HC Deb 26 April 1904 vol 133 cc1213-39

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Continuance of additional customs duties on tobacco, beer and spirits.

1. Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the additional customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by sections two, three, four and live of the Finance Act. 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by section five of that Act), shall continue to he charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and five."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

* MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

said there were some important Questions which he desired to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this stage of the Budget. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the consideration he had given to the Committee in extending the time they had to look into the matter raised by the Resolutions. He had touched on some of these questions in the very interesting statement he made in introducing the Budget, but all he said was only enough to stimulate their curiosity. The right hon. Gentlemen had a very depressing statement to give with regard to the produce of those duties which were the great branches of revenue on which the country depended. Wine was not included in the Resolution now before the Committee, but he might be allowed to mention it as an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the wine duty had been unsatisfactory for some years past. What was the reason of this? It was because the increased duty which was imposed at a moment of emergency had been continued for many years afterwards. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might learn from this the lesson, often taught in finance, that if they raised a duty too high it would cease to be productive. The example that had been set in the case of the wine duty was only too likely to be followed in respect of those other duties with which the Resolution dealt. The duties put on in 1901 were to be continued. Why were they put on? They were put on to meet the expenses of the war. The war had been over now for two years, and yet the duties were to be continued. In the case of tobacco the war duties were to be increased by other proposals which the Committee could not discuss at this stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee that Customs and Excise had fallen £1,500,000 short of the estimate formed by the Treasury at the commencement of the year. That was a terrible falling off in one branch of the revenue, and he thought there must be other explanations of it than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given. He told them chat so far as the beer duty was concerned the not summer had tended rather to stimulate the consumption of tea, but it might also have stimulated the consumption of spirits, yet the spirit duty had realised £850,000 less than the estimate. When these duties were raised to an extreme point they ceased to be productive. Had the Treasury any reason to suppose that if these duties were restored to the old level of three or four years ago they would produce a better revenue than they did now? Had the Treasury fully considered the proposed increases from the revenue point of view, and was the Chancellor of the Exchequer perfectly sure that he would get more money out of them? The Government were pursuing a different course from that which any previous Government had pursued at a time of this kind. Taxes hitherto put on for a war were taken off as soon as they were not wanted for that special purpose. This was the proper stage to receive from the Chancellor of the Exchequer any explanations he had to give with respect to these striking features of the year's finance.


said the Committee would possibly have remarked with regard to the tobacco duty that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, as it were, making two bites of a cherry. The Resolution passed on 20th April raised the permanent duty on tobacco. The right hon. Gentleman had already told them that he intended to raise the duty on cigars from 5s. 6d. to 6s., and this Resolution authorised the raising of the additional (id. He confessed he had been puzzled to understand why the tobacco duty had been put into two Resolutions, but he thought he saw the reason now. The intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to add to the permanent duty imposed by the Act of 1898, which was 5s. 6d. a lb. on cigars, an additional duty of 6d. as a temporary or annual addition. But he did not see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any Resolution in regard to the provision for the drawbacks. He presumed that all the drawbacks which were allowed under the Act of 1900 were intended to be allowed under this year's Act; and, if so, the Resolution, as it stood, was incomplete and required additional words referring to the drawbacks being allowed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would satisfy him on that point. Or was he to understand that that portion of the clause could be put without a Resolution? That might be so; at any rate he wished to be assured that the drawbacks were to be provided for this year as in 1901. He came now to the merits. It was true, as stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that this tax was imposed as a war tax in 1900. He remembered very well the speech of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Bristol, when introducing the additional duties on beer, spirits, and tobacco. The right hon. Gentleman stated that they were imposed by the necessities of the State arising out of the war, that he meant the war taxes to be paid for, so far as he could, by all classes of the community, that the additional duties imposed were temporary, and that they would be remitted when the war was over. It was for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman made them not permanent but annual. Well, two years had elapsed since the war was over, and it was proposed to continue these duties for another year. The effect would be that they would have existed not for one year but for three years after the war was over and done with. He did not think that that was according to the original contract. He recognised the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but these duties were very considerable. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer made any calculation as to the amount altogether of these additional duties last year? If the right hon. Gentleman could tell the Committee that, they would see what extra amount he was asking the Committee to give him in a year of peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to afford some justification for the continuance of these duties under the present circumstances.


