§ [SECOND READING.]
§ (THIRD DAY'S DEBATE.)
§ Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Main Question [13th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed.
§ *(3.26.) MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire. W.R., Barnsley)In rising to continue the discussion on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I may perhaps be permitted to say that the notice of Motion standing in my name that this Bill be read a second time this day six months was not in the slightest degree intended as an indication on my part of my desire to withhold from the Government all proper supplies for the efficient conduct of the public services. I put down that notice on the following grounds: First, because I believe it is absolutely unfair to throw the whole cost of the war in South Africa on the British taxpayer; and second, that the incidence of the new taxation is contrary to the only true equitable principle on which taxation can be based, namely, that every man shall be taxed according to his ability to pay. 217 Now the financial position of this country today, in view of the alarming growth of our national expenditure, is one deserving and needing the most serious attention and consideration at our hands. When we find that for the year 1901–1902 our expenditure has risen to the unprecedented sum of nearly £213,000,000 sterling, including the expenditure on the war and grants in aid of local taxation; when we find the normal expenditure on the country has risen since 1895 £31,000,000, and when we have regard to the fact that within a comparatively few years our expenditure has gone up from £80,000,000 to £124,500,000; that our national Debt in addition to this has risen to £748,000,000, then I submit that it is of the highest importance that we should take into consideration the present financial position of this country. In all human probability we have before us a cycle of commercial depression; and the cycle of commercial inflation through which we have been passing, that has enabled this country to bear without much injury, apparently, the enormous financial burdens that have been necessary is coming to an end, and it behoves us, therefore, to consider whether we cannot in any way reduce the burden of the taxpayers of this country. I venture to submit that it is absolutely unfair that the £230,000,000 sterling, that has been expended for the South African War, should be wholly charged to the taxpayers of this country. Out of that £230,000,000 we have raised, or it is proposed to raise, £68,000,000 by taxation, and by loans £162 000,000. I submit for the consideration of this House whether the time has not come when South Africa should be made to bear, at any rate, a fair share of this enormous expenditure, which has been undertaken by this nation on her behalf. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated his opinion that at some future date it will be possible to charge on the revenues of these new colonies a £30,000,000 loan, but I was somewhat astonished that, seeing this war was undertaken owing to an invasion of Natal and Cape Colony, there should have been in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman no reference to the justice and necessity of treating all alike, and indicating that the colonies of Natal 218 and the Cape must also bear their fair share of the expenditure which has been incurred in South Africa.
The reason I put down my Motion that this Bill be read a second time this day six months is simply this, to impress on the House the fact that we have already spent £230,000,000, and that the time has now come when we ought to have charged this years 32 million loan, not on the British taxpayer, but on the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony, Cape Colony and Natal. Sacrifices have been made with much patriotism on the part of the British nation, and we should endeavour to place in this Budget no more burdens on the British taxpayer. What is the condition of affairs in South Africa now? Is it not a fact that in Cape Town, Durban, and in all towns of South Africa, even in Pretoria, Johannesburg, and Bloemfontein, they are enjoying today almost unprecedented prosperity, largely arising from the war and the large and profitable contracts in connection with it, far beyond the prosperity of the overburdened and overtaxed people in-this country. Let us take into consideration the position of the industrial undertakings of South Africa I find by a reference to the share lists that the deferred shares in the De Beers Company to-day are worth ten times their issue price, and the shares of many other companies are worth several times the price at which they were issued. That shows that the £32,000,000—
§ * Mr. SPEAKEROrder, order! These observations seem to be more applicable to the Loan Bill than to the Bill now under the consideration of the House. This is a Bill dealing with taxation.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONOf course I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I was making these observations under the title of the Bill, which runs—
A Bill to grant certain duties of Customs and inland Revenue, to alter other duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue and the National Debt, and to make other provision for the financial arrangements of the year.However, I will not pursue that point further. I shall probably be in order in dealing with the financial position in carrying on the administration of the country. The question is whether it is 219 necessary to impose fresh taxation in connection with the Budget of this year. The estimated expenditure is £174,609,000, and the estimated revenue is £147,785,000, and we are told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that whilst the deficit would be about £27,000,000, there must be added "problematical expenditure," £18,500,000, which brings the deficit up to £45,324,000. The suspension of the sinking fund, £4,640,000, however, reduces that to £40,684,000, and that is the sum to be provided for. But seeing that we have peace negotiations now going on in South Africa and it would be undesirable that money voted expressly for war purposes should be expended for other purposes, that shows that this provision need not have been made now. Assuming that we provided by a loan £32,000,000 and by the suspension of the sinking fund, £4,620,000, this gives us £36,620,000 against a deficit of £26,824,000, and then the right hon. Gentleman reminded us that we had in anticipation £6,000,000 expended in China, which would, in the shape of the Chinese indemnity, be returned to us.
§ * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)Not this year. That is a receipt I look forward to.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONAnd the Exchequer balances £3,534,000 are also available. There appears therefore to be no pressing necessity for the imposition of additional taxation in this year's Budget.
Now, the question has been raised over and over again as to whether our basis of taxation is broad enough, and whether a fair burden has been placed on the masses of the people of this country or not, and whether too large a burden has not been placed on the wealthier classes. The treatment that has been given to the wealthier classes by the right hon. Gentleman is, in my opinion, most singular. He has withdrawn the cheque tax, while, on the other hand, this corn tax, which reverses the true principle of taxation, inasmuch as it places the heaviest burden on those who are least able to pay is retained. The incidence of the corn tax is unequal and inequitable, and on those 220 grounds it is not in accordance with the sound principle of finance, which is, that everybody should be taxed in accordance with their ability to pay. With regard to taxation, I have taken out the figures for 1902–3, and I find the estimated income from customs excise and posts and telegraphs amounts to no less than £84,000,000, and a very large portion of this high sum comes out of the pockets of the masses of the people. For instance, of the new taxation imposed during the last three years, I find the tax on tea, tobacco, sugar, spirits, beer, and coal has amounted to no less than £33,500,000, and if we add the corn tax of £2,600,000, £36,000,000 will be largely paid by the working classes. On the other hand for the current amount paid by the wealthier portion of the community in income tax, death duties, stamps, land and house tax, and miscellaneous taxes amounts to only £64,000,000 as compared with the £84,000,000 to which I referred just now.
