied from 8 to 14 lbs. per week per household. It came to this, therefore, that owing to the imposition of this tax the average family had to pay something like sixpence per week every week in the year. If they assumed that it was only fivepence per week, and that the agricultural wage earner received 17s. a week—the majority in the county which he represented got wages varying from 11s. to 13s. a week—the imposition of this tax meant 2½ per cent. of his income. He asked the Committee to compare this with the case of the richer individual who had an income of £1,000 a year. That individual, because of his greater wealth, consumed double the quantity of sugar, and 2d. had been added to his income tax. They were, therefore, only 1248 calling upon the rich man to pay 1 percent. on his total income, whereas they were calling upon the poor man to pay 2½ per cent. of his total income. In that, way this tax was unfair to the mass of the people. If he took the ordinary case of the agricultural labourer who had. 12s. per week, and assumed that 12 lbs. of sugar was the amount his family consumed if living in an arable district, where they were unable to get any milk, the tax meant that this poor man would actually pay 5 per cent. of his total income; while the man receiving £10,000 a year would only pay 1 per cent. of his income. What were the principles on which taxation was imposed in this country? Were they rejecting the principles of Adam Smith, which the Member for West Islington had dwelt upon that afternoon? The hon. Member for West Islington alluded to the principle that payment should be made to represent equality of sacrifice between man and man. Instead of that principle being adopted, it appeared to him that equal payment or something similar was being adopted by the Government. If the principle of taxation in this country was, that every man, whether rich or poor, should pay an equal amount, the Government should say clearly that they desired a poll tax of say £3 per head, so that the electors might realise the principle which was involved. He objected to the tax not only on the ground that it was unfair to the poor, but because it, was not proposed to make it even a temporary tax. In a period of declining; prosperity this tax was placed on one of the staple foods of the people. In his judgment the last article any Government ought to place a tax upon was one which was an actual necessity in the daily life of the working classes of this country. He had always favoured direct rather than indirect taxation, and he should like every individual in the State to be called upon to pay his fair share for the government of the country; but it ought to be done in accordance with the principle of equality of sacrifice. In the past our prosperity had been largely attributable to the fact that we had free trade. When there were such men in the House as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet and the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, who 1249 welcomed this tax because it was a protective tariff, and because it would lead to the imposition of a duty upon corn—men who regarded this tax as the thin end of the wedge—the Government ought to be on their guard and pause before instituting a tax which he believed would be retrogressive and detrimental to the great trade interests of the country.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Romford)said he also represented a division of Essex, and he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sugar tax was popular. The working classes were quite ready to provide their quota of the expense of the war and to meet their obligation in connection with the increased expenditure of the country. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden had said that the poor man would be unduly taxed. Did the poor man consume chocolate?
§ MR. J. A. PEASEsaid his statement was that 1,200 wage-earners were consuming all these articles. He got the figures from a co-operative store.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid that that was not his point at all. The hon. Member said that the man who had an income of £1,000 a year contributed less in proportion than the working man. But the hon. Member did not take into calculation the number of employees which the man with £1,000 a year engaged; and that if the man himself did not consume the sugar he consumed other dutiable articles. Therefore the rich man was more taxed in proportion than the poor man, and it was perfectly right that it should be so. His object in rising was not to deal with these small matters, and he had no doubt that hon. Members opposite would take very good care that the burdens lay on those who could pay for them. So far as he was concerned, he could assure the hon. Member for Saffron Walden that he also stood there as a champion of the working classes, and that if there was anything to be done in their favour he would work with ardour equal to that of the hon. Member. He did not vote in favour of the resolution to allow a rebate on colonial sugar, as he thought that the colonies were quite able to fight for themselves. But he wished the colonies 1250 to fight fairly, which up to the present they had not got a chance to do. If bounties were given by foreign countries on cotton, wool, grain, locomotives, and machinery, we should soon be up in arms, and put a countervailing duty upon these articles; and why not on sugar? The question was how the sugar bounties had affected the sugar producing colonies.
*The CHAIRMANsaid he did not see how the hon. Member could connect the discussion of the clause before the Committee with bounties given by foreign countries on the export of sugar.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid that the raising of the tax on sugar depended in great measure on the amount of sugar imported into this country, and if a trade were killed by imposing a tax on sugar the income which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would derive from the tax would be to that extent limited. He, however, did not wish to press the point of countervailing duties.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think that the question of countervailing duties as applied to bounties was relevant to the discussion of this clause.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRasked if he could pursue the question of bounties.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the question of certain bounties which were given by foreign countries on the export of sugar could not be affected by anything in this clause.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRbowed to the Chairman's ruling. The hon. Member for West Islington had raised a question with regard to the polariscope, and had said that the density of sugar could not be accurately arrived at by the polariscope, because the power of eyesight was not equally the same in any two persons. But another hon. Member had given an interesting and accurate description of the polariscope, and he could assure the Committee that, with the aid of that instrument, there would be no difficulty in arriving at the density of all classes of sugar. In fact, the polariscope was used by foreign nations in giving their bounties. The amount of the bounty varied according to the 1251 degree of polarisation. In Germany, between 93 per cent. and 100 per cent., it was £1 3s. 4d.; in Austria, it was £1 15s. 6d.; in Russia, it was even more, while in Holland it varied from £1 18s. to £2 3s. The hon. Member for Devonport had said that the West Indian sugar planters could produce sugar at a cost of £8 16s. 8d. per ton, and that if they discarded their primitive machinery it could be produced at a cost of £8 12s. They had, of course, to deal with the labour question, which had a great effect on the problem. He held that if only they could put the West Indian sugar planters on the same basis as other manufacturers they would not require anymore doles. The cost of producing sugar in Germany was £11 15s. 6d. per ton, but on account of the bounties the manufacturers could put it on the market as £10 per ton. If the West Indian colonies could have factories equal to those in Germany to enable them to meet the German competition, a great benefit would accrue to them, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would enable them to erect such factories by guaranteeing loans to the West Indian planters.
*THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member seems to be discussing the question of the West Indian colonies and the sugar question generally. He cannot go into such a general discussion on this clause.
§ MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he had only wished to follow the arguments submitted to the Committee last week. He would simply urge that he considered this tax was a popular tax, and met with a far greater measure of approval from the working classes than any other tax suggested; and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adhere strictly to the programme of the Schedule.
§ MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)said that some relaxation of the tax as far as the colonies were concerned had been suggested in order to join the Empire together. He did not care very much about any attempt to join the Empire together, but if the Committee considered an exemption in favour of the colonies, he maintained that some exemption 1252 should also be granted to the overtaxed people of Ireland. If the tax had been put on butter, instead of on sugar, it would afford an exceptional advantage, because butter was imported principally from, foreign countries. Of course, the tax was going to be passed. He had no hope that it would not, but he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he would not give some assurance that it was not going to be a permanent tax. The tax would impose an extra duty of from £500,000 to £900,000 a year on the unfortunate Irish people, and it would be really cruel if the tax were to be permanent. He did not, think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given any consideration to the effect of the tax in Ireland, otherwise he would have met the criticisms from the Irish Benches in a fairer spirit. Ireland, economically, was not capable of bearing an additional tax to the amount he had mentioned. There was in Ireland a larger proportion of non-productive population than in any other country in Europe; a larger number of inefficients in proportion to the wealth-producing people than in any other country. That was the effect of the declining and decaying state of the country which was shown not only in the emigration statistics, but also in the exceedingly low marriage rate, and in the exceedingly low birth rate. Therefore he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer before making the tax permanent should take these facts into consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought also to take into consideration the fact that owing to emigration the population per square mile in Ireland was lower than any other European country. With reference to the new tax, he wished to know how much of the money which would be raised in Ireland would be spent in that country. What benefit were the Irish people to get from it? He himself did not think that any of the tax would be spent in Ireland; it would be spent in South Africa. The vast bulk of the Irish people had been opposed to the war at the beginning and were opposed to it still, and it seemed to him both unjust and unfair that they should be taxed to the extent of half a million a year to support a policy with which they were entirely out of sympathy. Then, 1253 again, whereas indirect taxation in England was only about fifty per cent., it was seventy-five per cent. in Ireland. In other words, seventy-five per cent. of the taxation of Ireland was derived from the earnings of the poor, who a few years ago, owing to bad seasons, were in a condition which could only be described as semi-starvation. In 1879, 1880, 1881, 1885, and 1886, certain districts in Ireland were in a state of starvation, and works had to be established in order to provide relief for the people. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some assurance that the tax would not be permanent, or that, if it were to be permanent, he would afford some relief to the people of Ireland.
§ MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)said he opposed the clause in toto, not in any spirit of obstruction, but because he felt intensely and keenly the injustice of the tax. He did not oppose the clause because he wished to deny money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Only for the war the tax would not have been imposed, and he would put himself right by saying that no man regarded with greater detestation than he did such an unjust and unholy war.
§ MR. JORDANsaid that, as he did not oppose the tax as a war tax, it might be concluded that he approved of the war. He felt strongly against the tax as an unwise tax. He thought that a tax should not be put on the food of the poor; it should have been put upon capitalists, who could have afforded it. It would have been a heroic thing on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have raised the income tax to 1s. 6d. in the £, and that would have saved him from having to tinker with sugar and coal. He did not intend to talk about polariscopes or things of that sort. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be good enough to put a polariscope in the library of the House, but the right hon. Gentleman did not respond, which rather astonished him, because he always admired the conciliatory speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He 1254 desired to regard the tax from an Irish point of view. In the first place, he thought it would affect labourers in Ireland very seriously. Scarcely any food was used by the poor in Ireland into which sugar did not enter. Since the creameries had been started milk had become exceedingly scarce, and the people used sugar as a substitute. But the tax would also affect the farmers. In his part of the country wages were pretty high, and medium farmers found it exceedingly difficult to pay them. He did not object to servants getting large wages, but middle-class farmers found it very difficult to pay them, and the addition of a tax upon tea and sugar would affect them very much. The tax would also crib, cabin, and confine the sugar trade. Traders in Ireland were not capitalists, and had no large balances in the banks, and had no large stocks. Suppose a trader bought a hundred bags of sugar, the tax would mean an addition of £50. That additional capital would have to be found, and the trader would probably have to raise it in a bank, at perhaps as much as 6 per cent. In the name of the traders of the country, therefore, he protested against the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other night that if the tax were reduced the reduction would go into the pockets of the middlemen. He denied that. In Ireland sugar was often sold at only 3d. per cwt. profit, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have said what he did if he had known anything of the retail trade. As an Irish representative he opposed the tax strenuously and earnestly because it would be injurious to, farmers and labourers in that country.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)said he did not propose to discuss the principle of the tax or its defects, but he wished to put a few questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so as to have matters cleared up. The other night he was about to move an Amendment as to the special charges to be levied on particular classes of canned goods, but the right hon. Gentleman anticipated his desire, and promised to bring up an Amendment himself. He should be glad to know the character of the Amendment and when it would be introduced. He also pointed 1255 out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he ought to put the same duty on glucose that he put on the best refined sugar, because every pound of glucose used would depose a pound of honest sugar, on which the Treasury was entitled to its revenue. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that glucose would be used not only by brewers, but also for adulterating confectionery and jams, and therefore its use should not be encouraged. He was not speaking in favour of the beer interest, although he supported the Pure Beer Bill, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to protect the revenue and discourage the adulteration of food products, he would be well advised to put the identical duty on glucose that he put on the best refined sugar. The brewer paid on the specific gravity of the solution, and every pound of glucose used was exactly the same as sugar solution, and therefore not entitled to any preference. He had also endeavoured to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that the polariscope test was not reliable. He had pressed the right hon. Gentleman over and over again to appoint a Committee of chemical experts to inquire whether the test was right or not. It was pointed out the other night by his hon. and learned friend that the polariscope gave the exact percentage of sugar present. That was perfectly true and it was probably thought that by giving that exact reading the polariscope showed the Chancellor of the Exchequer straight away the amount of duty to which he was entitled. That was just what the polariscope did not do. What the right hon. Gentleman would want to know was what the refiner was going to get out of the sugar, as it was on that that the duty was levied. The polariscope did not ascertain that, it was the analyst. The analyst first ascertained by the polariscope the amount of sugar in the solution; then he ascertained the amount of invert sugar, and finally the amount of mash sugar. The polairiscope test, as far as the collection OF revenue was concerned, was serious in two respects. It deprived the revenue of taxation to which it was entitled, and it subsidised the refiner by enabling him to obtain more sugar than he paid upon. One per cent. of ash only 1256 prevented three times its weight of crystallisation. He only alluded to that to show what the effect would be between the sugar refiner and the sugar exporter He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not leave the very strong position he taken had up with regard to this matter, but would watch it carefully.