said he wished to call attention once more to the fact that they were brought down to the House year after year without knowing what Resolutions were to be proposed. He had never known any defence offered for that practice. There might be good reason for withholding the first or second Resolution on the Budget night; but why they should be asked to go blindfold into the debate on the other Resolutions he had never been able to understand. He wished to call attention to the fact that these taxes were imposed as war taxes. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1900 was that they were meant to meet a temporary necessity, to meet war expenses. But they had been continued from that time to this. They were being made permanent by mere repetition. Annual repetition continued for ever was equivalent to a permanent tax. The hon. Member for Lynn Regis asked what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got from these taxes last year; he asked what the right hon. Gentleman expected to get from them this year. He knew that the right hon. Member for West Bristol in 1900 estimated that the additional duties would yield £1,750,000. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer know how far that had been realised last year? It was well that the original character of this taxation should be kept before the Committee, because it reminded the House and the country what it had had to pay for the disastrous expedition in South Africa. They were paying now in peace, and were going to continue to pay, a contribution which, in fact, was made for a war, the cost of which had been £250,000,000 sterling and which had resulted in the acquisition of two territories which involved £4,000,000 additional expenditure. So long as this clause appeared in the Budget Bill the country would not be without a reminder of the crime and folly of which it was guilty in the year 1900–1.

There was another point to which he wanted to call attention on this Resolution. He admitted that he did not challenge the moral reasons which were given for this kind of taxation on intoxicating liquors. Apart from the moral question, he regarded the tax on spirits, with which he was concerned, as a bad tax because it was indirect taxation on commodities consumed by poor people. All such taxation was, to his mind, unjustifiable; poor people had not the means to pay it. He held that no householder who was not in receipt of £1 a week was able to bear taxation; but when their tea, sugar, tobacco, spirits, and beer were taxed, these poor people were taxed without their knowing it. Although there might be good moral reasons why the consumption of beer and spirits should be taxed for war purposes, that did not relieve such taxation from the odium that it was indirect and pressed on the poor. There was special cruelty in that sort of taxation, because it was imposed on the consumers of the commodities and passed by persons who lived better. Was it tolerable that the House should place heavy duties on beer and spirits at the very moment that they were asked to make to the vendors of beer and spirits a present of a vast monopoly value caused by the fact that licences were being restricted in number? The licence duties had not been altered for nearly a quarter of a century. During that period the number of licences had been enormously increased, but in the last ten years they had fallen to 1 in 279 per head of the population from 1 in 331 per head of the population. Licences were being restricted in number, and the monopoly value was accordingly increasing; yet there was no increase in the licence duties. That was an anomaly which ought not to pass without obser- vation; and it was mainly to call attention to it that he had asked leave to address the Committee. He wished to bring out the difference in treatment between the commodities themselves and the vendors of those commodities. Twenty years ago publicans' licences yielded £1,500,000; last year the yield was only £1,750.000, notwithstanding the development of the country during that period. Twenty years ago the combined Excise and Customs duties on beer and spirits amounted to £27,000.000; last year they produced £39,000,000. or £12,000,000 more, which was taken out of the pockets of the people. The monopoly value of licences increased as they became more and more restricted in number, and yet they only yielded an increase of a £250,000. That was unfair and unjust in every way; and he hoped that an opportunity would be given at some stage of the Budget Bill for proposing in substitution of this tax, or the tea tax, or the income-tax, a scheme of licence duties which would take the monopoly value out of the licences and hand it over to the Exchequer. The Licensing Bill now before Parliament proposed to perpetuate this abominable state of things; and, if that Bill passed, the House would not have that free hand in dealing with the licence duties which they now possessed. Therefore every opportunity should be taken of proposing that the House should definitely consider whether it was fair to the people that this vast source of public revenue should be left in private pockets, and whether the time had not come for the State to say that it would take the value of the monopoly which it itself had created. That would add £8,000.000 or £10,000,000 to the revenue without any further taxation at all.




Did the right hon. Gentleman himself make an estimate?


Yes, I have.


said he was extremely glad to hear it, as it was the first time he ever had such an admission from a Chancellor of the Exchequer. Both the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors admitted the anomaly, but refused to inquire into it. The right hon. Gentleman himself said the other day that no further inquiry was necessary, from which he assumed that, since the right hon. Gentleman's accession to office, an inquiry had taken place, which, however, had not been divulged to the House. He hoped before the Second Heading of the Budget Bill the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to lay before the House the results of that inquiry, and would be able to state how much revenue would be added to the income of the State if a duty were imposed on licences which would exhaust the monopoly value. Mr. Caine, who was for many years a Member of the House, undertook an inquiry himself; and he came to the conclusion that the monopoly value of publicans' licences, instead of being £1,500,000, the sum which they now yielded, approached £9,000,000 or £10,000,000; and the anomaly became simply grotesque when the Government, after asking Parliament year after year to load the poor with taxation and to load the middle classes with taxation, now persisted in making a present of millions a year to one class of the community which could not be credited with the monopoly of patriotic feeling. [Ax HON. MEMBER: Oh!] That class had a monopoly of the liquor traffic, but they had not a monopoly of patriotic feeling. He was endeavouring to enter a caveat on behalf of the State for the vast revenue which was derived from the one great monopoly which now existed in this country, and which should not be left in the private hands into which it had fallen.

* MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

said he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should really give the Committee some statement of the policy which the Treasury intended to pursue. The extra beer and spirit duties which were imposed originally for war expenditure produced in 1903 nearly £3,000,000. The extra tobacco duty produced in the same year about £1,400,000, making a total of nearly £4,500,000. He wished to know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer now asked for that amount. All the expenditure which now devolved on the country with regard to the war was that which was included in the fixed charge for the National Debt; and that had only increased £4,000,000. They had already agreed to duties imposed ostensibly for war expenditure amounting to the large sum of £20,500,000. If they took the duties imposed for war expenditure alone they amounted to£25,000,000 a year, of which the £5,000,000 now asked for was a very small part. Of the larger amount the extra income tax produced £10,000,000, the remainder being taxation on the consumer. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why in reimposing taxation this year he did not take into consideration that last year, when taxation was remitted, a remission of £10,500,000 was given to the income-tax payer and only £2,500,000—the corn tax—was remitted on indirect taxation. In reimposing taxation the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the very curious plan of reimposing £2,500,000 on the income-tax payer, leaving him a gainer by £8,000,000, while ho reimposed the whole of the £2,500,000 remitted last year, on the indirect tax payer. To propose that the income-tax payers should be relieved to the extent of £8,000,000, while the indirect tax payer received no relief at all, was not a fair financial plan to put before the Committee. When the right hon. Gentleman asked them to impose this extra £4,500,000 of taxation in addition to the £20,500,000 to which they were already committed, the Committee wore entitled to demand some statement of policy from the Government, and some further explanation of this extra taxation of £25,000,000, of which, he submitted, only £5,000,000 were due to war expenditure, while £20,000,000 were required to meet the increase in the ordinary peace expenditure of the country. If that submission were correct, the position seriously demanded the attention of the House and the country? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would to-day let the Committee see that he realised the gravity of the position, and that it could be alleviated only by a reduction in the ever-increasing ordinary expenditure of the nation.


asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any reason why the amount of revenue derived from the licence duty was so small. Every Member of the Committee knew how valuable a licence was, and how small was the annual income received by the State directly from that source. Was there any reason for that anomaly other than the fact that a licence had always been looked upon as an annual property.


The hon. Member is anticipating the debates on the Licensing Bill.


thought the point was germane to the question raised by the hon. Member for Dundee. It was well that the Committee should constantly keep in mind how much of the present taxation was due to the late war, and on that point he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not in some more rapid fashion get rid of the necessity for extra taxation arising from that source. Could not some portion of the expenditure of £250,000,000 be recovered in the shape of cash?


intimated that the hon. Member's remarks were not relevant to the Resolution before the Committee.


in reply, said he was asked why it was now necessary to continue this taxation, which in the first instance was undoubtedly imposed as war taxation during the continuance of the war. If hon. Members bore in mind the observations of his right hon. friend, his predecessor in office, in 1901, the continuance would not take them by surprise. His right hon. friend at that time gave notice that, supposing the war came to an end at an early date, the ordinary expenditure would not permit him to remit the additional taxation imposed for war purposes, which included, by the way, an income-tax of 1s. in the £.


In the following year additional taxation was imposed.


agreed that that was so, but it was imposed with knowledge of the fact that the great expenditure was not wholly due to the war but to a permanent increase in the ordinary peace expenditure. The calculations of the hon. Member for Edinburgh were substantially accurate. In was true that in the main the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to provide for peace expenditure upon a higher scale than was necessary twenty, or even ten, years ago. Hut the earlier complaint of the hon. Member was not that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was too severe in continuing existing taxation, or even in imposing fresh taxation, but that be took too lax a view of his duties as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The complaint was that he raised too little, rather than too much. That being so, it was surely not too much to ask that when he was raising taxation the hon. Member should not make the task more difficult by criticism which did not represent his true views. The hon. Member agreed that, our expenditure being what it was, this money must be raised; and he did not suggest that, so far as the money involved in this Resolution was concerned, it was raised unfairly.


I deny the necessity for the expenditure.


said he was coming to that point. It was said we ought to reduce our expenditure. But the proper place to advocate and support reductions of expenditure was in Committee of Supply, and not in Committee of Ways and Means. The latter was simply the follower of the former. Having voted the money in Committee of Supply, they must be prepared to provide the ways and means. The expenditure being what it was and the revenue such as he forecast last week, it was impossible to find the money in any way less injurious to the consumers. The hon. Member for Dundee spoke of the particular Resolution as being an irremediable injury to the poor. He should like to hear what the hon. Member for Camborne thought of that. The hon. Member further laid it down as a canon of sound finance that all incomes below a certain very modest sum should be absolutely exempted from taxation in any form, direct or indirect.