I oppose the Second Reading of the Finance Bill because I believe that the figures I have given show that the masses of the people in this country have had already put upon their shoulders more than their full share of the burden the country has to bear at this moment. A great deal of heart-burning and a great deal of friction would have been avoided if this expenditure had been met by some' scheme of a graduated income tax. There is no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth-shire made in connection with his death duties scheme, the greatest and most important financial departure that has been made in this generation, at least, and it would have been wise of the Chancellor of Exchequer, if instead of this corn tax, he had taken into consideration on this occasion some new scheme of a graduated income tax which could be equitably imposed on those who could afford to pay. I am told there would be great difficulty in the collection of a graduated income tax, and I do not deny that there may be difficulties, but I believe that we could overcome those difficulties, and that this question should be approached with a view to finding a satisfactory solution of them. Then there is a means of taxation which the right hon. Gentleman might have adopted, which would have provided a considerable 221 additional income to the National Exchequer. I allude to the taxation of ground values. There is no doubt that in the populous neighbourhood unoccupied land increases in value every year by reason of public improvements, and that a perfectly fair tax on it would bring a considerable amount to the Exchequer. An ad valorem duty of 1d. on £1 certificates in connexion with the formation of new companies, and a pro rata duty on certificates of a higher value might also have been levied. Then there is the question of a substantial tax or charge for a licence on motor cars, which are multiplying rapidly, and are propelled at such a speed as to be a real danger to the public. I think we ought to impose a tax on them. This Finance Bill relates to the Customs, and making other arrangements for the financial necessities of the year. There was one tax imposed last year which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us had not been found to work so disastrously to the commercial interests of the coal trade as had been prophesied. But the conditions under which that trade is conducted have altered very materially since last year, and there are reasonable grounds for asking that there should be added to the Finance Bill a clause reducing the amount of that burden. We have now had a little time in which to ascertain exactly the operation of the tax. There were previously in force in foreign countries certain import duties on British coal—in France, 11¾d.; in Russia (Northern ports), 1s. 11¾d.; in Spain, 2s.; in Denmark, 1s.; and in Portugal, 1s. 6¾d.—as hindrances to successful trading in British coal. Unfortunately for the coal-owning industry, prices have fallen enormously since last year. Coal which was being sold to railway companies at 16s. a ton eighteen months ago is now being sold at 9s; the same is true with regard to other classes of coal, and also of coke. The producers of coal in Belgium, Germany, and France last year and the year before had so large a demand in their own countries that they had no coal to export to neighbouring countries in competition with us. That condition of affairs has now changed. Trade is declining. The consumption of coal in 222 the different countries on the Continent has gone down, and in this country it has decreased to an even greater extent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, gave figures to show that nearly 300,000 tons more of coal had been exported from this country in the first three months of this year, as-compared with the corresponding period of last year. That is perfectly true, but, as knowing intimately the coal trade, I may explain that that is due to the fact that the demand at home was so much lessened that we were obliged to push our foreign trade. But that does not alter the fact that the price the German and French coal producers are willing to accept in certain markets naturally influences the price we can get for our coal. I do not wish to make assertions without proof. Within the last two years the shipments of a particular colliery in my district to Hamburg has decreased from 70,000 to 35,000 tons, to Holland from 15,000 tons to nothing, to Belgium from 120,000 to 50,000. The consequence is that that colliery is working only three days a week, with an increase cost of 9d. per ton, and the price realised barely covers the cost. They have certainly had the advantage of a reduction in freights to the extent of about 6d. per ton, but even then, as I say, they are barely covering cost.
As I urged in the discussions last year, this tax is unfair in its incidence. Why has the tax been imposed upon exported coal only? The collieries which do not export coal have actually made more money during the recent times of prosperity than the exporting collieries. If, as I pointed out last year, instead of this export duty, a duty of 2d.—1d. payable by the colliery owner, and 1d. by the royalty owner—were put on all coal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive practically the same amount and the burden would be nil. If, as seems likely, there is a further fall in the price of coal, the colliery to which I have referred must inevitably be closed, and at least 1,000 men will be thrown out of employment. I am aware that from certain districts in Wales there has been an increase in the export of coal, but that is not the case in South Yorkshire or Durham and Northumberland. For instance, the export of coal in 1901 as compared with 1900 decreased by 2,200,000 223 tons, but I admit that 1900 was an abnormal year, and does not constitute a fair comparison. Then we are told that the exports during the first three months of this year rose 300,000 tons as compared with the first three months of last year. That is a rise of 3.2 per cent., but at the same time the value diminished by 14.6 per cent. So far as the north-east ports are concerned in January of this year they showed a decrease in export of coal to the Continent of no less than 36,000 tons, and in February the decrease was 34,500 tons. These facts speak for themselves. What they tend to show is that, although in a time of great commercial prosperity and high prices, a burden such as this export duty on coal may be borne without serious injury if, as we anticipate, we are coming to a period of commercial depression and low prices, this tax will prove a very injurious and unfair burden. The coal trade, having been somewhat prosperous of recent years, does not receive at the hands of the general community that consideration and really fair treatment which it ought to have. Particularly is the domestic consumer up in arms against the colliery owner. But what is the fact? The collieries which supply the domestic consumer do not pay a single farthing of this tax. It is the exporting collieries, who in nine cases out of ten do not supply any coal for domestic purposes and are not getting the extravagant prices at which domestic coal has been maintained, who are hit by this tax.
In addition to that, the method On which the income tax assessments are made presses very hardly at present on colliery owners, inasmuch as they are assessed on the average of the preceding five years, with an adjustment on the average of the preceding three years. That assessment at present includes the recent years of very high prices, whereas today in some cases no profits at all are being made. I admit we gained an advantage when we were basing our assessments on previous lean years, but unfortunately that was when the income tax was 8d. in the pound, and now we are getting the disadvantage with the income tax at 1s. 3d. How it will work out on an average of years when we know the result of the next two years, I cannot say, but I think that, with trade declining, we have a fair case for pressing upon the 224 Chancellor of the Exchequer the desirability of some reduction of the export duty on coal, and I hope he will give the matter his careful consideration.
*(3.58.) MR. CATHCART WATSON (Orkney and Shetland)I agree with a great deal of what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He has introduced into the debate a certain amount of practical experience of life. With the exception of the speech just delivered, and the brilliant address of my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, we have been living during this debate in an atmosphere of mysticism, an atmosphere of the past. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer almost apologised when introducing his Budget imposing this registration duty on corn, because he did not place upon posterity the same amount of taxation as was imposed during the Crimean war. But we have all to work out our own salvation, and what the people did in the past has absolutely nothing to do with us in the present day. It has been absolutely amusing to me to hear speeches delivered by right hon. Members on both sides with which the great names of Gladstone, Cobden and Peel have been reproduced time after time with wearisome persistency. I yield to no man in my admiration of these men, but they lived under totally different circumstances than those under which we are living at the present day. In this debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminds me of a nigger driver lashing an unfortunate negro who was yelling vigorously, threw down his whip, crying out, "flog high or flog low, there's no pleasing you." There is no way of pleasing us except by taking off the taxes. I much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given way to the financiers of the city with regard to the cheque tax. I think it was a reasonable and just imposition, and one which would have been felt by no one in the country. The great argument we have had during the last two days has been as to whether this tax is of a Free Trade or Protectionist character. Hon. Members have been most careful to explain, with hardly any exception, that they are all Free Traders. That being so it is very little use explaining at further length my views upon this point. Last evening the Leader of the Opposition 225 wished to cross-examine the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether this tax had any connection with a new Canadian policy. I should like to say with regard to the Colonial view of this question, of which I know something, that we hold that this is a matter for the United Kingdom, and it is of very little consequence to the Colonies what we do here. The matter is entirely one for the people of this country and for them only.