§ *MR. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)said there was one matter upon which he thought some further explanation was necessary before this Vote was taken, and that was with regard to the duty on glucose. When this tax was proposed to the House he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in favour of the principle that it should be regarded as a tax upon sweetness, and that any article into which that ingredient of sweetness entered should be taxed in proportion. There had been no opportunity for discussing this particular point, and he thought as it was a very important matter an opportunity should be given for discussing it before the Bill passed into law, or if no such opportunity occurred, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer take into consideration whether the sum charged upon glucose was sufficient to carry into effect the view he was understood to hold upon this subject? The sugar tax, he submitted, should not be enforced in such a way as to give the slightest preferential encouragement toother ingredients into which this sweetness entered, and if it could be shown by further research that any undue advantage was given to glucose as compared with sugar, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the earliest opportunity of setting that matter right. This was not an occasion when one ought to enter into the discussion of details; the tax was to be a permanent tax, and the only arguments which could be applied were those either in favour or against the tax. The hon. Member for Romford said it was a popular one. It could only be so described in the senses that it fell upon all. It violated all the economic canons; it was a tax on which more had to be paid than passed into the Exchequer, and one that pressed unduly upon those who could least afford to pay instead of those who could best afford it. In addition to 1257 that, it was an interference with trade, interfering with raw material used in great industries, and that being so it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman could hardly have alighted upon any article of consumption, to deal with which could have inflicted such great hardships from an economic point of view. If it had been a question as between tea and sugar, far less economic disturbance would be occasioned by increasing the duty on tea than by imposing a new duty upon sugar, which had long since been abandoned. Tea was not used as an article of production in this country, nor as an article of manufacture; whereas, sugar being so largely used in these respects, this tax would cause a very great disturbance in trade. He had noticed in a trade newspaper that at a conference recently held in the north of England it was stated that there were over 150 articles which would be affected by this tax upon sugar, and when the Committee considered how much of these articles were consumed, and the number of people who were engaged in these manufactures they would agree that not only did the tax press hardly upon the consumers of sugar, but also on those engaged either directly or indirectly in these industries. He thought the income tax should have been raised, but that was a matter which could not now be dealt with, but he would just say that if that tax had been dealt with by means of a graduated scale the right hon. Gentleman would have obtained more revenue than he would from both tea and sugar.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)agreed that the tax was felt by large numbers of the poorer classes, but it was one of the most satisfactory signs of the times that there had been hardly any complaint from consumers. The great bulk of the population felt that, inasmuch as the expenditure was perfectly justified, they were quite prepared to make an effort to pay their share of it. This was a consoling thought to be noted when complaints had been loud from the wealthier classes.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)The hon. Member, 1258 while admitting that this tax will place a heavy burden on the poorest classes, claims that it is a satisfactory view of the situation that the poorest classes accept their burden without murmuring; but let me point out the ordinary poor consumers have no means of expressing their view, and we have yet to learn whether they have realised the effect of the tax. Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that at the Co-operative Congress held a week or ten days ago, and which represented, I think, about six or seven millions of the population, there was a full debate and a unanimous and strong condemnation I of the tax on the ground of its effect on the comfort and health of the working classes. The hon. Member thinks it is useful and patriotic that the poorer classes should bear a share of the burden of the war, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said it is in the true interests of peace and economy that they should know they are paying their share of the burden. But then he tells us this is to be a permanent tax. It is not therefore only a war tax, and once that fact is admitted the whole of the argument about the educational effect of this impost falls to the ground. My right hon. friend, who usually occupies a seat near me, the Member for the Montrose Burghs, has said something to the effect that "the tax-gatherer is a great schoolmaster," but I doubt if that is so in regard to indirect, taxation, because nothing is more readily forgotten than the fact that high prices are the consequence of taxation. There is a well-known quotation, but I hesitate to ascribe it to anyone: "You may tax the shirt off a man's back without his knowing it"; and some five or ten years hence, when a poor woman is paying a high price for sugar, how will she know it is due to the war in South Africa? The argument upon educational effect is overdone.
I quite agree with what my hon friend behind me says, that this tax, perhaps more than any other, takes, more from the consumer than he should be required to pay. If you are to seek some subject of indirect taxation, which should be increased without going into elaborate theories of economics, it should be a simple tax; but this is the 1259 most complex matter that can be conceived. I have here a list of some articles which has been taken from a trade journal. It includes aerated waters, beer, blacking, biscuits, confectionery coffee extract, crystallised fruits, condensed milk, jams, jellies, fruit juices, china ginger (whatever that may be), chocolate, cocoa, custard powder, lemon squash, patent medicines, citrate of magnesia, sauces, and saline powders, British wines and spirits. Here is everything that can sustain man, spoil his digestion or cure his indigestion, or restore him after indigestion, or black his boots to enable him to take exercise. The list touches almost everything that affects mankind, and it must be remembered that if we look back to 1874 there were none of these things. Take, for example, condensed milk. The vast majority of the children in the large towns drink little less than condensed milk. It is not a luxury or an extravagant caprice which leads parent's to use condensed milk. It is the only way in which they see milk, and it will be raised disproportionately in price because of this duty. The right hon. Gentleman has, in many respects, met the Committee with extreme fairness. Many points which hon. Members have urged have been conceded. He made a concession, in which I have some interest, on Friday night, but which, I think, has not been noticed by the general public. The right hon. Gentleman abandoned the proposal to put the duty on apricots, which was proposed to be 7s., although no sugar was used at all; and in the adjustment of the graduation scale I am sure that he will take counsel of the trade, and not only of a purely scientific authority. We have great confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, he and his polariscope between them, to see full justice done. We believe in him, and in his desire to keep any trace of unfair protection out of the operation of the tax; but he cannot get over the main fact that this tax falls with the greatest severity on the very poorest in the country, the most helpless people, the women and children especially. A man may go to the public-house and seek his little enjoyment; he is not taxed extra for that; but upon the poor woman who has to provide sugar and condensed milk for the food of her children will 1260 fall the burden. It is on their little budgets that this tax will fall.
The right hon. Gentleman used an expression which surprised me. He said the tax would have the effect of diminishing the consumption of cheap and unwholesome confectionery. I am afraid that it will have the effect of increasing the consumption of cheap and unwholesome sugar, because the experience of recent times has been that the less nutritious qualities of sugar have gone out of the market altogether, under the system of freer imports. Those who know most of the subject seem to be under the apprehension that with this tax these qualities will reappear. Sugar has become, as the enormous increase in its consumption has shown, a necessary element of the food of the people; and it is an excellent element of their food. Doctors have warned us against sugar. It is a bad thing if you live an unhealthy and sedentary life, but if you are a working man or woman few things contain more nourishment or do more to build up the health and strength of the people than sugar. Anything which checks the consumption of sugar or impairs the quality is surely a great misfortune to the country. I am opposed, therefore to the duty because it is cruel to the poor, because it causes the maximum of disturbance to trade, because it tends to, lower the quality of an essential article of food, and because it opens the door to the possibility of protection of an insidious kind, against which the only safeguard we have is a polariscope managed and applied by the right hon. Gentleman. On these grounds I join cordially with my hon. friends in voting against the tax.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI will not detain the Committee more than a few moments, but there are two points which it is desirable I should notice. The right hon. Gentleman has attributed almost every possible evil to the duty on sugar. I have had to find many millions of additional taxation, and I am blamed for not having found a great deal more than the sum I have asked Parliament to provide. Hon. Members think that I ought to have had recourse to a greater extent to the income tax. The hon. Member for Islington said that another 4d. should be put on the 1261 income tax, but I did not trace that suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the duty on sugar, but he occupies after all a position of some responsibility.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNot in the imposing of taxation.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI have not known a case in which the Leader of the Opposition admitted that a large sum had to be raised by additional taxation and denounced the Government for not having raised more by additional taxation and objected to the taxation proposed without suggesting anything else.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a void in my argument. I think something might be done to lay hands on a large part of the accidental increase in value of licensed houses. That of itself is a source which would furnish a greater amount I should think than this tax. Another source might be to withdraw those contributions from the Exchequer in aid of various interests.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Poplar to look into the statistics of this matter before they seriously make that suggestion again. Anybody who has done so will find that the scale of licence duties is an anomalous scale and one that requires readjustment. But if you are going to increase the duties for licences on public-houses by such an amount as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, then you will largely increase the vested interest, which is the great difficulty of all reformers of the licensing system. Would you not put a man who had paid a large sum for the grant of a new licence in a much stronger position than that which he at present holds? I do not believe that it is possible to approach this question of licence duties except as a part of a proposal for licensing reform; and I am certain that if it was so approached the right hon. Gentleman would find it absolutely impossible to raise anything like the sum which he contemplates from that source, because the great bulk of licensed houses are of small 1262 annual value, and because the increased gain on public-houses of comparatively large value would be as nothing compared with the five millions we are discussing. It has also been suggested that, instead of imposing a duty on sugar, I should have added to the tax on tea, which is a very high percentage on the value of tea at present; or that I should have dealt with tobacco, which is already taxed 250 or 300 per cent. All of these suggestions are absolutely impracticable for the purpose of raising so large an annual sum as is contemplated by this tax, and if we are to retain any proportion between direct and indirect taxation we have no right to put any more on the shoulders of the direct taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman denounced the sugar duty first of all as harassing and destructive to trade. Well, protests have been made by manufacturers on that ground, but I have taken care in the administration of the duty, and in the arrangements for drawbacks, to, as much as possible, avoid harassing the trade, and I think I may say that if the trade had been really harassed, or really anticipated the great injury that hon. Gentlemen opposite prophesied would be inflicted, the Committee would have heard very much more about it than we have yet heard.
Then the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the incidence of the tax on the poor, and quoted a resolution from the Cooperative Congress. But the Co-operative Congress naturally do not like the sugar duty, for one of the principal parts of co-operative business is the sale of groceries, and I admit that the sugar, duty is not popular among the grocery faternity. And when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the duty extracting more from the pockets of the poor than it would yield to the Exchequer, he made a mistake, for the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who has come fresh from contesting that constituency, and who is, therefore, primed with all the arguments, admitted that the tax to the consumer would only be ½d. per lb., or 6d. per cwt. more than it yielded to the Exchequer. It would lot be easy to find an indirect tax which extracts less from the pockets of the consumers in comparison with its yield to the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman 1263 has alluded to the various articles in which sugar is used, but I doubt if he would say that any of them could be considered necessaries of life. [An HON. MEMBER: Condensed milk.] That, no doubt, has become a necessary, but its price has not been largely increased by the sugar tax. I have yet to hear any allegation of that kind. Of course, this tax is not a popular tax. No tax I ever heard of is popular. But of this I am sure, that the hon. Members for Romford and Islington were perfectly justified in what they said with regard to the willingness of the poorer classes of the people to bear this additional tax. As I said in introducing the Budget, this is by no means only a war tax, but is intended to meet the general expenditure of the country. With regard to the scale adopted in connection with the duty, I frankly admit that it has been a matter of great difficulty to settle it, but I think we have come to a fair conclusion as far as it is possible to judge at present. If we had settled it in such a way as to encourage the importation of a large quantity of very inferior sugar, so as to practically shut out foreign refined sugar and raise its price to the consumer here, I am quite sure we should have had strong remonstrances from foreign countries. We have had practically no such remonstrances at all, either officially or otherwise. That I put as prima facie proof that we have been fair between the two interests. At any rate, the proposals of the Government should have a fair trial before any adverse judgment is formed of them. The operation of the duty will be carefully watched in fairness to the interests concerned, including the Revenue. But it is not in the interest of the Revenue that we should charge duty according to such a scale as would be protective to our refiners here. The tax on glucose I will deal with on Report, as I shall be
§ able to go into the subject more fully than is possible now. I trust that after the discussion we have had the Committee may be willing to come to a decision on a tax which I do not say is popular, but which I believe is required and cheerfully assented to by the mass of the population.