I did not say quite that. What I said was that incomes below £50 could not bear taxation, in the sense that there was no margin for it. £1 a week may be taken as the minimum wage, and taxation upon that sum involves the irremediable wrong of taking from the poor that which is necessary for their sustenance.


said that taxation upon beer and spirits, with which the present Resolution dealt, would not be a less irremediable evil if imposed directly instead of indirectly. If the views of the hon. Member were to prevail they would prevent the raising of any indirect taxation at all except upon articles of pure luxury used only by the well-to-do. He invited the hon. Member to devise a tariff imposing indirect taxation exclusively on articles of luxury used by the well-to-do without incurring the censure of his friends around him, and without infringing the doctrine of free trade or the principles of our present financial system. He thought that the hon. Member would find this to be a very difficult, not to say an impossible, task. The hon. Member proposed to exempt all very small incomes without giving effect to the old Liberal maxim that taxation and representation should go together. It would be dangerous in these days, when political power was more widespread than ever before, to give effect to the doctrine that taxation and responsibility dependent on the exercise of political power should be more limited. Whatever system of taxation were adopted indirect taxation would be necessary. He did not believe that any responsible person on either side, of the House would suggest that they could do without indirect taxation, least of all upon such articles as beer and spirits. As to the Resolution referring to the duties and the drawback, he pointed out that the Resolution was necessary, because the imposition of the duty placed a charge on the taxpayer. No Resolution was necessary for the drawback, because it involved no charge.

A raising of the licence duties had been advocated, but he thought that the question would be more conveniently discussed on the Licensing Bill.

He could not add anything to the explanations he had already given as to the fall in the revenue. There was no doubt that the character of the seasons had a good deal to do with the receipts from beer and spirits. Recent licensing legislation and increased care on the part of all concerned in the trade had also done something to decrease the consumption. But when full allowance had been made for both these causes they must set the rest of the change down to people having had less to spend in the past year than in previous years. That was never a satisfactory thing, but it would probably be some consolation to hon. Members that if the people had to retrench their expenditure it had been carried out on articles like beer and spirits, but not much on tea, sugar, and tobacco. A Question was asked why, as the income-tax payer received a greater portion of relief last year, he had not put the whole burden on him this year. In his opinion that would have been a gross injustice, and would not have been an even division of the burden among the people. The income-tax payer paid during the war a larger portion of the whole year's expenditure than he would have paid if the peace ratio had been preserved. He was, therefore, entitled in proportion to the sacrifice he made during the war to the first relief in peace, and his predecessor had recognised that need. The effect of his proposals this year was to restore the proportion of direct and indirect taxation to what it was in the year before the war. So far, therefore, from altering the basis adversely to the indirect taxpayer he had actually put both the direct and indirect taxpayer in the same position of proportion as existed in the year before the war. But the real fact was that all were indirect taxpayers in a greater or less degree, and it certainly was a great mistake to speak of the income-tax payer as if he were universally well-to-do. The pressure of taxation on the man with a small income was very heavy, and he was entitled to relief in regard to the direct as well as the indirect portion of that burden. He believed that in the present financial situation the advisability of passing this Resolution was not seriously questioned.

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, B.)