It does not seem to be recognised that the areas which are open to our trade are growing smaller year by year and our limits are being gradually confined. In the days of Cobden we practically controlled the whole of the seas and the whole world. How different are things at the present day. In a speech delivered last autumn the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife challenged any Protectionist to point to any country which had adopted Protection with credit and profit to itself, and is reported to have said "I accept the challenge and point out to the right hon. Gentleman the United States of America." I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman did not speak in the same strain in this House, because if he will give us the Protection which the United States of America has adopted every Protectionist will be satisfied. Ours is a greater Empire than the United States, but is there not more poverty in this country than in the United States? America has succeeded beyond any other nation in the West in wealth and material prosperity. Is not the standard of living infinitely greater in the United States than here? And yet all this has been done under what hon. Gentlemen opposite call the policy of Protection, but which has proved to be a policy of self-interest and self-defence.
What has struck me about this debate is the intense unreality of the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire said that there were 1,000,000 paupers in this country out of 40,000,000, and that in London last month there were 111,000 out of 4,500,000—and how many more?—who were on the brink of starvation struggling not to become paupers. The hon. Member for Dumfries used 226 very similar words for speaking of poverty in the East End of London; he told us that—
Upon the very poor, upon people on the verge of starvation, so numerous as one-third of the population in the East End of London, this tax was cruel and inhuman.I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to impute motives of cruelty or inhumanity to Members on this side of the House, and it was merely a way of expressing disapproval of the policy of the Government. Do hon. Members opposite in making these speeches—does the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in using the violent language he did use in regard to this tax—seriously consider where their arguments all lead them to? After fifty years of almost absolute peace, after fifty years of good trade, and fifty years of unparalleled prosperity, and doing nothing else but making money here we are in this country in the condition described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, with an enormous proportion of the population on the vegre of starvation.Hon. Members say that all this is due to the imposition of a farthing tax upon a loaf. Is that not a remarkable position for them to take up? Do they not see where such worthless arguments lead to. With all this poverty existing, why did hon. Members opposite not tell the House about the hundreds of thousands of people who every night have nowhere to lay their heads? And this after fifty years of Free Trade. [An HON. MEMBER: Then why-tax their bread in addition?] After ail these years of Free Trade why do not some hon. Members tell us what state of decay our village life is in, and what is the condition of the workers in our villages. Hon. Members have spoken of the rate of wages in their respective districts. I have been told that in some districts men have to keep their wives and families on the miserable pittance of 12s. a week. [Cries of "No, no!"] Is that not a scandal in a great country like this after fifty years of Free Trade and unexampled prosperity? Surely we ought to long for the days of Cobden and 227 Bright again, in order to voice the sufferings of the struggling people of this country who are evidently dissatisfied with what they see going on around them.
We see people living in luxury, and almost sensual vice going on worse than it was before, and it is this extraordinary political creed which has brought so much misery into the country. I see signs in the future of even far greater extravagance. Look at the extravagant sums now being spent in various ways by the wealthy which might as well be thrown away. The result of the policy of the past has been to drive away your manufactures into the hands of foreigners. That has been the effect of your Free Trade policy. We have a great future before us, but we can only succeed by looking facts in the face and by refusing to accept the doctrinesand principles of the past. It is nothing to us what people said in the past. We have the greatest reverence for the Free Traders of the past, but we have now to look at matters which arise from our own standpoint.
With regard to our Navy, it costs an enormous sum of money year by year. Why do we keep up this enormous Fleet and spend this enormous sum upon it? I should be sorry to see the expenditure upon the Navy reduced by one shilling, and I would rather see it increased. Why do we keep up this enormous navy? For this reason that if it were not for our navy we should be in danger of starvation. We all look at history from different points of view, and my recollection of the downfall of the Roman Empire is that Slavery and Plutocracy ruined the Empire. People ceased to work for themselves; and instead of growing corn for themselves they began to import corn to an enormous extent. The result was that on the one hand the people lived in misery, on the other hand they lived in luxury and vice. We shall have to take care that this country does not fall in the same way as the great Roman Empire, and if we do fall in this way we shall have no one to blame but ourselves, because we have not looked at matters in the manner in which they will affect the very lowest and humblest class in our midst. This tax is not a very serious one, and if we find that, as hon. Members predict, it presses 228 hardly upon the widow and orphan, there is no need to have this tax again next year. I do not know that this view will be accepted, but I have not the slightest hesitation in giving my vote in favour of this Bill.
§ (4.15.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began by pronouncing an impartial and comprehensive censure upon the whole of this debate. He told us that with one or two exceptions all the speeches appeared to be mysterious, unreal, and unpractical, and he illustrated his meaning by avowing himself as almost the only champion of Protection and absolutely the only defender of the cheque tax in this House. I am not concerned in the censure pronounced by the hon. Gentleman, because I have taken no part in the proceedings on the Budget hitherto at all. In the few observations I desire to submit to the House, I shall speak from the point of view of a great industrial constituency, upon which the enactments of this Budget will fall with peculiar severity. I am not going into the corn tax. I have refrained from speaking upon that because my objection to this Budget applies to pretty nearly all the taxes, including, I might almost say, the addition to the income tax. I ought to say, to begin with, that I accept the declaration of principle which was made last night by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, repeating in different terms the statement made by almost every Government speaker. The Secretary to the Treasury wound up a very interesting speech by saying this: He could not believe that those who approved of the policy which the Government had been carrying on would grudge their contribution to the expenditure involved, or would expect to have all the advantages of empire without bearing any portion of the expenses. I accept that statement, but I cannot accept the conclusion that has been drawn from it by every speaker on the Government side, that the working class in particular have approved of the policy of the war, and that, therefore, they ought not to grudge the imposition of the corn tax. I speak as the representative of a great many working men in this House, and I demur to the statement that the working classes 229 as a whole, or the working classes even by a majority, have expressed their approval of this war policy. The war was begun, and the policy entered upon, without their having any opportunity of being consulted at all, and when the Government dissolved Parliament, as it did in the autumn of 1900, it took care to dissolve at a time which necessarily disfranchised a large portion of the working class. In my own constituency we found that an eighth of the electorate was disfranchised by the time at which the election was held, and that eighth naturally and necessarily belonged to the working classes, and accordingly I do not accept as a defence of the corn tax or any other tax the allegation that the working classes approved of the war policy. That defence absolutely fails, for this reason: that the tax falls with the most crushing severity upon those who could never have approved of the policy of the war because they have no votes at all. Those upon whom this tax will fall with greatest severity are the voteless and the voiceless ones in this country. In my own constituency not long ago I took part in what threatened to be a great local strike. Hon. Members who are not acquainted with industrial constituencies may be surprised when I tell them that the whole matter was a dispute over 6d. a week to the employees in the jute trade. The very smallness of the sum shows how severely such an increase as is now to take place on the necessaries of life, coming on the top of the taxes on tea and sugar, must fall—on women in particular, but upon all classes of poor labourers, of whom there are many examples in the constituency I represent.