§ MR. E. J. C. MORTON (Devonport)pointed out that this matter had only been under discussion for two and a half hours, and, as it was a very important matter, he wished to say a few words upon it. It was the only tax imposed by the Government in the nature of an import duty, and he desired to point out one matter which he thought had been allowed to go by, and that was that it was not merely that sugar was now a staple article of food of the people, but that it had only become so during the last twenty-four years, and that it had taken the place of other articles of food which it had displaced, and the result was if they increased the price of sugar, and consequently the price of articles of food which contained sugar, the people would be forced (although it might not be a protective tariff) to return to the articles of food which sugar had taken the place of. An indirect effect of this tax had not yet been pointed out. The one country which had no bounty upon the sugar it exported—namely, India—had nevertheless been able to compete in the markets of Great Britain with the bounty-fed products of foreign countries, but if they destroyed or limited the English market for sugar they would do much to crush one of the few export trades of India out of which the poorest population in the British Empire profited.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 240; Noes, 159. (Division List No. 270.)
1265| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. E | Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Baird, John George Alexander |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Arrol, Sir William | Balcarres, Lord |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Ashton, Thomas Gair | Balfour. Rt Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) |
| Aird, Sir John | Atkinson, Rt. Hon John | Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey) |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Austin, Sir John | Balfour, Rt Hon. G. W. (Leeds) |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Banbury, Frederick George |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bailey, James (Walworth) | Bartley, George C. T. |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Bain, Colonel James Robert | Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute |
| Bignold, Arthur | Gunter, Sir Robert | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Bigwood, James | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Bill, Charles | Hambro, Charles Eric | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry | Parker, Gilbert |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd | Percy, Earl |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Helder, Augustus | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Butcher, John George | Henderson, Alexander | Purvis, Robert |
| Carlile, William Walter | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Pym, C. Guy |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hill, Arthur | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead | Rankin, Sir James |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) | Hogg, Lindsay | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hoult, Joseph | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green) |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson |
| Chapman, Edward | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Russell, T. W. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Rutherford, John |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Colston, Charles Edward H. A. | Keswick, William | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Knowles, Lees | Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm, | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Law, Andrew Bonar | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lawson, John Grant | Spear, John Ward |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H. | Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Davenport, William Bromley- | Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S. | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Denny, Colonel | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lowe, Francis William | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William H. | Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r) | Maconochie, A. W. | Wason, John C. (Orkney) |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Majendie, James A. H. | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Finch, George H. | Malcolm, Ian | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E) Wigt'n | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-un.-Lyne |
| Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ. | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Garfit, William | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Mitchell, William | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Gore. Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R. (Bath |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morgan, David J (Walthamstow | Wylie, Alexander |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morrell, George Herbert | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Green, Walford D (Wednesbury) | Morrison, James Archibald | Younger, William |
| Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Mount, William Arthur | |
| Gretton, John | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William Cork, N. E.) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Grant, Corrie | Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud | Griffith, Ellis J. | Partington, Oswald |
| Ambrose, Robert | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Hammond, John | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hayden, John Patrick | Perks, Robert William |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Blake, Edward | Helme, Norval Watson | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Band, John | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Priestley, Arthur |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Rea, Russell |
| Boyle, James | Holland, William Henry | Reddy, M. |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Horniman, Frederick John | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Joicey, Sir James | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Jordan, Jeremiah | Rigg, Richard |
| Burt, Thomas | Joyce, Michael | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Kennedy, Patrick James | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Caine, William Sproston | Kitson, Sir James | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Caldwell, James | Lambert, George | Roche, John |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Leamy, Edmund | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lundon, W. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Crombie, John William | M'Dermott, Patrick | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Cullinan, J. | M'Govern, T. | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William | Strachey, Edward |
| Delany, William | Mooney, John J. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Dillon, John | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Doogan, P. C. | Moulton, John Fletcher | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Murphy, John | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Duffy, William J. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Newnes, Sir George | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r |
| Dunn, Sir William | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) | Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N |
| Edwards, Frank | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elibank, Master of | Norman, Henry | Ure, Alexander |
| Ellis, John Edward | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S. |
| Emmott, Alfred | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Dowd, John | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Kearley. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John | O'Mara, James |
§ Clause 3:—
§ MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydfil)hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after hearing the arguments he was about to adduce, would agree to postpone the consideration of Clause 3. His reasons for asking him to accede to that request were based largely on the ground that in a very short time they would have a good deal of information bearing closely on the consideration of the clause 1268 which was not at present in the possession of the Committee. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had under consideration, or at any rate had suggested, a full and complete investigation into the whole of the coal question, including, of course, the smaller question of the probable effect of the export duty upon coal. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he honoured him with a reply, would state exactly his position now in relation to the inquiry which he 1269 had suggested. In reply to a question that afternoon across the floor of the House, he stated that the answer of the Parliamentary Committee of the Mining Association of Great Britain had not been satisfactory; and he had, in fact, given a negative reply to the inquiry as to whether a Royal Commission would be appointed. But he (the hon. Member) did not understand from his having stated that the reply of the Mining Association was unsatisfactory that he did not intend having any investigation at all. He thought it was quite clear to the Committee that the whole opposition to the clause, as represented by the Amendments on the Paper, would be very considerably modified—he was sure it would be in his own case—if it was understood that a full investigation was to be made into the whole question, and if the right hon. Gentleman could only make a statement informing the Committee of the nature and scope of inquiry he proposed, the terms of reference, and, if possible, the composition of the Committee, he could assure him that for his part it would largely modify his opposition to the coal tax, because he was satisfied that the duty had only to be inquired into in order to show that it could not remain, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, a permanent tax. The next consideration he would ask him to weigh before he replied was that a very important Return had recently been moved for by the President of the Board of Trade. It was moved for on the 14th of the present month and presented to the House of Commons on the 17th, but it had not yet reached the hands of Members. That Return related to the production and export of coal, and the number of persons employed in coal production in the principal countries in the world for a series of years from 1883 to 1899. He thought the Committee, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must see that a Return of that character, bearing so closely on the consideration of this question, should be in the hands of every member of the Committee before they were asked to consider the Amendments to the Bill.
There was another point. Section 3 of Clause 3, relating to the exemption of certain coal contracts which had been entered into, was now receiving the consideration 1270 of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. Gentleman had not, so far as he could understand, come to a definite decision as to the exemptions he proposed to make. When the right hon. Gentleman first embarked on this coal tax he seemed hardly to know that there were any contracts at all; but he had discovered since then that a very large portion of the coal exported from this country was sold under contracts made some time before the coal was delivered. Many thousands of contracts had been sent into the Customs to be considered, but the Chancellor had not yet stated the exemptions he proposed to make. Before they entered upon the consideration of the clause at all they ought to know definitely what contracts he proposed to exempt, and to what extent in the matter of time he proposed to exempt them. They were entering upon the consideration of the clause with very little information as to its probable effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade had been asked again and again for information on various points, but they had not been given the information which it was essential the Committee should have before they considered the Amendments. He hoped by giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little further time he would be able to give them some of the information they wanted. For instance, there was a very important Amendment proposing to reduce the duty on small coal to half the amount of large coal, but he ventured to say that no one in the Committee, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could tell how much coal exported from this country was large coal and how much small. Unless the right hon. Gentleman could tell them that, of course he could not in the least degree know what the effect of the exemption of small coal would be on the revenue he expected to gain. Then, again, there was the Amendment proposing to exempt the coal supplied to British residents abroad. At the present moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not know how much duty would fall on British subjects abroad. There were, indeed, a number of Amendments with regard to which the Committee could not arrive at a proper decision until they had further information, and on those 1271 grounds he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accede to the motion he desired to move.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed "That Clause 3 be postponed."—(Mr D. A. Thomas.)
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHThis proposal has been before the country for more than two months. The principle of the coal duty was fully discussed on the Report of the Resolution to the House and was approved by a very large majority, and it was further discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill when there was again a large majority Now, when, two months from its first being proposed, we come to the consideration of the clause dealing with the subject the hon. Member asks for still further postponement in order that we may obtain information upon various points with which, I cannot help thinking, the hon. Member is pretty well acquainted already. Certainly, if he did obtain this information he would press for more, with a view to a further postponement. This is a purely dilatory motion; it is a proposal to which I cannot agree. The hon. Member has asked me to make a statement to the Committee upon certain points. As we come to the Amendments affecting those points I shall be ready to make those statements. We shall soon come to an Amendment with regard to the duration of the tax. Upon that Amendment I shall be happy to make a statement upon the question of the inquiry to which the hon. Member has alluded. We shall come later on to the question of the effect of the duty upon large coal and small coal, or upon the more valuable coal and the less valuable kinds of coal. There, again, I shall be quite prepared to make a statement to the Committee. Then there is the question of existing contracts, not a matter affecting the principle of the duty, but, if I might say so, an important side issue. When we come to the proposal in the clause for granting exemptions I shall be prepared to make a statement as to the principle on which the exemptions will be made. Therefore I think the request of the hon. Member to postpone this clause to some indefinite time merely in order that I may be able to make these statements is not a reasonable one, and I 1272 am not able to agree to it. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to reject the motion.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right in saying that this proposal had been before the country for about two months, but he apparently did not understand the real reason for which his hon. friend moved to postpone the consideration of the clause. The reason was that there were various subsidiary matters connected with the proposed legislation that arose even if they were to concede the main principle of the proposed tax. He would give ah instance of what he meant, an instance that would very materially affect his attitude, once the principle was admitted, towards the actual terms of the clause now under consideration. He referred to manufactured fuel. When, some weeks ago, a deputation waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the very terms of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to that deputation showed that he was not adequately informed as to the character of the patent fuel trade carried on in Western Glamorganshire. Questions had been asked more than once as to the intention of the Government in regard to this manufactured fuel, but no satisfactory answer had been obtained, and he should support the Amendment in order, if possible, to receive information as to the exact effect of the tax not only upon the coal exporting trade, but also upon the manufacturers of fuel in Glamorganshire and other parts of the country. They had failed to extract that information, and before they went into details of the Amendment he should like to know what was the scheme of the Government. It was obvious that one thing depended upon another, and the incidence of the tax upon the particular industry to which he had referred was a matter of very great importance.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)said he was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put his foot down so firmly in regard to the postponement of this clause. He thought it would have been better if he had waited to see if sufficient reason could be assigned to influence his mind upon this question. When at first deputations waited upon 1273 him for the purpose of asking him to withdraw this tax, they left his presence with the impression that the matter would be left open for future discussion before the final binding decision was given. Now the right hon. Gentleman told them that he could not possibly postpone the clause. Looking at this question from a workmans' point of view, he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone this matter until there had been a further inquiry. Both the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as other hon. Members opposite, had stated that this tax would not affect workmen at all, because it could not reduce their wages. He thought that was too narrow a view to take of this question. There were other ways in which workmen could be injured besides a reduction in wages.
*THE CHAIRMANI do not see how that argument is relevant to the postponement of this clause. The same argument will apply to the clause even if not postponed.
§ MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he was urging the postponement of this clause in order that the workmen's views might be inquired into before the decision of the House was made binding. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inquire into the matter more closely he would find that the workmen were far more concerned—
*THE CHAIRMANThat matter cannot be inquired into and discussed until the clause is reached. Whether the clause is taken to-night or a week hence in this respect does not matter, and a discussion on the subject-matter which the hon. Member has raised cannot be raised until the clause comes on.
§ MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that already arguments had been put forward in regard to manufactured fuel and with reference to small coal and large coal being separated; also as to the advisability of a differentiation of the tax upon these classes of coal being made. Therefore he thought he was entitled to bring in the position of the worker, for he wished to show the right hon. Gentleman that if he would look up the workman's position he would find that this alteration 1274 was as bad as a reduction of wages to the worker.
*THE CHAIRMANThat argument, as far as I understand it, is possibly a good argument against the whole clause, but it is not relevant to the postponement of the clause. What the hon. Member really desires is the rejection of the clause. The hon. Member is only entitled to give reasons for the postponement of the clause, and not reasons for its rejection, and I must ask him to confine himself to the question before the Committee.
§ MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he was trying in the best manner he could to bring forward the reasons which were before his mind. If the questions of contracts and sub-contracts could be put forward as reasons for postponement he was bound to say he did not see why such an argument could not be put forward as a valid reason for the postponement of the clause.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)said that his strong argument in support of this motion was that they had not up to the presen had the scheme of the Government up on this subject placed before them. This was a clause levying for the first time an export duty upon coal, and it was obvious that the scheme of the Government was entirely incomplete when the Chancellor made his Budget statement. The right hon. Gentleman had already told the Committee that he had statements to make upon various matters, and so far as the Committee were concerned they were quite in the dark as to the whole scheme of the Government. Before they were in a position to discuss this clause properly the Committee ought to know what the mind of the Government was upon this matter. Various matters had been pointed out of considerable importance which ought to conclusively prove to any reasonable-minded man that this clause ought to be postponed. Surely those were sufficient grounds for consenting to the postponement. Since it was stated that this was going to be a permanent tax the right hon. Gentleman had met the Association of Mine Owners, and he had held out to them the hope that they might look upon this as a temporary tax.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe hon. Member is quite mistaken upon that point. I simply asked them what their views were on the point, and they argued that it should be for one year only.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought that when the right hon. Gentleman invited mine owners to express their views he should be prepared to listen to them. This was one of the matters which he had taken into consideration in deciding to support the motion for the postponement of the clause. There were various other matters which went to the whole root of this question. Surely they were quite reasonable in asking that the clause should be postponed until they knew something about the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the contracts entered into before the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was put before the House in his Budget speech were exempted from the tax, practically the whole of the tax for this year would disappear. The question of putting 1s. per ton upon the inferior kinds of coal—
*THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is anticipating a number of Amendments which have already been placed Upon the Paper. He will see at once that no statement bearing upon those Amendments can be allowed upon the question of whether this clause ought to be postponed or not. Supposing this motion is successful, that would completely shut the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to any questions which might be put to him upon this subject, and it would even exclude the very matter which the hon. Member wishes to be brought forward. I should certainly stop the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he attempted, upon a motion to postpone the clause, to make any statement of the kind indicated in regard to the proposals of the Government, because it would not be relevant.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the reasons already given were entitled to a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although this matter had been before the country some two months, they were still in the dark as to the scheme of the Government.
§ MR. ROBSON (South Shields)said he would confine his observations to one 1276 reason in favour of this motion, and that reason had been suggested by what the right hon. Gentleman had told them. When he introduced this tax the right hon. Gentleman made the very significant statement that it was extremely difficulty in taxes of this character to collect information from the trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, had approached the tax with the plea of ignorance, for which he was not, of course, responsible. The very plea that he put forward was a most significant manifestation of the ignorance which he was admitting. There was no reason why, in regard to a tax of this kind, inquiries should not have been made from those concerned in the trade. There was no reason whatever, because this was a tax which did not admit of forestalment. What he desired was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give them a little more time, be it ever so little—be it only a week. He should prefer that he gave time for adequate and exhaustive inquiry. At any rate, they asked for more time in order that not only the coal trade, but the trades generally interested should be able to lay their views before the House. There was no fear of forestalling in this case, as in the case of tea, sugar, and tobacco. That could not be done in the case of coal. Coal had to be produced day by day, and deposited day by day at the pit's mouth. They could not because a tax was going to be imposed suddenly increase their output, except in small quantities, nor suddenly diminish their output. The trade must go on according to the line which it had taken up for some considerable time before the tax had been imposed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed entirely to ignore that, and the result was that he had deliberately refrained from making inquiries in the proper quarters, which would certainly have prevented him putting forward this tax in the form they now found it in the Bill. That consideration alone ought to be sufficient to induce him to delay the Bill further. How complete and how lamentable was the ignorance of those who advised the right hon. Gentleman was seen from that discussion. He was not even aware that those carrying on this trade did so under "long-forward" contracts. The other night he showed 1277 how little he had profited by the interval for the inquiry by putting forward an argument which must have astonished everybody in the trade. He said that during the month of April there had been a rise in the exports, and he put forward that argument—to a House containing among its Members those who were concerned in coal contracts, he solemnly put forward that argument to show that the tax had not diminished the volume of trade. One could not imagine a more complete misapprehension than that argument, and that misapprehension they desired to remove. He was not going to argue that point now; but he would simply explain that when the right hon. Gentleman suggested the tax, and said he was going to exempt existing contracts from the tax, obviously those concerned in the trade would seek to get out all their arrears under those contracts, and push them forward, and the first effect of the tax would be to increase the exports for that month; and yet the right hon. Gentleman came to the House of Commons and told them solemnly that the tax had been accepted by the trade, and that it had not injuriously affected the trade. He ventured to say that that was not the way in which the coal trade of the country ought to be treated.
*THE CHAIRMANThose arguments are not relevant to the subject under discussion, namely, the postponement of the clause. The hon. Member must address himself only to arguments which are relevant.
§ MR. ROBSONreplied that he did not desire to evade the Chairman's ruling. He desired to point out the illustrations which had arisen in the course of the controversy as to the complete want of information. It was quite obvious that whoever had advised the right hon. Gentleman remained still in ignorance as to the commercial conditions of the trade, and every day afforded opportunity for him to profit.
§ MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)said he desired to support the Amendment of his hon. friend. Those engaged in the coal trade did not know at the present time upon whom the liability to pay this duty would fall.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe tax is being aid every day.
§ MR. M'KENNAsaid they did not know who would ultimately have to pay the tax.
*THE CHAIRMANThat is a matter which can only be dealt with by an Amendment to the clause, and it is not relevant to the question whether this clause should be postponed or not.
§ MR. M'KENNAsaid that this Bill incorporated the Customs Consolidation Act, and there was nothing in the Finance Bill itself which imposed this duty upon anybody. There was no mention in this Bill of anybody who had to pay the tax, but by the Customs Consolidation Act this coal tax was to be put upon the exporter.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHThere is an Amendment on the Paper which will enable that point to be discussed.
*THE CHAIRMANThese arguments are not in the least relevant to the postponement of the clause, although they may be very proper arguments to bring forward when the clause itself is under discussion.
§ MR. M'KENNAsaid he only asked that this clause should be postponed until it had been decided who should pay the tax. Already in the north and in south Wales the Customs authorities were taking different lines, and under Section 20 the duty could not be recovered from the persons to whom the coal had been sold.
*THE CHAIRMANThese arguments are not relevant to the postponement of the clause, although they may be relevant to the clause when it is reached; and then the hon. Member may ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to carry out his scheme, and how the payment is to be made. I must direct the hon. Member to discontinue his speech, on the ground of irrelevance.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)said this was a very complicated question, and many of the difficulties had arisen because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in possession of sufficient information when the proposal was first made. The coal tax was a tax which had not been levied before for something like fifty years.
*THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now discussing the subject matter of the clause, and I have already pointed out that he cannot do so upon the question of postponing the clause. I must remind the hon. Member of the Standing Order relating to repetitions.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid the point he was endeavouring to make clear was that the right hon. Gentleman did not possess sufficient information to deal with the point, and the House of Commons did not possess sufficient information. One of the chief reasons his hon. friend below him had given for the postponement of the clause was that a certain Return, which had been asked for, showing the reduction in the consumption of export coal, and the number of persons employed in coal production in the different countries of the world, had not been issued. That Return formed part of the information which, in his judgment, was absolutely necessary to enable the Committee to come to a decision upon the point. It was a most complicated affair, and hon. Members who were not familiar with it did not realise the difficulties there were in connection with it. They had had it under consideration now for two months, and there had been all kinds of negotiations going on to endeavour to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the party he represented on the various matters connected with the subject, and surely there was a valid reason for asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the postponement of the clause till after the Returns, which were considered vital to enable the Committee to come to a decision upon the matter, had been placed before them. That was not an unreasonable request to make. It was not a dilatory matter. He did think that when they were going to make such an important change as this the Committee and the House should be in possession of all the information which was considered necessary. He thought information was being kept back from the Committee which was vital to coming to a proper decision on this matter. There was no question upon which not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but his Department, seemed to be less understood than the coal trade question, and the public themselves were perfectly 1280 ignorant of what the matter involved. It was a simple thing to say, "Put a tax of 1s. on exported coal," but surely before the Committee came to a decision upon an important question like that they should have sufficient information to see whether the tax would be imposed on a satisfactory basis.
§ *MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)said since the Bill was introduced the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in relation to the duty on sugar, had had information given which justified him in altering the basis of the proposal. With reference to the tax now under consideration, he said that he intended to exempt contracts to a certain extent. Surely they were within their rights in desiring to have certain necessary information supplied to them before they came to the consideration of the tax. They desired the postponement in order that information might be supplied, so that they might be able to judge what effect the change would have so far as the contracts for the present year were concerned.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI would remind the hon. Member that the Chairman has already ruled that he will not permit any such statement on this Amendment. I hope hon. Members will not discuss this matter further.
§ SIR EDWARD REED (Cardiff)said this was a very important point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a position where he could not give the information which some hon. Members thought necessary before the clause was discussed, and the Chairman could not allow them to proceed upon any other line than that of entering upon the discussion of the Amendments. At the same time he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make a general statement to the House, because of the unfortunate position in which they were placed. He was not aware whether the forms of the House would admit of any general statement such as was desired on the Opposition side. He did not speak with the slightest desire to cause delay. Many questions had been mooted and discussed for weeks past, and now the Committee entered upon the debate with respect to this clause in a perfect, fog as to what the intentions of the 1281 Government were. He certainly expected that, before they proceeded to discuss this clause, they would have had a statement of the decision of the Government in regard to certain matters which it was understood had been under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI will do so when the Amendments are submitted.
§ SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)said he fully admitted that there was great difficulty in discussing this clause on an Amendment, the effect of which was that the clause should not be discussed at present. The Chairman had ruled that it was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any statement of his intentions, or of any modifications he might propose to make, as long as this Amendment was before the Committee. At the same time the Amendment was not so unreasonable as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to suppose. After all, what was their position in regard to this clause of the Bill? It was that time would show that their forecast of the operation of the duty was more just than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was, therefore, greatly on time that they depended to prove their case, and from their point of view the more time there was before this matter was finally decided the more chance there was of fresh information being forthcoming which might affect the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had the greatest respect for the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had some hope that in course of time some impression would be made upon it by the working of this tax, and by the information which would be forthcoming. Some impression had been made already,
§ for Amendments had been introduced since the tax was originally proposed. All he could say was that he fell back on the old proverb "Everything comes to the man who waits."
§ *SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)said he sympathised very much with the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could not, while this Amendment was before the Committee, make a statement on certain matters with respect to which they wanted information. On the other hand, it was very difficult indeed to pass from the first Amendment without knowing what was to happen afterwards. The Committee had never had the slightest indication from the right hon. Gentleman of what was to be done with respect to coal exported under contracts current at the date when the tax was to begin. On that really a great deal depended, so far as their attitude towards the Bill was concerned. It was difficult to discuss the 1s. duty if they did not know the quantity of coal to which it applied.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared, with the leave of the House, to make a statement on the scheme as remodelled by the Government?
*THE CHAIRMANI will deal with the Amendments when we reach them, but I cannot deal with them until we reach the clauses to which they refer.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI will be glad to make a statement of the kind desired as soon as I am in a position to do so.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 167, (Division List No. 271.)
