§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Commitee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Pearith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 6.
§ MR. LAMBERT,resuming his speech in favour of an Amendment to reduce the income-tax to elevenpence, said the present high rate of the tax was undoubtedly; due to the policy pursued by the present Government. The tax had gone up by 50 per cant., but had the country received value for the money? The Government claimed that their expenditure had tended to develop new markets and to maintain the honour of the Empire. Would the right hon. Gentleman contend that the new market in Somaliland was worth the penny in the £ represented by its cost? The contempt levelled at Mr. Gladstone's. 507 financial opinions and foreign policy had been amply avenged. In 1874 Mr. Gladstone, in consequence of the wise policy which he had pursued, was able to offer the country the total abolition of the income-tax, but he was not returned to power. What would be the position of the country, with an income-tax at 1s., should another serious war unhappily break out? Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine he would be able to increase the tax by sevenpence, as was done during the South African War, or to borrow on the same easy terms? The maintenance of taxation at its present high level meant the wasting of the potential strength of the country. The financial reserve which enabled the country to emerge successfully from the South African War had absolutely disappeared. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether the time had not come when there should be a revision of the income-tax. He was not suggesting that the richer classes should pay less, but that the burden should be differently distributed. The income-tax at 1s. pressed with extreme severity upon the professional classes; men with from £700 to £1,000 a year were the most heavily taxed in the whole community, and it was only fair that the burden should be so distributed as to place a larger share upon realised wealth. The alternatives before the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to practise a strict economy or to find some other method by which the pockets of the rich could be tapped, and in that direction lie suggested an increase of the death duties. He begged to move.
§ Amendment proposed—
§ "In page 2, line 39, to leave out the words 'one shilling' and insert the word 'eleven-pence.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there was nothing in the quotations from the previous speeches which the hon. Member had read that he wished either to withdraw or to modify, and he certainly shared the desire of the hon. Member to see the income-tax, which was the first financial reserve in case of war, reduced to a more moderate level. It was only with extreme regret that he 508 proposed to raise this tax, and it was only under pressure of great necessity that he had resorted to this expedient. After all, the hon. Member must remember that the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon were not realised and that the revenue failed by a very large sum to reach the figure which he had felt justified, on the information then in his possession, in naming; and he (the speaker) was met with large demands, necessary demands, of expenditure at a time when the revenue was falling wed when the year that had just expired had resulted in a very considerable deficiency. Under those circumstances, he was obliged to have recourse to the income-tax among the other sources to which he lock d for the increased revenue necessary. Hitherto the criticism on the other side of the House had not been that he was wrong in raising the income-tax, but that he had failed sufficiently to raise the increased expenditure, or rather the additional taxation, from the income-tax payer. He did not know whether the hon. Member shared the arguments used at an earlier time, but at any rate he now looked at it from a different point of view and said that the income-tax had been raised too high. The hon. Member added that he ought to have increased the death duties. He would point out to him, and he thought he would see that there was force in the argument, that the death duties ought not to be moved up and down to meet the passing exigencies of the time. The death duties ought to be fixed with a certain firmness. There was no finality in finance any more than in other things, and he did not pretend to say that the death duties were to remain at one figure always; but what he did venture to put before the Committee was that the death duties were not a source of taxation which ought to he raised and lowered according to the exigencies of individual years. Every man who had an income of the taxable amount must pay the income-tax of the year. All of them happily did not die within a year, and, if they raised the death duties for the purpose of meeting balances of a particular year, they would hit those particular estates which then fell under the death duties; they would not spread an equal 509 burden upon all estates as they fell in. The death duties, therefore, should be fixed with some regard to firmness; they should not be used to meet any passing needs without, at any rate, greater urgency or necessity than there was. This was a general principle which he ventured to urge should be accepted by the House. He could not pretend to speak with authority as to what the future might have in store for them, but he adhered to what he had said in proposing this additional 1d., that he hoped that the additional sacrifices called for from the income-taxpayers this year might not be of long duration. No one would be more glad than himself, both on the ground of what was due to the income-tax payer, and on the ground, urged by the hon. Gentleman with considerable force—that of our own financial stability and reserve for greater emergencies —when it was within his power or within that of his successor to reduce this tax. It was not in his power to follow that course this year; he could not meet the obligations of the year without the additional 1d. which the hon. Gentleman proposed to strike off, gird he did not think that the Committee or any considerable section of the Committee thought it would be possible for him to dispense with this increase in the tax this year.