I pass now to state what appears to me to be the great blot of this financial scheme. It appears to me to be a serious criticism to make upon it, that it lays all those taxes upon the necessaries of life, and deliberately—I was going to say contumaciously—evades sources of public revenue which do not depend upon taxation at all. I will make it my business today to prove to the House and the country that there are sources of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not touched at all, and by avoiding which he has laid upon himself the 230 necessity of taxing the bread, tea, and sugar of the people. Some of those sources of revenue have been named already, and no answer has been given to any of the suggestions which have been made. I venture to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or some member of the Government, ought to tell us why they have taxed tea, sugar, and bread, and the incomes of the people, and have avoided those sources of public revenue which would not involve any taxation at all. One obvious recourse would be to those doles which were reenacted last year for the agricultural class. I say that, rather than tax sugar, bread, and other necessaries of life, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have proposed to call back those doles, and thereby have evaded the necessity for new taxation of this kind. There is the question of ground values, to which the hon. Member behind me has referred. [An HON. MEMBER: That would be local taxation.] The taxation from ground values would go to the local communities, but the Government could take from them the Imperial subventions which they have at present, so that the taxation of ground values would necessarily go in aid of the Imperial Exchequer, and would do away with the necessity of taxing such necessaries of life as the Budget proposes to tax.
I come now to more debatable ground. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last has left the House, because I know that he takes a great interest in the suggestion that I am about, not for the first time, to make in all seriousness to the House, and I make it on the terms which I have quoted from the speech yesterday of the Secretary to the Treasury. The suggestion I make is that at this moment it is the duty of the Government to ask our great self-governing colonies to make their due contribution to the expenditure of the empire. This is no new story. I want to quote in support of that proposition no less an authority than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. This is what he said five years ago—
As Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am bound to put before you the fact that 40,000,000 people of the United Kingdom pay £22,000,000 a year for the cost of our common Navy, while 10,000,000 people of the same race pay a few thousands a year and find but very few men.231That cannot and ought not to be the permanent situation of the relations between the great self governing colonies and the United Kingdom. That cannot and ought not to be the permanent settlement of the arrangements between the great self-governing colonies and the United Kingdom.Since these words were uttered the expenditure on the Navy has gone up from £22,000,000 to £34,000,000 at the present time, and not a single advance has been made towards a colonial contribution. Surely when the Chancellor of the Exchequer five years ago declared that, so far as the Navy was concerned, this contribution, ought to be made, he ought in this year, when he is proposing, in order to meet that expenditure, to tax the necessaries of life for the poorest of the community, to have been able I to tell us that he has made some attempts to make these contributions, or that he was going to make some attempts, or, at all events, that he has some explanation or reason why the principle laid down five years ago has never yet been put into practical effect. I will not dwell on this particular item, because I know that there is going to be a Conference of the representatives of the Colonies held soon, where I suppose that this and many other things will be discussed. I hope that we shall have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the assurance that this question has not gone back, and that, in spite of what has been said by certain eminent colonial representatives, the Chancellor, as representing the Government, will stick by his principles, and submit to them the desirability and the propriety of making some contribution, at all events, to the expenditure of the force, which does not exist alone, as the hon. Member said, to protect the food of the people of this country, but which exists in equal degree for every one of our self-governing colonies, so that whatever contribution they may pay in this respect will be nothing more than payment for services rendered.There is another and less agreeable aspect of this question on which I should like to say a word or two. We have to meet by means of this taxation not only the normal expenditure on the Navy, but the special expenditure caused by the war, and I call in the aid again of the 232 eloquent words of my hon. friend the-Secretary to the Treasury. I agree with him, and I say that I cannot believe that those who have approved of the policy the Government have been carrying on will grudge a contribution to the expenditure involved, or will expect all the advantages of the empire without bearing any portion of the expense. Do not these words apply equally to the colonies as to the people of this country? Do they not apply more to the colonies in general than they do to the working classes of this country? The working classes of this country have authorised no man to say in their name that they approve of this policy of the war. Some of our great self-governing colonies have done so. We have been reading during the last year many declarations made by colonial statesmen, exceeding in strength even those that come from the members of the Government at home—declarations that we have shown too much leniency to the enemy, and that the war should be fought to a finish. I am going to refer to one of those statements by a gentleman who has made himself most conspicuous in the matter. The colonial statesman to whom I refer is Mr. Seddon.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONIt was from no want of respect that I referred to him as Mr. Seddon, but simply because it is not the habit in this House to speak otherwise. I speak of him with perfect respect, and if I deal with his opinions, it is from no disrespect to the gentleman himself. Being the Premier of a great self-governing colony, his words are entitled to respectful consideration. In the name-of the colony he denounced all those in this country who were opposed to the war. I shall only quote one sentence of Mr. Seddon's. A meeting took place at Wellington, New Zealand, on April 14th, when Mr. Seddon was setting forth on his mission to this country. I believe that he is now engaged in a mission in South Africa. At that meeting the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, vouched for Mr. Seddon in this way. He said— 233
He is leaving for England, there to express, on behalf of us as one community, our entire unanimity in regard to the justice and necessity of this unfortunate war.That is the extra-judicial declaration of the authenticity of Mr. Seddon's credentials for coming to this country. Mr. Seddon himself said—We are as determined as ever that peace can only come as the result of unconditional surrender.That is the message from New Zealand to the people of this country. Now, what I have got to say about it is that no Prime Minister would be justified in using this language unless he had the colony behind him; and no colony is justified in allowing that language to be used in its name unless it is prepared to accept its full share of the expenditure on the war, and to range itself alongside the people of this country. That is the proposition I lay down. Has any colony done that? Let me say I fully appreciate the gallantry of the colonial soldiers who have gone to the front and fought in this controversy. I fully and admiringly acknowledge their services; but I no more admit that their presence in the field absolves their country from paying a share of the expense of the war than that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should allow me to get off' the payment of the Income Tax because twenty or thirty of my Scotch constituents had gone to the front. Speeches have been made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and leaders have appeared in the papers setting forth that the colonies having declared in favour of the war we must consult them as to the terms of settlement. That being so, I hold that the Governments of the colonies ought to accept the consequences of that position, and one of the consequences of that position is that before you levy this tax upon the necessaries of subsistence of the very poorest in this country, many of whom are against the war, but who have no opportunity of voting against it, you should go to the colonies and ask them to pay some share of the great burden placed on this country.The only source of non-taxed revenue to which I shall call the attention of the House is of a different character altogether. This, again, is no new 234 subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have in this country one of the vastest, one of the most lucrative, I was going to say one of the most corrupting, monopolies known in any civilised country. One of our reasons for going to war with the Republic of the Transvaal, a foreign State, was that a corrupt oligarchy had established there improper monopolies. Why, that is what we are doing now, and what we have been doing in this country for more than a generation. The monopoly to which I refer is a monopoly which is growing in value and mischief every day. It is in the hands of a restricted number of people who are allowed to traffic in drink—I mean the licensed victuallers. I am not attacking an actual seller across the, counter, who in many cases has nothing to do with the monopoly; but those men who own the licences, brewers and others, who largely profit by the monopoly. It is my business to show to the House how vast is that monopoly, and how that source of revenue is free almost from the suspicion of taxation. The duty on a publican's licence has been fixed for many years, and every temperance reform has only had the effect of making the publican's monopoly the more dangerous, because every licence destroyed through the influence of temperance agitation only adds to the value of those that remain. This has been the case, in a very marked degree, in London and Birmingham. I submit to the House that this is a large monopoly, the whole value of which belongs to the public, and is just as much public property as are the Crown lands; and that it is an evasion of our duty to suffer this vast, valuable property to remain in private pockets. More than that, I maintain that it is a shameful evasion of our duty that, in order to relieve the pockets of these monopolists, we go to people with 13s. a week wages, and take from them a little bread, tea, and sugar.