1283| Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Holland, William Henry | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Horniman, Frederick John | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Joicey, Sir James | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Donnell, James (Mayo, S.) | Shipman' Dr. John G. |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire |
| Kennedy, Patrick James | O'Dowd, John | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Leamy, Edmund | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants) |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | O'Malley, William | Sullivan, Donal |
| Leng, Sir John | O'Mara, James | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Lundon, W. | Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) | Ure, Alexander |
| M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Walton, John Lawson) Leeds'S.) |
| MacDermott, Patrick | Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| M'Govern, T. | Philipps, John Wynford | Weir, James Galloway |
| Mooney, John J. | Power, Patrick Joseph | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Price, Robert John | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Morgan, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | Rea, Russell | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Murphy, John | Reddy, M. | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Newnes, Sir George | Redmond, William (Clare) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) | Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. D. A. Thomas and Mr. M'Kenna. |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Rigg, Richard | |
| Norman, Henry | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Dalkeith, Earl of | Knowles, Lees |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Davenport, William Bromley- | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Davies, Sir Horatio D, (Chatham | Law, Andrew Bonar |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Denny, Colonel | Lawson, John Grant |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Dickson, Charles Scott | Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham |
| Arrol, Sir William | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Lowe, Francis William |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Finch, George H. | Macdona, John Gumming |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | Fisher, William Hayes | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds | Flower, Ernest | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.) | Mitchell, William |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Garfit, William | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Myrgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) |
| Bigwood, James | Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Bond, Edward | Greene, Sir E. W Bury S Edm'nds | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Hambro, Charles Eric | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Mount, William Arthur |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Butcher, John George | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Parker, Gilbert |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Heaton, John Henniker | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W. |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Helder, Augustus | Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Henderson, Alexander | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Hogg, Lindsay | Purvis, Robert |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Pym, C. Guy |
| Chapman, Edward | Hoult, Joseph | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham | Rankin, Sir James |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Hudson, Geopge Bickersteth | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Renwick, George |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Ridley, Hon. M. W. ((Stalybridge |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
*THE CHAIRMANThe Amendments on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division and the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire are in the wrong place. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is not in order. It proposes that a Select Committee should be appointed, and that proposal is beyond the scope of the Bill.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSmoved to insert, instead of "as from the 19th April," "as from the 19th October," so that the coal duty should be levied from the latter date only. He thought it would be obvious that the effect as well as the object of the Amendment was to postpone the operation of the duties on exported coal for six months. He thought it was not unreasonable to ask that some notice should be given, when a tax so unexpected as this was imposed upon a very complicated industry, before it came into operation. He might say that his interest in this matter arose entirely out of his position as a Member of Parliament, and it was because he thought this tax would fall upon the workman, and not upon the millionaire coal-owners of whom the Committee had heard, that he thought it right to move the Amendment, so as to allow the trade to look round and see what the effect of the tax would be. A great deal of coal which had to be delivered was on contracts which were entered into before the Budget proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were laid before the House. There were bunkering contracts, contracts for bunker coal, which were generally made in October for the ensuing year, and it would be very hard upon those who had contracted for bunkering coal if the tax came into operation as from the 19th April. The right hon. Gentleman had 1286 said that one of the reasons for bringing forward this proposal was that, in his opinion, it would fall upon the foreigner in a large degree. He did not wish to discuss the advisability of putting a tax on the foreigner, but he pointed out that, under a contract which he held in his hand, entered into by a London firm with the North German Lloyd, if this tax came into operation from 19th April the London firm would lose £2,500 this year, and the German line would gain it. If this tax came into operation as from 19th April it would press very hardly on those who had contracts running through 1901; but if it was postponed for six months they would have time to see what could be done with regard to it. If the tax was postponed they would to some extent get rid of the question of contracts, and to that extent get rid of a very difficult question. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say what his proposals were with regard to the exemptions of coal which was sold to be delivered in the following six months. It might be said that if the Amendment was carried the exporters would be able to supply their contracts for two years to come; but that would not necessarily be the case, because words might be inserted in the Bill to show that it was only the coal which had to be delivered for these six months that was exempted. He begged to move.
*THE CHAIRMANpointed out that if the Amendment was disposed of it would cut out the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, as well as that of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, because he must assume that, if the Committee declined the proposition to postpone the operation of the tax for six months, still less would they incline 1287 to extend that principle to eight months or twelve months.
§ MR. D. A. THOMASsubmitted that it was the universal practice to put the larger amount and the longer time to the Committee first, and that such a course would not cut out his Amendment.
§ MR. D. A. THOMASasked whether he would be in order to put the point and divide the House upon the question whether the words "as from" should be omitted—
*THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I have already said that if the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan was not successful the hon. Member's Amendment would not be in order. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil did not give notice in time; the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan did.
§ MR. D. A. THOMASI gave notice this afternoon, and I submit that no notice is necessary.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'as from the nineteenth day of April,' and insert the words 'from the nineteenth day of October.' "—(Mr Samuel Evans.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHThis is an Amendment I could not possibly accept, because the effect of it would be to postpone the operation of the duty altogether for a considerable part of the year, without distinction between contracts existing at the date of the Budget and contracts entered on after the Budget. I can see no reason for postponing the operation of the duty, either to the date suggested or to any other date. I have listened to the hon. Member very carefully, and so far as I could judge he gave no reason for the Amendment he has moved. I may state that I carefully considered this matter, because, as I reminded the Committee, when Sir Robert Peel revised 1288 the duties in 1842, he allowed an interim of four months before the commencement of the duty. The result was that an enormous exportation took place within those four months in order to avoid the duty, with the worst results to the Revenue, and with some unfairness to those who were not able to accelerate their exportation. As to the exemption which I propose to allow, I might, by leave of the Committee, make a statement, but it must be on the understanding that that statement shall not be made the subject of a discussion, which will properly come later.
*THE CHAIRMANIf the right hon. Gentleman makes a statement it will be impossible to preclude other Members from discussing it, and from various points of view. It is not regular to make such a statement; but sometimes it has been done by the general assent of the Committee.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHIn that case I think it would be best, in reply to a question to-morrow, to state what the proposals of the Government are. The hon. Member has named the 19th October. I will say now that practically, though not in all cases, there will be a large exemption to existing contracts up to the end of September.
§ *MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)believed that if the imposition of the duty could be postponed for a year there would be such an amount of information from all parts of the world to which the British coal trade extended as would satisfy the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing a course of great danger to our commercial supremacy. When in South Africa, some years ago, he was shown the point at which British coal and Transvaal coal met in equal competition. That point was being steadily pushed towards Cape Town, and what took place in South Africa was taking place in other parts. The consular reports from Italy showed that manufacturers were considering the desirability of doing industrial work by water power, and the extension of that power would have the effect of lessening the consumption of British coal in the Italian market. The pressure of foreign competition was felt upon our coal trade in every part 1289 of the world, and the effect of the permanent 1s. duty would be to contract the fringe of that trade everywhere. Within the last few months there had been a marked change in the coal trade of his district, and the effect of a restriction of the export trade would be increase of competition in the home trade, and in this competition the poorer collieries, working on a very small margin of profit, would succumb.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he desired to say a word or two in the interest of a class of persons who had been somewhat ignored hitherto in the debates on this question. He referred to the class of commission agents and middlemen at ports like Swansea and Cardiff, who had perhaps made their arrangements for carrying on the coal trade from year to year. These men had suddenly found themselves face to face with a completely new situation. He was not speaking without some knowledge of the way in which the coal trade was carried on, at any rate in the port of Swansea, because it so happened that he had been concerned in many cases in which questions regarding the Welsh exportation of West Glamorganshire coal from Cardiff to France and to North Italy had arisen, and he found that a very considerable trade had developed between Swansea and Genoa. The margin of profit, however, was very small indeed. Now, the Western Glamorganshire export coal trade was totally different from that which took place at Cardiff. It was not an export trade carried on with the view of supplying the great navies of the world with steam coal. It was a precarious trade, carried on by comparatively small companies and individuals without any very large capital, competing against French coal-producers, and coal-producers in many other parts of Europe. This tax had been put upon this class of colliery owners and middle men, who by their tact in sending out agents to different ports abroad had been slowly building up a trade which had never been prosperous in the sense in which the great steam colliery trade had been prosperous. Now these men were face to face with a proposition which affected them and their capital invested in the business in a most vital way. Admitting, for 1290 the purposes of argument, that the coal tax was under the exceptional circumstances of the case justifiable, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing an injustice to these men by imposing the tax without due and adequate notice.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)said that earlier in the evening he had endeavoured to raise the question of the position of the workmen with regard to this tax, and had endeavoured to show why the operation of the tax should be postponed. There could be no doubt that the fringe of the coal trade would be contracted, and he submitted that the proper test to apply to this question and to the hardship of this proposal on the community was not by its results on the monopoly trade, or the coal that would always be in demand whether there was a 1s. tax or not, but by the way it would affect the inferior coal and the fringe of the coal trade. There was as much demand for inferior as for superior coal, and it was a well-known fact that it took as many men to produce 100 tons in an inferior coal mine as in the superior coal mines. This was an aspect of the question which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken into account. As to whether the foreigner would pay or not was not now his point. In his opinion he would not pay, as he was too keen a business man, and he knew the market would be regulated by the law of supply and demand. He would take his own county, and assume that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said with reference to monopoly was right as regarded two-thirds of the coal. But that left two million tons which would not be wanted, and not only the two million tons, but the men who produced it would not be wanted. According to Government returns, the number required to produce two million tons of coal was 6,300 men and boys, and if the right hon. Gentleman could look upon a state of things like that with composure it was more than he could do. He was secretary of one of the largest trade unions in the country, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that from January to April last 1,200 men had been discharged in Durham simply because the markets were dislocated. They had to pay those men 10s. a week out of the hard-earned 1291 wages of the miners who were working, and if 6,300 men were to be added to that number the position would be serious indeed. Not only would the miners not be wanted, but the men who trimmed the coal in ships would not be wanted, the men in locomotives and on board ships would not be wanted, and stagnation would fall on the trade of the whole country.; because trade was kept up not by the purchases of the few, but by the purchases of the workers. Then many whole communities depended on the miners. He knew villages in Durham and Northumberland which had not a single industry, and in which the whole of the shops and every tradesman depended upon the miners, and if collieries were stopped, as assuredly they would be stopped if a third of their coal was not required, then whole villages in Northumberland and Durham would be rendered desolate. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to pause before he imposed a tax of that kind. It was unique in its application and in its impingements, and, as he would find out before he was done with it, in its results also. They had been told that it was a matter of wages, and that when contention arose between the employers and the men, the men would be strong enough to look after themselves. The President of the Board of Trade said that the miners were strong enough to withstand the demands of the employers, and the Colonial Secretary urged them to keep their money in order to meet the employers. He wished to say that they had a better way than striking. The men needed no impetus to strike, but their leaders wanted to keep them on lines of conciliation. They wanted to avoid conflict, and not to have an internecine war between employers and workers, and he thought that statesmen who managed great departments of State should hesitate before suggesting that the workers should prepare themselves for a strike. He wished to say that they recognised the rise and fall of the markets, and that they would try and prepare the men to recognise that wages should follow the markets on lines of conciliation and arrangement. He saw in The Times newspaper that the miners had been receiving great wages, and that the 1292 capitalists had made large profits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the same, and the President of the Board of Trade had issued a return, in which, however, there was a difference of five millions, between a statement in one part of it and in another. It was stated in one portion of the return that the increase of wages between 1897 and 1900 was £16,000,000, whereas in another part the increase was given as £21,000,000. If such a return could bear the mark of ignorance and show such a discrepancy there was need for closer inquiry and more careful scrutiny before the figures were launched forth to inflame the public mind. His two hon. friends the Members for Morpeth and the Wansbeck Division would be able to state their own case, and he ventured to state that their situation would be even worse than the position in Durham. Assuming that one-third of the coal now exported from Northumberland was not required, that would mean that 8,000 men and boys would not be required. He had never clamoured for the war, but he was quite willing to bear his share. He would, however, advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn in some other direction in order to get the money he required. Last year The Times newspaper, by anticipation, dealt with the coal tax in a very trenchant manner.
*THE CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member has rather forgotten the Amendment now before the Committee. He is dealing with the whole tax, but that question will not arise until the clause is put as a whole. The question now is—when will the tax come into operation?
§ MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he apologised for infringing the rules of debate. He had tried to state the case from the workman's point of view, and also from the wages point of view. The tax might mean that instead of a man being able to work six days a week he might be only able to get work on two or three days. The average wages of the coal-getter in the best of times last year was only on an average 7s. 5d. per day, and he would respectfully urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should find some other means of obtaining the money he needed. He would suggest to him, if the coal trade of the country had to pay, to 1293 let the people who received profits for which they did not work pay.
*THE CHAIRMANThese questions are not relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself strictly to the question of when the tax is to come into operation.
§ MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention to some other form of taxation. He would heartily support the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend.