said this was one of the very few occasions upon which they could criticise effectively the finances of the country. Many hon. Members would remember occasions when the Government were defeated upon proposals similar to these, and it was recognised that criticism had a more direct effect upon the financial policy of the Government in Committee of Ways and Means than in Committee of Supply. With regard to the particular Resolution under discussion he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rather missed the main point which had been raised by the speakers who had addressed the House from the Opposition side. They thought that these particular additional duties stood in quite an exceptional position as compared with any other part of the extra war taxation imposed from the year 1900 onwards. The right hon. Gentleman quoted an extract from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol delivered in 1901, but he did not quote what he said when he originally imposed the duty. No language could be stronger than the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol upon that occasion, because he said distinctly that the indirect taxation he proposed in 1901 was a temporary addition to the existing taxation. The duties they were now discussing had ever since occupied the exceptional position in which they were placed by the Member for West Bristol when he imposed them. What they complained of now was that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor his predecessor made any statement to the House on which the country might look forward to getting rid of the bulk of the war taxes or to reducing substantially the vast debt placed upon the country by the South African War. These additional duties were imposed for war taxation and they were given their limited duration on that account. Upon this question he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone a step backwards, and they were disappointed to find that not only were the taxpayers to continue to bear this additional war taxation, but also to bear an increase in the tea duty. Besides this, the right hon. Gentleman had practically told them that they could not look forward to these taxes being considered as special war taxes in the future, and that they must be looked upon as being required for the ordinary financial necessities of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also told them that they must make up their minds that the scale of national expenditure had permanently increased, and that for the purposes of meeting that permanently increased charge the taxpayers must look forward to these war taxes becoming part of the permanent burdens of the country. That was a serious outlook for the taxpayers, and it was a great disappointment in view of the promises held out by the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee was not the matter of increasing the cost of a licence, but whether taxation should not be transferred from the beer duty to the licence. That was a point of some importance, although he did not think it was so important as his hon. friend made out, because very soon the duty on the licence would fall upon the consumer, or a great part of it at any rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was not the proper place to talk about economy, and that they ought to do it by moving reductions in Committee. There was, however, one thing which they could not do in Committee by moving reductions, and that was to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the very important duty he had to perform in putting pressure upon the various spending departments to curtail their extravagance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had more power to curtail the expenditure than hon. Members had, because he could employ men to investigate the proposals made to him in a way they could not possibly do. The House had always relied upon the pressure which the Treasury could put upon the spending departments to reduce expenditure. When a private Member found a case of extravagance, as was the case with regard to the War Office the other night, and when they appealed to everybody to help them to obtain a reduction, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not support them, but, on the contrary, said the extravagance was quite proper. The right hon. Gentleman not only opposed them when they asked for a reduction in expenditure, but when the proposals of the Government came forward in Committee of Supply he backed up the spending departments. The result was that when they moved a reduction the Government majority was called in and they were voted down. This was the only time when they could really enforce the necessity for economy upon the Government. However earnest private Members might be in their desire for economy, the only way they could secure it was by compelling the Treasury to put pressure upon the spending departments, and the only time they could do that effectively was when the Government were asking for money. Not only was he of the opinion that duties put on in time of war ought to be taken off as scon as possible, but he believed that such duties would be unnecessary if the Treasury would exercise proper control over the various spending departments.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

said he agreed with the hon. Member for Lichfield that it was in Committee of Supply action should be taken to enforce economy, but, however strongly those who were in favour of economy protested, in specific instances, in Committee of Supply, the Government were always bound to carry their point. It was practically unheard of that in Committee of Supply Members of the House were able to effect the slightest-economy. In the debates on the Budget questions in regard to extravagant expenditure could be raised and discussed, and when the Government found the impossibility of raising money they would themselves enforce economy on the departments. He had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be an efficient instrument in so doing. He wished to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should pay more attention to the vast reservoir of taxable wealth that existed in the monopoly value of licences. Reference had been made to the matter, but he did not think that sufficient attention had yet been paid to it. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had been considering the matter and that he had appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into it.


said the hon. Member had misunderstood him. He did not say that a departmental inquiry had been instituted.


I put a Question specifically and definitely whether there had been an inquiry into the value of these licences.


said there was no departmental inquiry of any sort. He had made an inquiry himself, the steps being taken on his own account. Nothing of the nature of what was known to the House as a departmental inquiry, had taken place. Of course the results of the inquiry would form the basis of the proposals in the Licensing Bill.


said it would be satisfactory if the House were informed of the result of the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and also whether those of whom he had made inquiry had expressed any opinion as to the value of these licences. There was not a Member of the Committee who did not know of specific instances in which enormous sums over and above the structural value or the business value of licensed houses had been obtained. They wanted to know what was the accumulated value of the whole of the licensed houses in the Kingdom, because that was absolutely a pure gift by the State to "the trade." Not only was it property that was properly taxable, but it was property that belonged to the State in its entirety. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made this inquiry, should inform the House of the value before the Bill came on for discussion.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

asked if he would be in order in calling attention to the tobacco duties at this stage.


said that that Motion had been passed by the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: Speak on the Report stage.]


said that the increase of two years back was a very hard tax on the users of common tobacco, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out some system of taxation on values instead of on weight, there would not be such just cause for complaint. The two right hon. Gentlemen who preceded the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when at the Treasury, gave him some reason to hope that efforts would be made to vary the taxation of tobacco on its values. He received a statement the other day from a firm which did a great deal of trade in tobacco and the manufacture of cigars, and he had had many communications since the Chancellor's Budget on this question, and he wished he could induce the present Chancellor to give some promise that he would have further investigation made, at his leisure, to see if something could not be done to adjust the tax.


said that he thought he had made a step in the right direction by the changes he proposed in regard to foreign cigars and cigarettes this year. He was not averse to putting a higher tax on what was an article of greater value or greater luxury. Of course, the difficulties were administrative difficulties of collection. Any attempt to convert duties into ad valorem instead of leaving them as specific duties was opening wide the door to fraud. He would look into the matter, however, though he did not think there were any of his predecessors who had yet seen their way to carry out the wishes of the hon. Gentleman.

* MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said the empty state of the House would not lead one to understand that they were discussing a very serious matter. It was surely a very remarkable thing that in a time of profound peace they should be renewing the war duties and practically making the admission that it cost as much to govern this country in time of peace as in time of war. Surely something must be wrong on the face of it when such a position as this was brought before the House of Commons. As to these duties he was not quite sure whether he was not the person referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few minutes ago. Very likely he was, but he was not personally affected by it. The Government could put any amount on these articles without affecting him, but they did affect Ireland, which felt the strain of taxation far more than England did. They were taxing a poor country when they taxed Ireland; they were taxing a rich country when they taxed England. The whole question would have to come up on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill. Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer not face the question of the licence duties? Why was it that that particular class of the community were exempt? They did not pay the taxation on spirits and beer. They would imagine to hear them talk at their meetings that they did. He wished they did. It was the people who paid. Here was a source of taxation ready at the Chancellor's hands. It was admitted that the licences in connection with this costly and valuable monopoly —valuable to them; costly to the country—were not high enough, and that the country did not get a fair return for the monopoly. Why did not the Government see that they got some return? Then they could spare the people of the country taxation of some of the articles which pressed very heavily on the poor. But no; that monopoly was not to be touched. On the contrary it had to be enriched, and he hoped that on the the Second Heading of the Budget the whole question would be threshed out, and most assuredly the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make up his mind that the Irish question would be seriously dealt with on the Second Reading.


said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was no extravagance and the Prime Minister cheered him. The country was in a situation of the greatest gravity, and the Committee had got no explanation of it. His point was that when taxes were suddenly raised for an emergency, the House had to accept them. The House did accept these taxes, but under the promise that they would be taken off after the war. Another objection to such emergency taxes was that they were not thoroughly thought out; and they were not suitable to become part of the permanent fiscal system of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to look to the fact that the yield of the duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits was falling off. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he hoped the yield would be better next, year; but how did he know that the decrease might not be greater? His contention was that these emergency taxes were of too high a character and he was not in the least satisfied with the answer the right hon. Gentleman had given. The hon. Member for Dundee had suggested one remedy, but his remedy was economy all round.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

said that before the division was taken he should like to explain the reason why he would vote against the Resolution. It was not a question whether these taxes ought to be continued on the present occasion, because he thought beer and spirits were properly subjects of taxation. It was certainly true, as had been said by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that it was not the licensed interest that paid these extra taxes; it was the consumers. The protest which, in his judgment, ought to be made was against the somewhat alarming statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman's position now was different from that of his predecessor in office. Then