I will only give one crucial example of what I mean. Hon. Members are familiar with the prospectus of a new Company, calling itself The Public House Trust. It is being established in many parts of the country. The originator of that Trust is Earl Grey who was led to make this fruitful suggestion by an experience of his own, 235 which he has narrated in a letter to The Times. In his neighbourhood there had sprung up a new mining village, where it became a matter of certainty that a public house would sometime be established. Lord Grey himself applied for the licence, which was thereupon given to him. Within a week his Lordship was informed that he might have £10,000 for that licence, if he chose to transfer it, although he had not spent one single fathing in connection with it. £10,000 was the value of the monopoly handed over to Lord Grey on that occasion. Now, why was it worth anybody's while to pay £10,000 for the licence? There are two reasons. One is that the licences are restricted in number by the licensing authorities; the other is that the licence duties are so low that the monopoly is in no sense taxed at all—so low, that this would-be purchaser from Lord Grey could afford to pay £10,000, not for the freehold of the license, for it has to be annually renewed, but for the chance of its being renewed, and that the present small licence duty will be continued by a sympathetic Chancellor of the Exchequer. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this is a satisfactory state of affairs for this country. I will not argue the question of vested rights, but I do maintain that the licensed victualler has no vested interest in the continuance of the licence duty at the ridiculously low rate at which it now stands. I submit that I have proved that there is here a source of public revenue which has not been touched, and which ought to be exhausted before the necessaries of life of the poorest people in the country are taxed. In the remarkable book published by Messrs. Rowntree and Shirwill many instances are given of the large amounts paid for a licence, one reaching to £50,000. I could give many reasons why this monopoly should be attacked. I might point to its corrupting influence, for if you took away this monopoly value from the licensed victualler by increasing the licence duties, so as to exhaust the monopoly value, all the difficulties in regard to compensation would vanish. There would be no necessity to pay compensation, except for the goodwill of the business and disturbance, which I would willingly grant. I 236 have plied the Chancellor of the Exchequer with Questions on this subject, but I have had no answer as to the value of this monopoly. I, therefore, have had to investigate the subject for myself, and make calculations as to the extent of the value of the monopoly, as far as I have been able. In my own constituency I have consulted the most experienced valuer of licences, and he tells me that fifty years ago the value of the licences in Dundee was a negligible quantity. Today he tells me that their monopoly value—not including any property, but the mere value the licences—is£50,000 per annum. It is larger in some towns, no doubt, than in others, but my own guess is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could, with perfect safety—of course, it is a mere conjecture—rely on taking £6,000,000 a year from these licences. That is a low estimate compared with the calculations I have received. At all events, I have no doubt that if he simply doubled the licences, which would not affect anybody injuriously, and would not touch the price of commodoties at all,—it is only the monopoly I want to get at—he could raise another £1,500,000. These are not duties, nor taxes. It is absurd to call by the name of a tax that which capitalists are willing to give from £10,000 to £50,000 for the privilege of paying. The time is coming when something must be done to take for public services this large source of public revenue, and which is as much public revenue as Crown lands.
I have only one word more to say. A great deal has been said about broadening the basis of taxation by way of defence of indirect taxation. It seems to me to be forgotten, especially by hon. Members opposite, that a large section of our people are not in a position to bear any taxation at all, and that they ought not to be taxed. I am accepting the principle laid down by that great economist, my friend and leader, John Stuart Mill, viz., that the State should allow a necessary margin for subsistence before taxing anybody at all, and should only tax the citizen upon the excess of his income over that margin. John Stuart Mill's margin was £50 a year, or £1 a week. I am afraid that would possibly be too high a margin. I find that that great statistician, Sir Robert Giften, states that the entire 237 income of the working classes, when he last calculated it, was just £50 a year. The whole amount paid in wages, divided by the number of workers, gave that result. Of course, there are millions of workmen who get more than that, and who ought to he taxed on their margin; but millions more—how many no man knows—get much less; to tax them at all is a cruel injustice, and to add to their taxation is, in my humble opinion, a wicked wrong. But if we are to have indirect taxation, we cannot avoid taxing these people. I object to the increase of indirect taxation, because it does increase the misery of that class; at the same time, we cannot do without some kind of indirect taxation. But I maintain that if we must take from the too small resources of those who ought not to be taxed at all, then we impose on ourselves the duty of giving it back to them in some way or other. They have it back in part in education, and that leads me to believe that we ought to pay for education out of the Imperial Exchequer altogether. Beyond that, there is another step you have to take. If you increase, as you are increasing, the amount of taxation which is not morally unjustifiable, but which is economically inevitable, then you re-visit on yourselves the demand you took up in a lightsome mood some years ago on behalf of these people—that, at all events, their closing years should be made passably comfortable by old age pensions. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] Hon. Gentlemen cheer that, but the time which is selected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for putting these additional burdens on those who ought not to bear any burden at all, is the very time when he and all his colleagues have repudiated and disowned the old age pension scheme on which they came into office seven years ago.
(4.50.) MR. JAMESHOPE (Brightside, Sheffield)I had intended this afternoon to have endeavoured to convert this House to the principle of a 10 per cent. import duty on foreign manufactured goods, but I find great obstacles in my way. In the first place, I do not find evidence of a proper philosophical spirit in the House; the prevailing sprit appears to be rather to think of obtaining a long holiday than to discuss economic 238 truths. In the second place, I admit that the imposition of the corn duty raises a somewhat serious but temporary prejudice against the principle I advocate. That tax is a tax for revenue, but if I were Chancellor of the Exchequer a tax on corn would be the very last with which I would begin if I wished to initiate a Protective system. Therefore, I cannot at all share the elation which was displayed by my hon. and gallant colleague at the imposition of this tax, because I think it places a serious obstacle, in public opinion, against the realisation of the principle of other Customs duties which he and I hold. It was a taunt made against those who hold my opinion, in yesterday's debate, that we preserved deliberate silence during the discussion of the corn tax. Speaking for myself, I confess I was suffering from an acute form of what I may call oratorical constipation during that debate. I recognised that the circumstances of the moment did not enable me to obtain relief until now, but I shall certainly pursue my postulate on the next stage of this Bill.
§ * MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)ft is surprising that it is not until the third day in this debate that the Protectionists have raised their voice in this House. At any rate, we have now discovered that there are a certain number of avowed Protectionists on the other side. I find a difficulty in dealing with this Budget, from the fact that we have to distinguish between temporary, or war, expenditure and permanent expenditure. Fortunately, the distinction is not one difficult to make, but it is necessary to make it if we are to form any opinion on the declared policy of the Party opposite. I find in this Budget that the estimated revenue for the current year is close on £153,000,000, and that the estimated expenditure—I refer to peace expenditure only—is £124,500,000. Subtracting one from the other, we got a surplus of £28,500,000, a sum which under ordinary circumstances, would be available for the repeal of taxation if the war were over. But we have first of all to make a heavy deduction, because in this year's Estimates the amount for the National Debt service is only £18,360,000. When the war is over, that sum will obviously have to be very 239 largely increased, proportionate to the large increase in the Debt. In 1874 Sir Stafford Northcote first established a fixed Debt charge. The National Debt was then £769,000,000, and he fixed the charge at £28,000,000. Two successive Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer reduced that charge—first to £25,000,000, and then to £23,000,000; and it stood at the latter figure when the Debt had been reduced to £627,000,000. Today the Debt is £786,000,000, and, whatever may be the difference of view as to the proper provision to be made for the repayment of the Debt, I do not think that anyone will argue that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer should take a less heroic view than was taken by Sir Stafford Northcote in 1874. I know that some reduction might be urged on the ground that the interest today is only 2 ½ per cent., as against 3 per cent in 1874; but we have to remember that we are under a duty to make greater efforts at the present time to reduce our debt, as we are in more fierce competition for the supremacy of international trade than we were in 1874, when we held the lead practically unchallenged. I do not think, therefore, that it is an over-cautious estimate that we should replace the fixed charge for the National Debt service at £28,000,00. That will compel us to add over £9,500,000 to the present estimated expenditure, and will reduce our apparent surplus from £28,500,000 to £18,750,000, available for the reduction of taxation. That is not all. After the war is over, there will not only be increased pay for the Navy, and an additional charge for education, both of which can probably be met by the natural expansion of revenue, but there will be an inevitable charge for the government of the two new colonies. I have endeavoured to put that estimate as low as I can, and to allow for no more than an occupying force of 20,000 men at the cost of the Imperial Government, and I find in the Report of Sir David Barbour that the cost of 20,000 men in South Africa would be £5,000,000 a year. Deduct that from the surplus of £18,750,000, and we have a final sum of £13,750,000 available for the reduction of taxation after the war is over.
So far, what I have stated rests upon figures which can hardly be disputed, and contains no estimate whatever, except the very moderate estimate for the government of the Orange River and Transvaal 240 Colonies. Now I come to what, in its nature, must be speculation, but a speculation which I think the House will agree is sufficiently based on obvious facts to be accurate. What will be the taxes that will be repealed when the war is over If any hon. Member will take the trouble to read the Bill we are now discussing, he will see that certain of the additional duties on tea, tobacco, beer, and spirits are for one year only, whereas the main duties on all the articles named, with the exception of tea, are permanent. It is not, therefore, much of an assumption to suppose that it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as soon as the war is over, to take oft' the additional taxes which are imposed for one year only. I am strengthened in that assumption by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's frequent reiteration that the revenue-producing power of taxation on beer and tobacco is very nearly exhausted. If these additional taxes are repealed, they will absorb nearly £6,500,000. But, acting on the declared principle of the Chancellor of the exchequer, that for every reduction of indirect taxation there must be a corresponding reduction of direct taxation in order to maintain general equality between them, we may expect that he will take 3d. off the income tax as an equivalent to the reduction in indirect taxation. That will absorb £7,500,000, which, added to the sums I have already given, will swallow up the whole of the existing surplus. My calculation is based on the terms of the Bill, and upon the declared policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some such calculation is necessary if we are to understand what is the settled financial policy of the Party opposite. We have, then, this result. We have to face an income tax of 1s. in the pound, a corn tax, a sugar tax, and a coal tax, as permanent imposts on the people of this country. If we accept this Bill, we must make up our minds for these taxes, be there peace or be there war.
That is the price we have paid for seven years of government by Lord Salisbury, assisted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am not arguing whether the price is worth it or not; no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite will think that 241 they have had value for their money, but there stands the fact that that is the price they have paid; and if they think they have had value, so lot it be. I will not take that consolation from thorn, provided they will mend their ways in future. Do not let them think, however, that that is all they have paid for seven years of Lord Salisbury's government. During the period this Government have been in office, we have had a magnificent revenue. Calculated on the basis of taxation when Lord Salisbury came into office, the natural expansion of the revenue during the last seven years, up to the end of 1901–2, has been no less than £24,000,000 a year. That means that we have had an additional £24,000,000 of increased revenue, and £20,000,000 of additional taxation to spend. Where has all the money gone? There are £44,000,000 in all to account for. We are all for a strong Navy, and since 1895 we have spent an additional £14,000,000 a year on the Navy. We are all for better education, and since 1895 we have added £3,000,000 to its annual cost. I do not think, in either case, the money has been spent to advantage. We will allow, however, that £17,000,000 has been creditably spent, and we have to allow a further £3,000,000 a year for the increased charge for the debt. Altogether that amounts to £20,000,000, out of £44,000,000 of added expenditure. Where has the other £24,000,000 gone? Where can we find in administrative improvements any justification for the expenditure of such a vast revenue as £24,000,000 a year? A large amount has gone to the War Office, but are hon. Gentlemen opposite satisfied with that expenditure? We have spent also a great deal on Foreign Office wars on the East Coast of Africa, and Colonial Office wars on the West Coast of Africa, and we shall continue to spend a great deal of money on wars of that sort so long as the self-importance of these Civil Departments is fostered by allowing them to keep armies under their control. We have thrown away £250,000 on Wei-hai-Wei to save our face. But if we want to find where the money has largely gone, we must go carefully through the Estimates. There we shall find item after item, like the notorious one of the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown, in which you will see additional expenditure, small in amount, but covering so vast a number of 242 items that the total has contributed considerably to absorb the £24,000,000 I. have named. I will not refer to another item, which has cost us millions—it has been mentioned frequently—I mean doles. The Government, which takes as its principle not to forget its friends, cannot be expected to overlook their claims in the matter of doles. All this has happened during the seven years in which we have had a declared economist at the Treasury.