§ MR. WILLIAM ALLAN (Gateshead)said he should like to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the results that had already accrued from his Budget proposals, and he would give the right hon. Gentleman one reason why he ought to accept the Amendment and postpone the tax until he got more information, and knew exactly what the effect of it would be on one of the greatest industries in the country. When the Bill was introduced he himself came to the conclusion that it was conceived in ignorance and born in stupidity. He would tell the Committee one effect which had already been produced, and many others would follow. In Northumberland they had a large contract for coal to supply the Danish railways, but since the introduction of the Budget two-thirds of that order had been given to Westphalia, and the proposed tax did it. Was that the way to maintain the industries of the country? That was not the way to raise taxation. Taxation should be raised with a minimum of irritation, but that tax had been imposed, for a trifle of two millions, in a way which produced the greatest irritation throughout the country. The appeal of the hon. Member for Mid-Durham ought to go to the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and cause him to agree to the postponement of the tax until he had more information as to the effect it would have. If the right hon. Gentleman mixed with the shipbrokers and miners of the North of England he would find that every word spoken by the hon. Members for the Mid-Durham and Wansbeck Division was absolutely true. Why, therefore, not accept the Amendment? It was not British business at all to resist it under the circumstances, as the tax 1294 was, in his opinion, unnecessary and unjust.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHpointed out that the arguments of the last two hon. Members who had spoken were against the tax altogether, and were not directed at all to the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment if accepted would be that the tax would commence on 19th October instead of 19th April. This would not meet the views of the hon. Member for Gateshead, because he objected to the tax in toto. In regard to the point raised as to the difficulty of the coal trade in Northumberland as compared with other parts of the country, he had been told that the particular contract named by the hon. Member for Gateshead had been lost by a difference of 8d. per ton, which was a clear proof that, although that class of coal might not be able to bear a tax of 1s. per ton, it could, at any rate, carry a tax of 4d. per ton. But it was perfectly absurd to suggest that from the fact that one contract had been made and another lost they could judge the general effect of a tax of this kind. He could quote instances in which contracts had been made on very good terms since the tax was imposed on the understanding that the foreigner would pay the whole of the tax. The strength of the case of the hon. Members who had just spoken was in respect of the cheapest kinds of coal, and when the Committee came to the Amendments relating to that class of coal he would be prepared to consider the subject.
§ MR. D. A. THOMAS, referring to the remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the strength of the case against the tax was in regard to the cheaper coal, pointed out that the South American and other markets also were affected. The hon. Member for Mid-Glamorganshire, in moving his Amendment, said he was not interested in the coal trade. That was a most improper remark, because hon. Members were supposed to speak in Parliament not in their own interests, but as representing their constituents. He himself was not interested in the coal trade to anything like the extent generally supposed, and he spoke in the House only for his constituents in Merthyr Tydvil, the largest mining constituency in the United Kingdom. He desired to know whether 1295 he would be in order in moving the Amendment he had handed in.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment the hon. Member had handed in was to omit the words "as from "and to insert the words "on and after." The Amendment under discussion was to omit the words "as from." If those words were struck out the hon. Member would be in order in moving to insert "on and after," but the question did not arise yet.
§ MR. D. A. THOMASsaid he only desired to get the Chairman's ruling. He understood that if the present Amendment was carried it would be competent for him to move to insert the words "on and after"?
§ MR. D. A. THOMASwas anxious to ascertain whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct in his statement on a previous occasion that the words "as from" were the same in their effect as "on and after." The resolution upon which the clause was based provided that the tax should be imposed "on and after" 19th April, and the right hon. Gentleman had previously stated that it would be from the beginning and not the end of the 19th day of April. Legal gentlemen, however, appeared to differ as to the point, but a case somewhat parallel was decided in the courts in 1891. In the case of the South Staffordshire Tramways Company v. the Sickness and Accident Assurance Association, it was held by Mr. Justice Day, Mr. Justice Lawrence concurring, that the effect of the word "from" a certain date excluded that date, and was not equivalent to "on and after." The case went to the Appeal Court and was decided in favour of the appellants, but not on that particular point. If there was any room for doubt, it was surely much better to make it absolutely certain by embodying the words as given in the resolution on the coal tax. Assuming his contention was correct, it would mean a difference of about £30,000 to the revenue, and it would certainly be much better to insert these words than to have to go to the law courts to get the matter decided. With regard to the argument of the hon. 1296 Member for Mid-Glamorganshire, it would be more satisfactory to insert 31st December than October 19th, because contracts were not usually made from October to October, but they were made in October for the following year. Moreover, they were not by any manner of means always made in October. If the market was rising they would be made in August or September, while if the market was depressed they might not be made until November or December.
§ *MR. FENWICKsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he knew of a contract which had recently been made, under very favourable conditions, in connection with which the foreigner had agreed to pay the tax.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI mentioned more than one.
§ *MR. FENWICKsaid he had heard of one himself, and he would state to the Committee the conditions under which it was made, as it was more than likely that the contracts to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred were made under similar conditions. In the case of which he had heard it was agreed that if the foreigner paid the tax he should be supplied with the coal at 1s. per ton below the market price, or the exact value of the duty. It was rather to the advantage of the foreigner that, until the tax was disposed of, he should pay the duty, because the probabilities were that the duty would be reduced so far as North Country coal was concerned, and it was not at all likely that it would be increased. On the other hand, it was to the interest of the English coalowner when selling to sell it at the lower price, because the lower price would then be entered in his books as the realised selling price, and when the quarterly ascertainment, upon which wages were based, was made, the benefit would go to the employer, and not to the workman.
§ MR. ROBSON, while supporting the Amendment, could not agree with some of the reasons urged in its favour. He believed that for the next few months it was almost certain that a considerable portion of the tax would be paid by the foreigner, but after about six months the foreigner would be in a position to 1297 put the tax upon us, because he would then have increased the capacity of his pits, increased his output, and be able to supply coal in substitution for that which would no longer be taken from the English market. At present we exported about 49,000,000 tons per year, and the foreigner would have to pay practically any tax that was put upon it, because for a few months he could not possibly produce coal in substitution for our exported coal. But when once the foreigner had increased the number of places in his pits to which he could put his men he would be able to supply coal in the place of that which this tax would displace. As soon as he had increased his output to that extent—which would be in a very short time—he would be able to throw the whole of this tax upon the English producer.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that while it might be true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that when Sir Robert Peel fixed a tax upon coal he gave four months notice, and that during the four months there was an enormous increase in the exportation of coal, he would point out that at that time the exportation of coal was extremely small. It could then be counted by tens of thousands of tons; in any case, it was not more than a few hundred thousand tons; whereas now it was counted by tens of millions of tons. Another important fact was that at that time collieries were worked only for about six months in the year, so that in case of emergency the output could be increased. The present state of affairs was altogether different. For the last two or three years the producers of coal had been doing their very utmost to increase the output, because prices were high and profits large; he had never denied that fact. But circumstances were altogether different now from those of 1842, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer need be under no apprehension that, if this Amendment were accepted, the coal producers of the country would be able to increase their output very extensively. If, say, six months notice of this tax were given, he felt certain the right hon. Gentleman would not find it seriously to his disadvantage.
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEdesired to call the attention of the Committee to the 1298 position of the exporter on the northeast coast, especially in the Hull and Grimsby trade with the Continent. Coal was only a part of their cargo. While many ships were fully loaded with coal, a large number went out with mixed cargoes, and they came back loaded with raw materials for the manufactures of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The tax had come so suddenly on this trade that nobody at present was able so say exactly where he stood. It was the outward and the homeward freights all put together which made the current rate, which was so important to the manufacturers of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and the north of England. He hoped that the six months provided for in this Amendment would be granted, in order that the regular trade of the country should not be damaged. The 40,000,000 tons of coal and the 10,000,000 tons of bunker coal was no small item in the large trade of this country, and if they by any means lowered that quantity they would damage the steam fleet, which was so vital to their manufacturing interests. This was a point to which he wished specially to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they damaged in any way the steam fleet they would also damage the shipbuilding yards, and throw more people out of employment.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the Committee had been put in a very difficult position by the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had approached this question. His object in moving that Amendment was simply to postpone the operation of the tax for six months. He did so for two reasons: (1) to give the trade, and particularly the owners of the poor collieries, time to look about; (2) to endeavour to mitigate the severity of the tax as far as possible. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to deal with the contracts, they ought to know what he was going to do, and if he gave that information then he might probably withdraw his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman proposed dealing with the small collieries in a certain way, but he did not disclose it. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to place an ad valorem duty upon some classes of coal. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should at once 1299 place his whole scheme before the House with regard to existing contracts, and state how they proposed to deal with inferior coal and coal of the smaller size. He would therefore move the adjournment of the debate in order to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the Committee what the Government proposals were.
*THE CHAIRMANI will put the motion, but I cannot allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any such statement upon it. I cannot under the rules of the House permit a discussion of the Bill upon a motion for progress.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that in that case he would not think of persisting in the motion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said they were now discussing the postponement of a clause, and they were suddenly told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to make some extremely important changes, which he had not yet disclosed to them, and which it was supposed would have some influence upon the discussion. What was going to be done with regard to contracts he did not know. They did not know what was going to be done with regard to small collieries or small coal, and these were very serious matters. He had very serious objections to this coal tax, as well as the sugar tax, on account of the interests of the borough he represented, where they imported nothing but sugar and exported nothing but coal, he did ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand to his guns and continue to do what he had announced to the House that he intended to do. The right hon. Gentleman should not make concession after concession, departing from his scheme of taxation, whether in deference to the representations of hon. Gentlemen opposite or deputations that met him in his private room. That was not a wise thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do. He thought it would be a most unwise thing to postpone the collection of the tax for six months. It would only result in a great run on exportation and the loss of a great portion of the tax. The exporters would have the bitter pill to swallow six months later, and it would not be made a bit less bitter by postponing it. Many of the different proposals 1300 with regard to contracts, and rates had been discussed, and now they were going to have some more suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which had not yet been given to the Committee. He could not understand the hon. Member wishing to move the adjournment, but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make up his mind what he was going to do before the debate was resumed on another day.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHOf the many accusations which the hon. Member for King's Lynn has made against me, he has never made one which is more unfounded than that which he has just made. I have throughout the discussions on the Bill expressed my intention to give as far as possible liberal treatment to existing contracts, and I have made no secret of my willingness to consider the position of the cheapest kinds of coal. All I desire is to postpone a definite statement on the subject until I can make it fully, in answer to a question to-morrow. I have made no other concession at all. I have always found the House ready when a Minister is anxious to discuss any proposal in a conciliatory tone to meet him and to discuss the matter fairly. Surely that is not a concession. All I desire is that we shall discuss the matter, in order to see what can be done. I can only say that if any attempt I make to meet the views of hon. Members is received with more lengthened debate, and with objections such as the hon. Member for King's Lynn has raised, I can make no concessions at all. I hope that after what has passed the Committee will be allowed to divide on the Amendment.
§ MR. D. A. THOMASasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had considered the legal point of which he had given him notice.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI have consulted the Attorney General on the statement which the hon. Member has sent to me, and the opinion of the Attorney General is that the words in the Bill—words which have been in many finance Acts—amply cover the levying of the duty from the earliest period.
§ MR. D. A. THOMASThen there will be no necessity to go to a court of law?
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHNo.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 164. (Division List No. 272.)