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was some inconsistency on the part of his hon. friend and those who supported the Amendment in having previously urged that he ought to impose a larger amount of direct and a lesser amount of indirect taxation. They had already passed that portion of the Bill dealing with indirect taxation, though he endeavoured to persuade the Committee to postpone the clause dealing with indirect taxation in order that they might urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that direct taxation ought to bear a larger share of the burden. That was objected to, and they had already passed the tea duty, so that that was not in question at the present time. His hon. friend had moved his Amendment with a view of drawing attention to the enormous expenditure of the Government—not because he thought the income-tax ought 510 to be reduced rather than indirect taxation, but because he thought, and he agreed with him, that the only way to bring the Government to their senses with regard to the question of expenditure was to give them as big a drop as they could. When the present Government came into office the expenditure of the country was something like £69,000,000. It was now something like £142,500,000, which meant an increase of something like £8,000,000 each year. This was a perfectly monstrous expenditure to have incurred in something under nine years, and he for one should vote against the increase in the income-tax as a protest against the enormous expenditure of the present Government. The worst part of it was that they showed no signs of repentance, because, when they were discussing the matter some time ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave them to understand that he did not see his way to save very much on the Navy, but he did hope that under a new reformed system of the War Office and of the Army, that we should really have a substantial saving. They listened with interest to the speech of the Secretary for War, and he confessed the thing that struck him most about it was that they were getting rid of the extravagant old system, and putting in its place a system which the right hon. Gentleman admitted would practically save nothing, and that they would save infinitesimally compared with the expenditure on the War Office. He did not therefore look forward to any saving in the expenditure on our military forces, and he should support this decrease in the income-tax. They all agreed that they could not change the death duties from year to year according to the exigencies of the year, but he confessed he thought the time had come when the question ought to be reconsidered as to whether they ought not to be brought in better proportion to the income-tax. He should certainly heartily support the Amendment in the hope that, if they cut off this £2,000,000, they would induce the Government to reduce the expenditure by an equal sum.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs.)said that the strongest reason 511 for this Amendment was the extravagantly high income-tax proposed by the present Government. He agreed that if they supported his hon. friend it was not because they were in favour of increasing indirect as against direct taxation. On the contrary, they preferred that the proportion of direct taxation should he still greater. The income-tax payer was very heavily pressed at the present moment, wherever one went one heard complaints of the amount of income-tax paid by men who could really very ill afford it. He agreed that a good deal of the pressure would be relieved by the suggestions made for graduation and discrimination, and he hoped that when this came before them they would have an interesting discussion. He did not think, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the point raised by the hon. Member for South Molton. He uggested there were other means of direct taxation by which the Government could get the money they sought What answer did the right hon. Gentleman make with regard to the death duties? He said they could not have fluctuating death duties. Perfectly true. Why should they fluctuate? If next year he found he could remit taxation and he had increased the death duties, there were the sugar and tea duties, and there was the coal tax which he might get rid of. All these would be useful reductions. An hon. friend suggested that he might start something in the way of old-age pensions. He might, at any rate, do something in the way of remitting taxation that pressed upon the people of the country. The great advantage of the death duties was that they were paid by people who got more than they paid and who got something they did not earn. This was not the case with the income-tax payer. He was paying on an income earned with labour, toil, and anxiety on his own part. He was in a totally different category. There was another method of direct taxation the right hen. Gentleman had overlooked. The duty on licences was lower than in any other country, and if he had placed the duty on licences in the same position as, say, in New York, he would have got another £10,000,000 a year, which was considerably more than he wanted in order to reduce the income-tax by 4d. or 5d.