If we are to have the Party opposite in power, I am bound to say that for the sake of the nation I am infinitely glad that we should have the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the head of the Treasury, for undoubtedly he has, time after time, done his utmost to resist the extravagant tendencies to which he is subjected. But what has been his case? Year after year he has told us that he is helpless to resist this increase of expenditure. He attributes the pressure to the whole House. We, perhaps, with more justice, may attribute the pressure to the dead weight of Party habit, which inevitably ends in extravagance when a Conservative Government is in office. This is not the first experience we have had of this. It is not many years ago since Lord Randolph Churchill resigned because he could not introduce economy, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has retained his office only at the cost of surrendering position after position to the assaults made upon him from his own side of the House against what they are pleased to term the parsimony of the Treasury. If there had been a different result of seven years of Conservative government, I should certainly have been very much surprised. Hon. Gentlemen may call it a prejudice, but it is a prejudice I hold very strongly, that when a Conservative Government is in office you will have increased expenditure and increased taxation. If, after seven years of this Government, we had had reduced taxation and an annual surplus, I should be wrong in my belief or prejudice—call it which you please. But our expectations have been realised, and realised in a way which is most painful to the people, by the re-imposition of a tax on their food. If we consider this Budget in the light of recognising that the bread tax, the sugar tax, and the coal tax are to be permanent, is this House prepared to accept it? We 243 have heard very much of the cant phrase of widening the basis of taxation. There is only one basis of taxation—the taxpayer; and widening the basis of taxation, in the mouths of those who use the phrase, only means that they wish to transfer the burden of taxation from the comparatively well-to-do to the shoulders of the less well-to-do taxpayer. There is no other meaning in it. What is the prospect which this widening of the basis of taxation offers to us? When, next year, and every successive year, the Treasury gapes wider and wider, how can we not expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will build on this new basis of taxation, and that the ½d. on sugar will become 1d. and the 1s. on corn 5s? If this corn tax were in truth only to he a temporary tax, a war tax, as appeared to be suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an earlier stage in this debate, then it would be contrary to the admirable principle laid down by him in words which I will quote—
I do not think it wise to make small changes in our system of taxation, which, even if defensible in themselves, would harass and disturb the complex and delicate fabric of our trade.This is a small change in our system of taxation. It will harass and disturb the complex and delicate fabric of our trace, and all for the sake of bringing in £2,500,000 in a Budget of £153,000,000. Is it worth it, if the tax is to stand alone? But if this tax is to be the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman may build in the future, if it is to be the easiest and readiest means of bringing in revenue, then we have to deal with it in altogether another way. Our judgment on this Budget must depend largely on whether we recognise and believe that it is a permanent Budget, and whether this new imposition is going to be made to press in the future still more heavily on the people. I dread this tax for its present hardship; I dread it far more because of the temptation it will offer to future Chancellors of the Exchequer to increase that hardship; and I am not in the least reconciled to it by the only argument offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in its defence that thirty-three years ago another Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the approval of the nation, thought it wise to repeal it.244 We are told that money must be found somewhere. We on this side of the House have long held the view that the Exchequer could be enriched by the retention of certain revenues now-handed over to local authorities if local finance were buttressed by the rating of ground values, and as my hon. friend the Member for Dundee has suggested a profitable revenue might be raised from the sale, instead of the free grant, of licences. These are two sources of revenue which would supply our immediate wants, but the one permanent remedy for taxation lies in economy of administration. We shall never get that as long as the present Government remains in office, let the Chancellor of the Exchequer strive as he may. Experience, the best of all guides, has shown us during the last century that when that Party is in office we get increased taxation and extravagant expenditure. If we are to make our finances balance, and be in a position to repeal taxation, we must revert to the principles which still survive on this side of the House—the principles of economy in finance and efficiency in administration—which do not mean "running the Empire on the cheap." They have made this great Empire, with its magnificent resources, resources now, unhappily, so rapidly squandered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which were inherited from the great work done by the Liberal administrators of the past.
§ *(5.18.) SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe hon. Member has favoured us with a general review of the past expenditure of the country and a prophecy of the future of our finances. He has taken a view which is very common on his side as to the causes of our expenditure. He is good enough to credit me with a desire for economy, and with so much, at any rate, of usefulness in my present position that he would sooner see me Chancellor of the Exchequer than anybody else on this side of the House. But he considers that I am overborne by my colleagues and political friends, and that in spite of myself the expenditure has grown to its present proportions. I will only say that the views of the hon. Member on this subject are entirely unfounded. If 245 I had not concurred in the expenditure, I should not now be standing at this Table. I concurred in it because I believed it to be necessary. I have resisted many proposals of which the hon. Gentleman says nothing, but those proposals have not by any means always come from my colleagues or from those on this side of the House. Time after time in the course of the past six years proposals of various kinds for increased expenditure have been made by hon. Members sitting on the opposite side—proposals for additional pay or pensions for Civil servants, for Post Office and Dockyard employees, as well as additional grants for education of all kinds; and even today we have heard it suggested that the whole cost of education ought to be defrayed by the Exchequer. In the course of the last few weeks my hon. friend representing the Post Office in this House has had to resist the claim, urged with almost complete unanimity, for some great expenditure on the telegraphic service to Scotland, which would have been another addition to the Budget of the present year. We are blamed by the hon. Member for all the expenditure of the country, as if it were entirely our fault. He admits that the country has had a magnificent revenue; he admits that the revenue has largely increased in the past few years. But that, of course, is not to our credit; that is to the credit of those who sit on the Benches opposite. I will not detain the House by going further into that argument, because I know they are anxious to conclude this debate. But this I may say with regard to the future. The hon. Member has been good enough to sketch out for me, or for some one else, a Budget when the war is over and the time for a reduction of taxation has come; and he has propounded a theory that I have made up my mind to reduce certain taxes, to retain others, and, in fact, that I have practically settled now what the Budget will be next year. I can assure the hon. Member that I have not been guilty of such a foolish anticipation. When the war is over—and we hope it may soon be over—and when the time comes for a reduction of taxation, then also will come the time for a full consideration of the whole financial position of the 246 country, and the burden on the taxpayers generally, what shall be decreased and what shall remain.
There are two speeches in regard to which I will venture to say a few words. The hon. Member for Barnsley hovered over any number of subjects in connection with taxation. He began by dealing with the whole fiscal system of the country, and suggested that we ought to impose a charge on the Cape and Natal by way of contribution to the expenses of the war. Then he went on to discuss a graduated income tax, a penny on share certificates, finally settling down on what I think was the real object of his speech—the coal tax. He asked me to reduce the coal tax in the present Budget. I cannot consider the reduction of taxation, and I am certain that another year ought to elapse before any one can tell what the effect of the coal tax may be. I was glad to find that the hon. Member did not suggest the abolition of the tax. He suggested that the shilling export duty on coal had rather stimulated the export of coal in the first three months of the present year, and, that being so, it should be altered——
§ MR. JOSEPH WALTONWhat I said was that the increased export of coal to foreign countries was due to the fact that the demand had so decreased at home that we were driven to push our foreign trade, in spite of having to accept 1s. less than we would otherwise have obtained in consequence of the coal tax, in order to keep the collieries going.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHHe went on to suggest that I had better increase the home demand by putting 2d. a ton on all coal extracted from collieries in this country. I am glad to receive such a suggestion from one who is closely connected with the coal industry with regard to the possibilities of the future.