1285| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Channing, Francis Allston | Farrell, James Patrick |
| Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud) | Cogan, Denis J. | Fenwick, Charles |
| Ambrose, Robert | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) |
| Atherley, Jones, L. | Crean, Eugene | Ffrench, Peter |
| Austin, Sir John | Cullinan, J. | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Gilhooly, James |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Delany, William | Grant, Corrie |
| Blake, Edward | Dillon, John | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) |
| Boland, John | Donelan, Captain A. | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Boyle, James | Doogan, P. C. | Hammond, John |
| Brigg, John | Duffy, William J. | Harwood, George |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Duncan, J. Hastings | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Burt, Thomas | Edwards, Frank | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- |
| Caldwell, James | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Holland, William Henry | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Horniman, Frederick John | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Joicey, Sir James | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Donnell, James (Mayo, S.) | Shipman' Dr. John G. |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire |
| Kennedy, Patrick James | O'Dowd, John | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Leamy, Edmund | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants) |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | O'Malley, William | Sullivan, Donal |
| Leng, Sir John | O'Mara, James | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Lundon, W. | Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) | Ure, Alexander |
| M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Walton, John Lawson) Leeds'S.) |
| MacDermott, Patrick | Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| M'Govern, T. | Philipps, John Wynford | Weir, James Galloway |
| Mooney, John J. | Power, Patrick Joseph | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Price, Robert John | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Morgan, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | Rea, Russell | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Murphy, John | Reddy, M. | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Newnes, Sir George | Redmond, William (Clare) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) | Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. D. A. Thomas and Mr. M'Kenna. |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Rigg, Richard | |
| Norman, Henry | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Dalkeith, Earl of | Knowles, Lees |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Davenport, William Bromley- | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Davies, Sir Horatio D, (Chatham | Law, Andrew Bonar |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Denny, Colonel | Lawson, John Grant |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Dickson, Charles Scott | Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham |
| Arrol, Sir William | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Lowe, Francis William |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Finch, George H. | Macdona, John Gumming |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | Fisher, William Hayes | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds | Flower, Ernest | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.) | Mitchell, William |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Garfit, William | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Myrgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) |
| Bigwood, James | Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Bond, Edward | Greene, Sir E. W Bury S Edm'nds | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Hambro, Charles Eric | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Mount, William Arthur |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Butcher, John George | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Parker, Gilbert |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Heaton, John Henniker | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W. |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Helder, Augustus | Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Henderson, Alexander | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Hogg, Lindsay | Purvis, Robert |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Pym, C. Guy |
| Chapman, Edward | Hoult, Joseph | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham | Rankin, Sir James |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Hudson, Geopge Bickersteth | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Renwick, George |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Ridley, Hon. M. W. ((Stalybridge |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Ropner, Colonel Robert | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Rutherford, John | Thorburn, Sir Walter | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Thornton, Percy M. | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N. |
| Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse | Tritton, Charles Ernest | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Seton-Karr, Henry | Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Valentia, Viscount | Wylie, Alexander |
| Simeon, Sir Barrington | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Warr, Augustus Frederick | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| Spear, John Ward | Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd | |
| Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Finch, George H. | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Malcolm, Ian |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Fisher, William Hayes | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Arrol, Sir William | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Flower, Ernest | Milton, Viscount |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Forster, Henry William | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ. | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Galloway, William Johnson | Morgan, David J (Walthamstow |
| Balcarres, Lord | Garfit, William | Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Maneh'r | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Morton Arthur H. A. (Deptford |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Mount, William Arthur |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury | Muntz, Philip A. |
| Bignold, Arthur | Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Bigwood, James | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Bill, Charles | Gretton, John | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Bond, Edward | Hall, Edward Marshall | Percy, Earl |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Hambro, Charles Erie | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Bowles, T. Gibson-(King's Lynn) | Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Brassey, Albert | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Purvis, Robert |
| Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd | Pym, C. Guy |
| Bull, William James | Harwood, George | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Rankin, Sir James |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Butcher, John George | Helder, Augustus | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Henderson, Alexander | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) | Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead | Renwick, George |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hogg, Lindsay | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm) | Hoult, Joseph | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r | Howard, J. (Kent, Faversh'm | Rutherford, John |
| Chapman, Edward | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies | Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles R. | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Keswick, William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Spear, John Ward |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Knowles, Lees | Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Law, Andrew Bonar | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lawson, John Grant | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H. | Stroyan, John |
| Crossley, Sir Savile | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S) | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Davenport, William Bromley- | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Denny, Colonel | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Dickson, Charlet Scott | Lowe, Francis William | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E. | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield |
| Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Wanklyn, James Leslie | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Warr, Augustus Frederick | Wills, Sir Frederick | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Wason, John C. (Orkney) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Webb, Colonel William George | Wilson, John (Glasgow) | |
| Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks) | |
| Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) | |
| Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Hammond, John | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Malley, William |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | O'Mara, James |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Helme, Norval Watson | Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Partington, Oswald |
| Austin, Sir John | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol E.) | Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Holland, William Henry | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Horniman, Frederick John | Pease, Sir Jos. W. (Durham) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Blake, Edward | Jacoby, James Alfred | Price, Robert John |
| Boland, John | Joicey, Sir James | Priestley, Arthur |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a | Rea, Russell |
| Boyle, James | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Reddy, M. |
| Brigg, John | Jordan, Jeremiah | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Kearley, Hudson E. | Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff) |
| Burt, Thomas | Kennedy, Patrick James | Rigg, Richard |
| Caine, William Sproston | Kitson, Sir James | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Caldwell, James | Lambton, Hon. Frederick W. | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Langley, Batty | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Leamy, Edmund | Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Leng, Sir John | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Lewis, John Herbert | Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire |
| Crean, Eugene | Lough, Thomas | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Crombie, John William | Lundon, W. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Cullinan, J. | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | M'Dermott, Patrick | Strachey, Edward |
| Delany, William | M'Govern, T. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles | M'Kenna, Reginald | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Dillon, John | M'Laren, Charles Benjamin | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Mooney, John J. | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Edwards, Frank | Moulton, John Fletcher | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S. |
| Elibank, Frank | Murphy, John | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Ellis, John Edward | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Emmott, Alfred | Newnes, Sir George | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | White, Pa trick (Meath, North) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Norman, Henry | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Grant, Corrie | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | |
| Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. D. A. Thomas. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Dowd, John | |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
§ *MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)moved to insert the words "until the first day of August, 1902," so as to limit the duty to one year. He thought 1304 it was not only constitutional, but reasonable on general grounds, that the House should reserve to itself the right of reviewing, year by year, the situation created 1305 by a duty like this. If this duty could be regarded as merely impounding a reasonable proportion of the gigantic profits of the coalowners during the last year or two, in order to meet a great national emergency, not so much could be advanced against it. They had, however, to regard the question in its broader aspect in relation to trade. The foundation upon which the right hon. Gentleman had based his proposal was unsound, for this tax not only did not fall upon the foreigner, but it fell unequally upon a very small portion of the coal industry. If such a tax as this was justifiable it ought to fall upon the coal interest in every part of the country. The policy upon which this tax was based was a sufficient justification for Parliament refusing to relax its constitutional hold upon this tax, and its right to review it year by year. This tax would ultimately fall upon the wage earners of the country, and that was a sufficient reason why they should have an opportunity of considering it every year. This return to export duties was a reversal of the sound doctrine of free trade. The fallacy of imposing export duty was exploded long ago. He understood that, on this Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to make a statement of the course which he intended to take, and as to the nature and scope of the inquiry he proposed to institute on all the questions relating to the coal supply and coal interests, and the probable effects of this duty on the trade of the country. By having recourse to this duty, which would act in restriction of trade, we were going back to the days of the Edwards and Henrys. To revive the system of blackmail on industry and commerce was a retrograde step. The Committee had a right not only to demand that they should have some assurance with regard to the future from the right hon. Gentleman, but that they should retain in the hands of the House the right to review and challenge this tax year by year.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 29, after the word 'paid' to insert the words' until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and two.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
1306§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHIt must be perfectly obvious to the Committee that for the coal trade itself nothing could be worse than the uncertainty which the hon. Member proposes. In the days of Sir Robert Peel, when this tax existed, it was never imposed, as the hon. Member suggests, as a yearly tax. It was always amongst the taxes which permanently remained on the Statute-book. Therefore it is obvious that with a trade in which so large a portion of the business is done by con acts for forward delivery, it would be impossible to conduct business in the ordinary manner if every year there was uncertainty as to the tax. It is actually suggested by an hon. Member, who has placed an Amendment on the Paper in the interests of the mining association, that any duty on coal authorised by this Bill shall not be reimposed or continued beyond the year ending 5th April, 1902, nor shall any other duty be authorised on coal by Parliament, unless and until notice of imposition or continuance should have been published in the London Gazette not later than 31st November, 1901. Obviously, the intention of this was that the trade might have notice of what was proposed, in order to arrange for contracts for delivery in the coming year, although for that purpose notice would be necessary at a date at which it would be absolutely impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide whether he would require the tax to be continued, or what should be done for the finances of the coming year. I cannot imagine a proposal less suited to this tax than the proposal of the hon. Member. I am carefully considering the question of a full inquiry into the whole subject of our coal supply; but I am bound to say that my decision on that must be regulated by the proceedings in this Committee. I am not prepared to leave the continuance of this tax next year in the uncertainty which is desired by the hon. Member and by many hon. Members who represent the coal trade. I am sure that no conceivable inquiry could properly investigate the subject before it would be necessary to deal with the Budget of next year. Therefore the idea that this was merely a temporary tax imposed for one year, and that it would cease at the end 1307 of that year, which would certainly be believed throughout the country if the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted, is one which I could not possibly sanction.
§ MR. M'KENNAsaid the argument which had been used against provisional Budgets was apparent to the mind of a predecessor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Stafford Northcote, speaking of the Customs duties proposed in the Budget so far back as 1861, used the following words—
Strong as were his objections to provisional Budgets, he thought that the condition of trade afforded some reasons why the House ought to be content to vote some of the taxes for a period of only one year.In that speech he proceeded to quote figures to show that there had been a considerable decline in trade in particular articles. The latest Return which had been issued showing the exports of coal from South Wales for May, 1901, as compared with the corresponding month last year, contained the following details: Newport, 257,169 tons this year, against 285,677 last year—decrease, 28,508; Cardiff, Penarth, and Barry, 1,366,987, against 1,535,327—decrease, 168,340; Swansea, 198,688, against 198,040—increase, 648; Port Talbot, 37,168, against 52,164—decrease, 15,996; Llanelly, 24,060, against 23,578—increase, 482.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHThere has been an increase of 200,000 tons in May at Cardiff.
§ MR. M'KENNAsaid the figures he had quoted were issued by the Newport Chamber of Commerce, a body which was in favour of the coal tax, and in which the right hon. Gentleman's political supporters were strongly represented. He had not the least reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures. He believed that what was true of south Wales was also true of Northumberland and Durham.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHNo.
§ MR. M'KENNAsaid the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of answering him. If these figures were correct, they afforded a substantial reason, on the basis of the argument put forward by Sir Stafford Northcote, why 1308 this tax should be imposed for one year only. There was another strong financial reason why the tax should be for one year only. In the present Budget there was a contribution to the war expenditure amounting to £16,000,000. That was to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would raise in taxation during the current year £16,000,000 more than was necessary for the ordinary expenditure. If they might reasonably anticipate that the war would be over in a year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the same basis of taxation, would have a surplus in the ensuing year of £16,000,000. How was the Chancellor of the Exchequer to maintain the balance between direct and indirect taxation when he came to remit £16,000,000 of taxation? He would only have the duty on tea and that on coal so far as indirect taxation was concerned, for it was admitted that in part the coal duty was indirect taxation. If he reduced the whole of the tea duty it would only amount to £6,000,000. Was he going to remit £10,000,000 of the income tax and only £6,000,000 of indirect taxation? He ought to leave the coal duty open for remission next year.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid it was perfectly possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, if he desired it, to repeal the law by which the coal duty was imposed.
§ MR. M'KENNAadmitted that the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right, but there was a difference in the practice of this House between a tax which had not to be re-enacted and a tax which fell if not re-enacted. On the score of expediency, he still held that it was better to leave the tax open for immediate remission. The coal tax had been described as a popular tax. Why was it popular? Because it was believed that its effect would be to reduce the price of coal to the home consumer. He was not going to deal with the morality of such a tax, but there was the economic aspect of the question. He readily admitted that in its first effect the tax must reduce the price of coal, but the ultimate effect would be to reduce the output, because colliery owners would not go on indefinitely producing coal at a loss. Then this tax would be a new element in the cost of production, and would increase the price to the consumer.
§ MR. MCLAREN (Leicestershire, Bosworth)said that the Mining Association had loyally accepted the tax for this year, and all that was sought in the Amendment was to make its working as smooth as possible, and to avoid anything that would cause unnecessary friction. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had more intimate knowledge of the working of the trade he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would feel that he was dealing with men who knew their business, and would not mislead him on a point of this kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think it unreasonable that they should ask that the tax should be limited to one year, and there should be notice in the Gazette, three months before the usual time for the Budget announcements, whether the tax was to be reimposed or not. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman would reflect on the difference between an article like coal, which was exported from the country, and such articles as wine, sugar, and currants, which were brought from abroad, he would see that it was impossible in the case of coal to do anything which would affect the produce of the trade by piling up large quantities of the article. The Amendment was brought forward in order to enable the coal trade to anticipate the course of events in the making of contracts, without feeling that in two or three months their calculations might be upset by the continuance or the repeal of the duty. The right hon. Gentleman said that the time for making contracts was in the ordinary course three months, so that it was of no use that the coal trade should be told that the coal duty was to be continued or taken off. The coal trade had been so disorganised by this duty that contracts forward had, he would not say become impossible, but had largely fallen off. He went down to Yorkshire that morning to meet a number of representative coalowners and discuss this question with them. There was no doubt that it was almost impossible to sell coal in large quantities to buyers abroad on account of the condition of the trade, which required that contracts should be made long beforehand. Everybody was anticipating that this tax would knock down prices, and railway companies and other large consumers at home would not enter into contracts long in advance of their requirements. Some provision 1310 should be inserted in the Bill to enable the coal trade to restore confidence in the minds of their customers, and enable them to calculate what prices they would have to ask for in large contracts six or twelve months in advance. That was the reason why they asked on this occasion that the tax might be limited to one year. Notice could be inserted in the Gazette next January that the duty would be reduced, or otherwise, and they would know that the tax would run to the end of that period, although they would prefer that the period should be limited to 5th April. He therefore cordially supported the Amendment.
§ EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)said that some of the supporters of the Government were placed in a difficult position in regard to the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that there was more justification for the Amendment in the case of the sugar tax. Whatever they might think of the principle of the sugar tax, they were all agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had arranged that its incidence was perfectly fair. That was not the case in regard to the coal tax. Personally he had voted for all the Budget resolutions, and for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, because he did not think this was a favourable opportunity for placing obstacles to the Government getting the money required, and partly—disagreeing therein from the hon. Member for Berwick—because he thought the coal tax was not, in itself, necessarily unfair. But the principle of the coal tax and the mode of its incidence were very different matters. They were responsible to the House for seeing that the tax should be spread as fairly as possible over the whole export industry in proportion to the capacity of the different sections of that industry to bear it. The Welsh coal, which fetched the highest price, and was of so peculiar a quality that the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to retain it in the United Kingdom, and was of such superior quality as to be able to bear the tax and still defy competition, was to bear the same burden, and no more, than the Northumberland coal which fetched 6s. a ton. He thought that was unfair, although he would not enter at length into the question of graduation of the coal taxation. 1311 He did not agree with the purpose of the Amendment, which was to limit the tax for one year. It was not worth while to raise all this tumult over a temporary tax, but on the other hand he did not think that the tax ought to be levied in a permanent form upon its now proposed basis. If an ad valorem principle was accepted, it might result in a deficiency of revenue, but that would be better than an unfair incidence in the tax, and therefore he hoped that, before going to a division, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give the Committee some information as to the course he proposed to take in regard to graduation upon the cheaper coal.
§ COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, Ince)said that from very long experience his belief was that the common coal exported from Northumberland and Scotland could not possibly bear the burden of the tax over a long series of years, although it might very well bear it this year.
§ MR. D. A. THOMASsaid he was much disappointed at the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make an important statement as to the scope and nature of the investigation into the whole coal question; but he gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that the scope and nature of the investigation would depend on the discussions and deliberations in Committee. He ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman had placed the cart before the horse, and thought that the discussions in Committee would depend very much on the announcement as to the nature of the scope of the inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Miners' Association of Great Britain that there would be a full investigation either by a Royal Commission or a Select Committee. He himself believed a Royal Commission would be the proper body to make the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman had stated in regard to this Amendment that there would be far more reason for limiting the sugar tax to one year than the export duty on coal. He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could possibly make such a statement. The sugar duty 1312 did not violate the principles of free trade, whereas, when the proper time came they would be able to prove up to the hilt that this export duty on coal was a violation of the principles of free trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer loudly professed that he clung to the rock of free trade, on which the prosperity of the country had been built up during the last forty or fifty years. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be riding two horses. At one moment he told them that this was to be a permanent duty, and at another moment he said that it could be revised or repealed by an Act of Parliament. The inclusion of the twentieth section of the Customs' Laws Consolidation Act into the Schedule would introduce, in his opinion, a very great deal of doubt into the minds of foreign buyers. They had a right to impose Acts of Parliament on British subjects, but the right hon. Gentleman had, by introducing that clause in connection with the export of coal, endeavoured to impose the law of this country upon foreign buyers in regard to the arrangements which they might make with British subjects. He wished to recur to one point raised by the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire, who referred to what he conceived to be the decrease in the exports of coal from Newport, Cardiff, Penarth, and Barry. Whether the exports had increased or decreased in May, or for a few months, did not signify one halfpenny. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the point that the exports had shown a great increase, but he had seen figures which seemed to show that the exports had decreased. These were published in Brown's Export List, the proprietors of which got the Returns from the Customs officers, and the Chamber of Commerce of Cardiff relied upon these figures. Now, there was a difference of something like twenty-five per cent. between the Returns as published in Brown's Export List and the figures given by the Board of Trade. That required elucidation.
§ *MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that he knew in the north of England great efforts had been made on the part of coalowners, under contract, to export as much coal as possible in view of the imposition of an export duty. Therefore the figures for the 1313 last few months were very fallacious, and could not be an accurate guide as to the way the tax would operate and affect the coal trade.
§ *SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that any figures that might be given forth to show how this tax would affect the coal export trade one way or another would not be altogether reliable during the next few months. At present the trade was almost altogether under contract, and the quantity exported in the month of May compared with that imported in May, 1900, could not be attributed in any way to the coal tax. It would be two years at least before the full effect of the tax could be seen in our exports. At present the prices were very high, owing to the cost of production being very high. He knew that in the north of England the bulk of the coal from all the mines was sold up to the end of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that pretty well, and therefore he must not be guided in any way by the exports during the next few months. The right hon. Gentleman said that one great objection to making this an annual tax was the uncertainty it would create in regard to contracts. That argument would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would not increase the tax next year. Was he to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to remove that uncertainty?
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe hon. Baronet is rather hard on me in asking me to anticipate next year's Budget. The idea of increasing the tax had not occurred to me, but if the hon. Baronet thinks it would do good, I will consider it.
§ *SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid what he meant was that it was very difficult indeed to deal with contracts where there was uncertainty; and if the right hon. Gentleman could tell them that he would not either increase or decrease the tax three, four, or five months before 5th April, it would be a very great convenience. Much of the coal sold in this country was sold under three years contract. Many of the largest buyers on the Continent, as well as the gas companies, steamship companies, etc., insisted on three years contracts, because they believed they were more likely to 1314 get a normal price over a series of years than if they submitted to the fluctuations, of prices year by year. He confessed that he did not like this tax being made permanent. He knew that the tax had been put on under extraordinary ignorance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It had taken many who had been long in the trade a considerable time to understand the question, and it could not be expected that the right hon. Gentleman would be familiar with all its complications. That was a reason why there should be an inquiry, and why the matter should be brought up next year when they knew all the circumstances. He believed that if the whole facts in regard to this tax had been placed before the Government, the House, and the country, the country would not have allowed it to be imposed. There seemed to be almost a conspiracy of silence in the newspapers, which would not report the speeches on this subject. The result was that the public were ignorant on the question. The public were under the impression that they were punishing those who penalised them in the matter of high prices last year, but as a matter of fact this tax was not put on those who penalised the local consumer, but on those who exported coal, and who were now made the whipping boys of the whole coal trade There was an impression that this was a prosperous trade and could bear any tax. He was not going to enter into the question of profits; but taking the figures of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he had shown in a letter to The Times that during fifteen years, including the period of high prices, and calculating the cost of labour at 1s. 6d. per ton—although in some cases it had been 1s. 9d., 2s., 2s. 6d., and in some places as much as 3s. 2d.—the profits in the coal industry over these fifteen years only represented 6 per cent. per annum. He believed that the capital employed in agriculture in this country produced a larger profit than the capital employed in the coal industry. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he could prove that that was the case. [An HON. MEMBER: Shame!] An hon. Member said "Shame"; but would anybody 1315 say that 6 per cent., not allowing anything for depreciation or exhaustion of the coal, was a large profit? The hon. Gentleman knew nothing of the risk of coal-mining, but if he believed what he seemed to say he should get rid of his land at once, and go into coal mining. He saw it had been mentioned that Norway and Sweden, from which we got the bulk of our timber, were threatening to put an export duty on timber. If they did so he failed to see what objection there could be from their point of view. We put a tax on their coal, and he could not see that they would be far wrong if they put a tax on the wood they exported to us, The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown to the deputation that waited upon him that he had not yet mastered the difficulties in connection with the question. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to quite grasp the situation, and that was one strong argument in favour of putting on the tax for one year only. He was sure when the right hon. Gentleman came to understand the full difficulties of the export trade of this country—[Cries of "Divide!"] They were not going to divide until they had discussed
§ the question properly. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was sure he was not in the habit of spending the time of the House, but on a question of this kind he represented his constituents. [An HON. MEMBER: Report progress.] He thought he had better move to report progress. A very good case had been made out for the further consideration of this matter twelve months hence. The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to have a Committee of inquiry into the question of the coal tax, and the resources of the coal supply of this country. Doubtless that would take some time, but he could not see why any Commission that might be appointed could not first consider the coal tax and give an Interim Report. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, even at the last moment, would reconsider the proposal that the tax should be for twelve months, so that the country could judge whether it was a just tax or not.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 211. (Division List No. 273.)
1317| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) | Emmott, Alfred | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Lundon, W. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan | MacDonnell. Dr. Mark A. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Farrell, James Patrick | M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall) |
| Austin, Sir John | Fenwick, Charles | M'Dermott, Patrick |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | M'Govern, T. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Ffrench, Peter | M'Laren, Chas. Benjamin |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Mooney, John J. |
| Blundell, Col. Henry | Flynn, James Christopher | M'orley, Chas. (Breconshire) |
| Boland, John | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) |
| Boyle, James | Gilhooly, James | Murphy, John |
| Brigg, John | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J. | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | Newnes, Sir George |
| Burt, Thomas | Griffith, Ellis J. | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) |
| Caldwell, James | Hammond, John | Norman, Henry |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil | Norton, Capt Cecil William |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Hayden, John Patrick | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'y Mid) |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Holland, William Henry | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Horniman, Frederick John | O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Crean, Eugene | Joicey, Sir James | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |
| Cullinan, J. | Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | O'Dowd, John |
| Delany, William | Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Dillon, John | Joyce, Michael | O'Malley, William |
| Donelan, Capt. A. | Kennedy, Patrick James | O'Mara, James |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lambert, George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick W. | Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) |
| Duffy, William J. | Langley, Batty | Partington, Oswald |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Elibank, Master of | Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington) | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Ellis, John Edward | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham) |
| Percy, Earl | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) | Wallace, Robert |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Soares, Ernest J. | Warner, Thomas C. T. |
| Priestley, Arthur | Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (N'th'nts) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Rea, Russell | Stevenson, Francis S. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Reddy, M. | Sullivan, Donal | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Redmond, J. E. (Waterford) | Taylor, Theodore Cooke | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Tennant, Harold John | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Rigg, Richard | Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Robson, William Snowdon | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings | |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thomas, J. A. (Grm'rgan, G'wer | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Channing and Mr. M'Kenna. |
| Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Thompson, Dr E C (M'nagh'n, N. | |
| Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) | |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Dickson, Charles Scott | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Doughty, George | Long, Col. Charles W (Eveshan |
| Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell | Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers- | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S |
| Archdale, Edw. Mervyn | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Lncas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward | Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Finch, George H. | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne | M'Calmont, Col. H L B (Cambs.) |
| Bain, Colonel Jas. Robt. | Fisher, William Hayes | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | Malcolm, Ian |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Forster, Henry William | Martin, Richard Bindulph |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ. | Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Galloway, William Johnson | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Garfit, William | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants.) | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin &Nairn | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Beckett, Ernest Wm. | Gore, Hn G. R. C Ormsby-(Salop | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc. | Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.) |
| Bignold, Arthur | Goschen, Hon. George J. | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) |
| Bigwood, James | Gray, Ernest (Wet Ham) | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Bond, Edward | Green, Walford D (Wednesb'ry | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Greene, Sir E W (Bry S. Edm'nds | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Bousfield, Wm. Robt. | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd |
| Brassey, Albert | Grenfell, William Henry | Mount, William Arthur |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Gretton, John | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Bull, William James | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Muntz, Philip A. |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Hambro, Charles Eric | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G (Mid'x | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Butcher, John George | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Carlile, William Walter | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm. | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd) | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W. |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cavendish, V C W. (Derbyshire) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Helder, Augustus | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Henderson, Alexander | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. (Birm.) | Hobhouse, Hry. (Somerset E. | Purvis, Robert |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (W'rc'r | Hogg, Lindsay | Pym, C. Guy |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hope, J. F. (Shem'ld, Brightside | Rankin, Sir James |
| Chapman, Edward | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Hoult, Joseph | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Renwick, George |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Keswick, William | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Charles T. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Knowles, Lees | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Law, Andrew Bonar | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Crossley, Sir Savile | Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) | Round, James |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Lawson, John Grant | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Davenport, Wm. Bromley- | Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S. | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. |
| Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Ed W. J. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Seton-Karr, Henry | Valentia, Viscount | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Simeon, Sir Barrington | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. | Warde, Col. C. E. | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wason, John C. (Orkney) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Spear, John Ward | Webb, Colonel William George | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne | |
| Stroyan, John | Whitmore, Charles Algernon | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Willox, Sir John Archibald | |
| Thornton, Percy M. | Wills, Sir Frederick |
Resolution agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.