they had violent protests against an increase of the beer and spirit duties from the licensed victualling and brewing interests. They were silenced by the statement that it was only a temporary measure; that these taxes would be taken off as soon as the war was over. It seemed to him a remarkable thing that one Chancellor of the Exchequer should throw over the declarations of a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were told that night that there was not likely to be any reduction in these taxes, because public expenditure had increased to such an extene that the word "economy" must be taken out of their vocabulary. That was the danger. Where was this expenditure going to end? They were going on almost doubling national expenditure, and there was not very much hope, so far as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was concerned, that there was going to be any material reduction. He protested against this absolute closing of the door to economy. The question was whether war taxes were to be continued as peace taxes. To many Governments that would be a direct inducement, on some occasions, to set aside any question of peace in order that war might be lightly entered upon.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 94.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bignold, Arthur Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Bigwood, James Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridgo
Allsopp, Hon. George Black, Alexander William Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Blundell, Colonel Henry Crombie, John William
Amold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Bond, Edward Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Asher, Alexander Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Ashton, Thomas Gair Brassey, Albert Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brotherton, Edward Allen Davenport, William Bromley
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Burdett-Coutts, W. Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Caldwell, James Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Bailey, James (Walworth) Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Dickson, Charles Scott
Bain, Colonel James Robert Carlile, William Walter Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.
Baird, John George Alexander Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon
Balcarres, Lord Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Cayzer, Sir Charles William Doughty, George
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Balfour. Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Chancing, Francis Allston Duke, Henry Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Chapman, Edward Elibank, Master of
Hartley, Sir George C. T. Clive, Captain Percy A. Ellice, Capt E C. (S. Andrw'sBghs
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Coates, Edward Feetham Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fardell, Sir T. George
Bell, Richard Coghill, Douglas Harry Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cohen, Benjamin Louis Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Loveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lewis, John Herbert Royds, Clement Molyneux
Flower, Sir Ernest Llewellyn, Evan Henry Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Forster, Henry William Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Furness, Sir Christopher Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse
Gardner, Ernest Lowe, Francis William Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Garfit, William Loyd, Archie Kirkman Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) Macdona, John Cumming Shipman, Dr. John G.
Gorst, Rt. Hn. sir John Eldon Maconochie, A. W. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Graham, Henry Robert M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Grenfell, William Henry M'Calmont, Colonel James Sloan, Thomas Henry
Gunter, Sir Robert M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Majendie, James A. H. Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside
Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n Smith, Hon W. F. D. (Strand)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.) Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Middlemore, John Throgmorton Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart
Harris, Dr. Fredk. K. (Dulwich Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Harwood, George Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Stock, James Henry
Haslett, Sir James Horner Milvain, Thomas Stone, Sir Benjamin
Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) Mitchell, William (Burnley) Stroyan, John
Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Moon. Edward Robert Pacy Taylor Austin (East Toxteth)
Heaton. John Henniker Morpeth, Viscount Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Helder, Augustus Morrell, George Herbert Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Helme, Norval Watson Morrison, James Archibald Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh' n, N
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Mount, William Arthur Thorburn, Sir Walter
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Mowbray Sir Robert Gray C Thornton Percy M.
Hickman, Sir Alfred Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hoare, Sir Samuel Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Tuff, Charles
Hogg, Lindsay Newnes, Sir George Tuke, Sir John Batty
Holland, Sir William Henry Nicholson, William Graham Valentia, Viscount
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington Wallace, Robert
Houston, Robert Paterson Pemberton, John S. G. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Percy, Earl Wattle, Colonel C. E.
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Perk's, Robert William Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Pierpoint, Robert Whiteley, H (Ashton und.Lyne
Hunt, Rowland Pilkington, Colonel Richard Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Platt-Higgins, Frederick Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Plummer, Walter R. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Pretyman, Ernest George Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks
Kearley, Hudson, E. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Pym, C. Guy Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Kimber, Henry Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Wrightson, Sir Thomas
King, Sir Henry Seymour Rankin, Sir James Wylie, Alexander
Kitson, Sir James Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Knowles, Sir Lees Rea, Russell Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Laurie, Lieut.-General Reid, James (Greenock) Yoxall, James Henry
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Remnant, James Farquharson
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) Rensbaw, Sir Charles Bine TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge
Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks, N. R.) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Abraham. William Cork, N. E.) Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)
Ainswoth, John Stirling Brigg, John Cawley, Frederick
Allen, Charles P. Broadhurst, Henry Condon, Thomas Joseph
Austin, Sir John Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Craig, Rober Hunter (Lanark)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Burke, E. Haviland Crean, Eugene
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. Burns, John Dalziel, James Henry
Blake, Edward Burt. Thomas Delany, William
Boland, John Cameron. Robert Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Pirie, Duncan V.
Donelan, Captain A. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Power, Patrick, Joseph
Doogan, P. C. M'Crae, Ceorge Price, Robert John
Dunn, Sir William M'Fadden, Edward Reddy, M.
Edwards, Frank M'Hugh, Patrick A. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas M'Kean, John Rigg, Richard
Farquharson, Dr. Robert M'Kenna, Reginald Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Farrell, James Patrick M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Robson, William Snowdon
Ffrench, Peter Mansfield, Horace Kendall Roche, John
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Runciman, Walter
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Russell, T. W.
Griffith, Ellis J. Mooney, John J. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Schwann, Charles E.
Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale Moss, Samuel Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Hayden, John Patrick Murnaghan, George Sheehy, David
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Murphy, John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Hemphill, Rt Hon. Charles H. Nannetti, Joseph P. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Horniman, Frederick John Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. Soares, Ernest J.
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants
Jacoby, James Alfred Norton, Capt. Cecil William Strachey, Sir Edward
Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Nussey, Thomas Willans Sullivan, Donal
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Brien, James F. N. (Cork) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Kilbride, Denis O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Tomkinson, James
Labouchere, Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Toulmin, George
Law,Hugh Alex, (Donegal, W.) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) White, Luke (York, E R.)
Leamy, Edmund O'Dowd, John Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Leng, Sir John O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. Young, Samuel
Levy, Maurice O'Malley, William
Lundon, W. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Buchanan.
Lyell, Charles Henry Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Partington, Oswald

Continuance of Additional Excise Duties on Beer and Spirits.