The hon. Member for Dundee raised important questions connected with our general system of taxation. The hon. Member objects, I think I may say, to all indirect taxation except—
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONI made no such discrimination.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHHe objects to indirect taxation altogether.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONI did not say that.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe whole purport of his speech was that he objected not only to the tax on corn, but also to the taxes on tea and sugar, and the income tax. He would largely lower these by adopting certain other proposals which he explained. What were those proposals? In the first place, he called attention to the position of our self-governing colonies, and suggested that we should obtain a contribution from them towards the expenses of the defence of the Empire. I should be glad to see some arrangement of that kind made. I think the House generally are aware that this will form one of the subjects of discussion at the forthcoming conference in the present year. But I do not think the hon. Member seriously meant that it rested with me, as Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, to attempt to tax the self-governing colonies. Then the hon. Member went on to talk about the "doles," and suggested that we should deprive the occupiers of agricultural land of the relief of rates which they enjoy, in order to devote the money to the national expenditure. That is not a matter on which I shall dwell today, for I am sure it will be a long time before any Government will attempt to make such a proposal. He then suggested that we might obtain a considerable revenue from ground values, entirely ignoring the minority Report of the Local Taxation Commission, which certainly pointed out most plainly that, although you might alter the incidence of rating on ground values and houses, so as to make the owner pay more, and the occupier less, whatever you gained must practically go towards the relief of local taxation. The hon. Member further suggested that a large revenue might be derived for Imperial purposes from the licence duties, forgetting again that these duties under one form or another, are now handed over to the local authorities, and that they certainly would not give them up.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONThe existing duties are handed over, but the additional duties need not be.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHYou cannot have two systems of licence duties, part going to the Exchequer and part to the local authorities. It is possible, I admit, that you might take the proceeds of all the licences and put them in the Exchequer, giving a grant to the local authorities in their place, and increasing the licence duty. The amount of the duties might be increased as far as the larger public houses are concerned, but I do not believe that the hon. Member or any one else would obtain a large increase of revenue on the licence duties from the smaller public houses, which form the vast majority—I think 98 per cent. in Ireland under, £100 a year valuation—of all the public houses. Therefore, as those increased duties would be levied on the comparatively few, there would not be anything like the amount of gain in the whole process, which was anticipated by the hon. Member. My feeling, however, is that more revenue might be derived in this way, but if it is derived it ought to go to local taxation rather than to the Imperial Exchequer. Further, I am certain that the subject could not be dealt with without complete consideration of the effect an increased charge might have upon the position of licence holders with regard to their interest in their licences, because if you impose a fine, as I think the hon. Member would, on the granting of fresh licences, it is perfectly clear that you would create a greater vested interest than antyhing that now exists.
§ MR. EDM UND ROBERTSONI would impose an additional duty, not only on new licences but on all existing licences.
§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACHI quite admit that something might be done in that matter; but I feel that looking to the precedent that Parliament has already made, it is a matter that could not be properly dealt with except in connection with a general adjustment of local taxation. I hope I may be pardoned if I do not dwell at any greater length on the subjects that have been raised, but ask the House now to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ (5.33.) Question put.
249| The House divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 170.) |
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algeron | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Flower, Ernest | Middlemore, John Throgmort'n |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S. W | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Galloway, William Johnson | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Garfit, William | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Arrol, Sir William | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&Nairn) | Morgan, David J. (W'lthamstow |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H' mlets | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Mount, William Arthur |
| Balcarres, Lord | Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'nds | Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r) | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewbury) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. | Gretton, John | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds) | Groves, James Grimble | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Gunter, Sir Robert | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Hain, Edward | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Bartley, George G T. | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks | Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nerry) | Parker, Gilbert |
| Bignold, Arthur | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Penn, John |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Percy, Earl |
| Brassey, Albert | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.) | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hehler, Augustus | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Henderson, Alexander | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh. | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Burdett-Coutis, W. | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow | Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.) | Purvis, Robert |
| Carlile, William Walter | Hogg, Lindsay | Randles, John S. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Rattigan, Sir William Henry |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Hoult, Joseph | Renwiek, George |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Howard, John (Kent, Faversham | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge) |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Coddington, Sir William | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Round, James |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Rutherford, John |
| Collings, Rt. hon. Jesse | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Kimber, Henry | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Knowles, Lees | Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Shaw-Stewart. H. M. (Renfrew) |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Lawson, John Grant | Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Lecky, Rt. Hn. Willam Edw. | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Legge, Cul. Hon. Hcneage | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stroyan, John |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Lonsdale, Joan Brownlee | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lowe, Francis William | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Faber, George Denison (York.) | Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison | Valentia, Viscount |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Macdona, John Cumming | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Warde, Col. C. E. |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r | Maconochie, A. W. | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Finch, George H. | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W | Welby, Lt.-Col A. G E (Taunton |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Malcolm, Ian | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Manners, Lord Cecil | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne |
| Whitmore, Charles Algernon | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) | Younger, William |
| Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) | |
| Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm | |
| Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Wills, Sir Frederick | Wrightson, Sir Thomas | Sir William Walrond and |
| Wilson, John (Glasgow) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George | Mr. Anstruther. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Mara, James |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Partington, Oswald |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud | Holland, William Henry | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Horniman, Frederick John | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Austin, Sir John | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Priestley, Arthur |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Jacoby, James Alfred | Rea, Russell |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Joicey, Sir James | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Blake, Edward | Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea | Reddy, M. |
| Boland, John | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Brigg, John | Kitson, Sir James | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Labouchere, Henry | Rigg, Richard |
| Burns, John | Langley, Batty | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Caine, William Sproston | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Caldwell, James | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Leamy, Edmund | Roche, John |
| Carew, James Laurence | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Leng, Sir John | Runciman, Walter |
| Charming, Francis Allston | Levy, Maurice | Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Cogan, Derris J. | Logan, John William | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lough, Thomas | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Lundon, W. | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Crean, Eugene | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cremer, William Randal | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Nortlrants |
| Delany, William | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Dillon, John | M'Crae, George | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Fadden, Edward | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | M'Kenna, Reginald | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Dunn, Sir William | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Tomkinson, James |
| Edwards, Frank | Markham, Arthur Basil | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elibank, Master of | Mather, William | Tully, Jasper |
| Ellis, John Edward | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Wallace, Robert |
| Emmott, Alfred | Murnaghan, George | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Field, William | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Whiteley, George (york, W. R.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Dowd, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Mr. Patrick O'Brien and |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Mr. Haviland-Burke. |
§ * MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs)Mr. Speaker, I got into the wrong Lobby. May it be corrected?
§ Mr. Speaker did not reply.