512 The right hon. Gentlemen had not given a satisfactory answer to the charge brought by his hon. friend with regard to the expenditure of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after all, ought to have some sense of responsibility with regard to checking extravagant expenditure. He seemed to assume that his sole function was to take the expenditure for granted and then find the taxes and raise the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the guardian of the public purse. It was his business, if he thought that the expenditure was extravagant in any particular direction to check it, and check it ruthlessly. What had he done in that respect? He had talked a great deal about high expenditure, but he had never given the slightest indication that he had used his personal influence to check the expenditure in any direction. His hon. friend reminded him that the only thing he had done was to check the increasing expenditure on Universities; but in regard to the expenditure on the Army and Navy he had simply done nothing at all. And, as for as he (the hon. Member) could see, in the present scheme all hope of economy had been wrecked by somebody or other. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of those responsible for that. At any rate, he ought to use his whole influence to check the wild,extravagant expenditure. No one who had examined the expenditure of the last few years could character it in any other way. A shilling income-tax in time of peace! Why it was a war tax in time of peace!
Surely the right hon. Gentlemen ought to see that this sort of thing was ntt continued. They had gone on your after year piling up expenditure, a d nobody seemed to think it his duty to stop it—to use his influence, to risk his personal position in order to stop it. They had had three or four Chancellors each of whom had expressed pious opinions about expenditure but they did nothing. They had constant professions calling attention to the danger, and yet the peril was increasing, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer was attempting anything. He did not know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to reduce the expenditure this year. He himself must realise that 513 they were reaching a point it was difficult for the public to tolerate. They were spending money which was their reserve and which would be useful in case of war. Supposing they had a great European complication or a complication in the Far East—one never knew what might happen, especially if the present Government remained in power, for it was not strong enough to resist temptations of that character—what could they draw upon? Where could they plant another tax? They might put another 1d. or 2d on the income-tax, but what would it fetch? All the financial authorities in the country realised the position; they saw that there was no reserve. He did not say that they were in any way on the road to bankruptcy, but at any rate their credit was badly damaged. It was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the moral courage to stop this, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to have it. He knew his difficulties. They were political difficulties, but, after all, that was an argument against a Government of that sort remaining in power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel sufficiently assured in his position. He was balancing himself on one foot as it were, and the result was that he had no sure footing, and ho would do nothing. The War Office could do nothing. The Treasury could do nothing. There was no Government Department that could do anything, for the simple reason that the Government was in the position it was in. The country was suffering very seriously, and he supported the Amendment because it was a protest against this state of things. There had been a fall in public credit outside, but it was nothing to the fall of Government credit inside the House. Their consols had gone down in the market, and nobody would touch them, there they were going on trading without credit, and the public had to pay the balance. He thought this was a grossly unfair thing. The Government ought not to do it. As a protest against the continuation of this sort of thing he should support the Amendment.
§ * MR. SOARESsaid that they all admitted the sympathetic answer of the 514 Chancellor of the Exchequer, but still he did not propose to do anything. They had no distinct representation made to them that in the future there was going to be really drastic economy, and he felt bound, in the existing circumstances, although not one who objected to the income-tax, to vote for the proposal of his hon. friend. It was quite true that it would deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of about £2,000,000, but it seemed to him that the Government would then be compelled to economise in some direction. Without a doubt there were plenty of directions in which the Government could economise. They were told that the income-tax was a war tax, and the Government could say it was. It was a good description of the tax in their case because they were always at war with someone or another, but this was not the sort of thing he desired to encourage, and he should therefore support the Amendment. The Estimates this year had not been satisfactory. They had voted large sums for the Army Corps—
§ * MR. SOARESsaid he would abandon the Army Corps as the Government had done, but he would point out there were many alternatives to this tax—the licence duties, taxation of land values, of mining royalties—
* THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot review the whole fiscal field on this question. The questions he is now opening up seem to be boundless.