2. Motion made, and Question put, "That the additional Excise duties on beer and spirits imposed by sections

six and seven of The Finance Act, 1901 shall continue to be charged until the first day of August. 1905."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 95.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bignold, Arthur Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Aird, Sir John Bigwood, James Coghill, Douglas Harry
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Black, Alexander William Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Allsopp, Hon. George Blundell, Colonel Henry Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bond, Edward Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Arold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Boulnois, Edmund Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.
Asher, Alexander Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex Crombie, John William
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brassey, Albert Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Aubrey- Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Bailey, James (Walworth) Brotherton, Edward Allen Davenport, William Bromley
Bain, Colonel James Robert Burdett-Coutts, W. Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan
Baird, John George Alexander Butcher, John George Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.
Balcarres, Lord Caldwell, James Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Campbell. Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Dickson. Charles Scott
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Dimsdale.Rt.Hon.Sir Joseph C.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Carlile, William Walter Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch, Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Doughty, George
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cayzer, Sir Charles William Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore. Duke, Henry Edward
Bartley, Sir George C. T, Channing, Francis Allston Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Beach, Rt. Hn., Sir. Michael Hicks Chapman, Edward Elibank, Master of
Bell, Richard Clive, Captain Percy A. Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw's Bghs
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Coates, Edward Feetham Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Fardel, Sir T. George Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lewis, John Herbert Royds, Clement Molyneux
Kinlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Llewellyn, Evan Henry Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Fisher, William Hayes Lorkwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward are Algernon Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Flower, Sir Ernest Lowe, Francis William Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse
Forster, Henry William Loyd, Archie Kirkman Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Furness, Sir Christopher Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Schwann, Charles E.
Gardner, Ernest Maconochie, A. W. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Garfit, William M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. M'Calmout, Colonel James Shipman, Dr. John G.
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn Majendie, James A. H. Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Malcolm, Ian Sloan, Thomas Henry
Graham, Henry Robert Martin, Richard Biddulph Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Grenfell, William Henry Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E. (Wigt'n Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside
Gunter, Sir Robert Maxwell, W. J. H. Dumfriesshire Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Middlemore, John Throgmorton Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hare, Thomas Leigh Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Milvain, Thomas Stone, Sir Benjamin
Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Stroyan, John
Harwood, George Mitchell, William (Burnley) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Taylor, Austin (Fast Toxteth
Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. Morpeth, Viscount Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Heaton, John Henniker Morrell, George Herbert Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N
Helder, Augustus Morrison, James Archibald Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.'
Helme, Norval Watson Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Thorburn, Sir Walter
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Thornton, Percy M.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hickman, Sir Alfred Newnes, Sir George Tuff, Charles
Hoare, Sir Samuel Nicholson, William Graham Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Valentia, Viscount
Hogg, Lindsay Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield
Holland, Sir William Henry Pemberton, John S. G. Wallace, Robert
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Percy, Earl Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Perks, Robert William Warde, Colonel C. E.
Houston, Robert Paterson Pierpoint, Robert Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.)
Howard, J. Midd., Tottenham) Pilkington, Colonel Richard Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Platt-Higgins, Frederick Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Hudson, George Bickersteth Plummer, Walter R. Whit more, Charles Algernon
Hunt, Rowland Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Pretyman, Ernest George Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Pryce-Jones Lt-Col. Edward Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H (Yorks.)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Pym, C. Guy Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Kearley, Hudson E. Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop) Rankin, Sir James Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Kimber, Henry Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Wylie, Alexander
King, Sir Henry Seymour Rea, Russell Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Knowles, Sir Lees Reid, James (Greenock) Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Laurie, Lieut.-General Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Yoxall, James Henry
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Abraham William (Cork N. E.) Boland, John Cameron, Robert
Ainsworth, John Stirling Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)
Allen, Charles P. Brigg, John Cawley, Frederick
Atherley-Jones, L. Broadhurst, Henry Condon, Thomas Joseph
Austin, Sir John Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Crean, Eugene
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. Burke, E. Haviland Dalziel, James Henry
Blake, Edward Burt, Thomas Delany, William
Devlin, Charle Ramsay (Galway MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Pirie, Duncan V.
Doogan, P. C. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Power, Patrick Joseph
Dunn, Sir William M'Crae, George Price, Robert John
Edwards, Frank M'Fadden, Edward Reddy, M.
Farquharson, Dr. Robert M'Hugh, Patrick A. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Farrell, James Patrick M'Kean, John Rigg, Richard
Ffrench, Peter M'Kenna, Reginald Robson, William Snowdon
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Roche, John
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Runciman, Walter
Griffith, Ellis, J. Markham, Arthur Basil Russell, T. W.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mooney, John J. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Harcourt. Lewis V. (Rossendale) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Sheehy, David
Hayden, John Patrick Moss, Samuel Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Murnaghan, George Soares, Ernest J.
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H Murphy, John Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants
Horniman, Frederick John Nannetti, Joseph P. Strachey, Sir Edward
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Sullivan, Donal
Jacoby, James Alfred Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea Norton, Capt. Cecil William Tomkinson, James
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Nussey, Thomas Willans Toulmin, George
Kilbride, Denis O'Brien, James F. N. (Cork) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Labouchere, Henry O'Brien, Kendal (Tippuary Mid Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Weir, James Galloway
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) White, Luke (York. E. R.)
Leamy, Edmund O'Dowd, John Wilson, Henry, J.(York, W. R.)
Leng, Sir John O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. Young, Samuel
Levy, Maurice O'Malley, William
Lough, Thomas O'Shaughnessy, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
Lundon, W. Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham)
Lyell, Charles Henry Partington, Oswald