§ * MR. SOARESsaid he should record his vote in favour of the Amendment and against this additional tax mainly as a protest against the extravagant expenditure of the present Government.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)said he fully appreciated the motives of the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment, but he regretted that he did not feel able to support him in the division lobby. This Government had laid heavier burdens upon direct taxation than any other Government had ever ventured to 515 impose in time of peace. The income-tax had always been looked upon as the great reserve for war, and when it stood at one shilling in time of peace it was inevitable that the whole elasticity of their financial system was destroyed. Nobody could contend that the direct taxpayer had come out of the re-arrangement of the taxes very badly, because direct and indirect taxation were practically at an equipoise at the present time. A very large proportion of the extra expenditure was due to an increase in armaments, and it was only right that the income-tax payer should bear his fair share of that expenditure. The income-tax was not only a rich man's tax but it fell with severity upon a large number of persons who had to keep up a very considerable position on very slender means. He agreed that this had a disciplinary advantage, because it was only when people began to feel taxation that they became actively interested and vigorous crusaders in the cause of economy. Direct taxation was a great corrector of extravagance. The war was over, but taxation went on, and the great height at which military and naval armaments stood was sufficient justification for retaining the income-tax at its regrettable figure. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had not shown the same zeal for economy as his predecessors, and they had not detected in his speeches the same advocacy of retrenchment as they found in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, although he agreed that the result was the same no matter what professions were made. Nevertheless they would welcome those professions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if only for the sake of appearances. Who were the classes who clamoured for this expenditure? They were on the whole the most wealthy classes in the community. The wealthy classes of income-tax payers advocated lavish expenditure upon all branches of government, and particularly on armaments. This was a democratic country, but it was a country in which the wealthy classes had immense influence, and when the people were told that the safety of the country and the honour of the Empire depended upon an Army scheme such as had been introduced, it was immediately 516 possible for extravagant demagogues to raise and mobilise a considerable force of voting strength. He would hold those people who exercised such influence responsible for their words. Whoever chose the tune should pay the piper. That was why, though he shared the hon. Gentleman's objection to the income-tax at that level, he believed in high taxation as the surest hope of our financial regeneration.
§ MR. MCKENNAsaid there was one factor which the hon. Member for Oldham omitted from his calculation which would induce him to support the Amendment. The Committee were deciding now on the details of the financial scheme which was to meet the expenditure for the year ending next March. The scheme was based on the Estimates made by the present Government. It was true that four months of the current financial year had already gone by, but it was obvious to everyone that this was a moribund Government, and that it was eminently probable the Estimates made by this Government would not be carried into effect. There was no doubt that were another Government elected on principles to which it would adhere, that Government would immediately be able to effect a series of economies which would enable it to reduce the taxation which now pressed so heavily upon the people. There was no need whatever why the present great expenditure should be permanent, and if this Government, which had obviously lost the confidence of the nation at large, should at length awaken to its responsibilities and consent to appeal to the country which it had deluded, he was satisfied that no Government would be returned except one pledged to economy, and under that pledge it would not be necessary to continue an income-tax of 1s. in the £1. He would not vote for this tax of 1s. because he would not trust this Government with the expenditure of the nation's money. Its administration for a period of nine years had been admittedly extravagant.
* THE CHAIRMANThis is not the proper opportunity for reviewing the expenditure of the Government. The hon. 517 Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
§ MR. McKENNAsaid he had not the least intention of reviewing the expenditure of the Government. He was only referring to the fact that, judging by past experience, they could only anticipate that if the Government remained in office for another year its expenditure would be on the same extravagant scale, and it was because of that extravagance that he would not hand over to its charge
§ public money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when no longer in office, stated that in spite of his continual protests he had been unable to enforce economies on the Cabinet. He was not quoting the right hon. Gentleman textually, but that was the substance of what he said. He should vote most heartily for the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 251.)
519| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Doughty, Sir George | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Aker | Knowles, Sir Lees |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn HughO. | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.NR |
| Arrol, Sir William | Dyke, Rt. Hon.SirWilliamHart | Lee, ArthurH(Hants Fareham. |
| Asher, Alexander | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fison, Frederick William | Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham |
| Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J.(Manch'r | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S. |
| Balfour,Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds | Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Lowe, Francis William |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Flower, Sir Ernest | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Forster, Henry William | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,S.W. | Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Galloway, William Johnson | Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth |
| Bill, Charles | Gardner, Ernest | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Bingham, Lord | Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn) | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Bond, Edward | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col.H.F(Middlesex | Graham, Henry Robert | M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW. |
| Brassey, Albert | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Bull, William James | Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Butcher, John George | Grenfell, William Henry | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. |
| Caldwell, James | Gretton, John | Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv. | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Carlile, William Walter | Groves, James Grimble | Mild may, Francis Bingham |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Milner, Rt.Hon.SirFrederickG. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford | Milvain, Thomas |
| Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th) | Montagu, Hon.J.Scott(Hants.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow |
| Chamberlain,RtHon.JA(Worc. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Charrington, Spencer | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Heath, James (Staflords. N.W. | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Mount, William Arthur |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hobhouse,RtHn.H.(SomersetE | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Murray, Rt.Hn.A.Graham(B'te |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hoult, Joseph | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Howard,John(Kent,Faversh'm | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S. | Hozier, Hon.James HenryCecil | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Peel, Hn.Wm.RobertWellesley |
| Crossey, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Hunt, Rowland | Percy, Earl |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Pilkington, Col. Richard |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Denny, Colonel | Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col. W. | Price, Robert John |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Kerr, John | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward, |
| Dorington,Rt.Hon.Sir John E. | Keswick, William | Purvis, Robert |
| Pym, C. Guy | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Ratcliff, R. F. | Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside | Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C. E.(Taunton |
| Reid, James (Greenock) | Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks. | Welby, Sir Charles G E(Notts. |
| Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon |
| Ridley, S.Forde(BethnalGreen) | Spear, John Ward | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset) |
| Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth. | Wilson, A. Stanley(York,E.R.) |
| Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B.Stuart |
| Round, Rt. Hon. James | Thompson, Dr.EC(Monagh'nN) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Royds; Clement Molyneux | Thorburn, Sir Walter | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Thornton, Percy M. | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Sackville, Co.l S. G. Stopford | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Tuff, Charles | Younger, William |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward | |
| Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Valentia, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Shackleton, David James | Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield) | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Warde. Colonel C. E. | Mr. Ailwvn Fellowes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.) | Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Malley, William |
| Allen, Charles P. | Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E.(Berwick) | Parrott, William |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale | Partington, Oswald |
| Bell, Richard | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Pirie, Duncan Y. |
| Benn, John William | Healy, Timothy Michael | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Brigg, John | Higham, John Sharpe | Priestly, Arthur |
| Brown, George M.(Edinburgh) | Horniman, Frederick John | Rea, Russell |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Joicey, Sir James | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Joyce, Michael | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W | Sheehy, David |
| Cawley, Frederick | Langley, Batty | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.) | Stanhope, Hon. Philip James |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Cremer, William Randal | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Sullivan, Donal |
| Cullinan, J. | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Tennant, Harold John |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Levy, Maurice | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Lewis, John Herbert | Tomkinson, James |
| Delany, William | Lloyd-George, David | Toulmin, George |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lough, Thomas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Lyell, Charles Henry | Tully, Jasper |
| Edwards, Frank | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Ure, Alexander |
| Elibank, Master of | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | M`Arthur, William (Cornwall) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Crae, George | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | M`Kenna, Reginald | Wilson, Henry J. (York,W.R.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M`Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Murphy, John | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nannetti, Joseph P. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Nolan, Col.John P.(Galway,N.) | Lambert and Mr. Soares. |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
§ * MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)said the object of moving this Amendment was to differentiate between income from realised property and income received from individual effort, and the result of personally productive industry. The technical terms might be stated on the one hand as permanent, and the other as a precarious income. The income of a professional man who was working for his livelihood was likely to cease at his death, or in the event of disability 520 consequent on the breakdown of health. These were matters to be taken into consideration, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he hoped, would look favourably on this proposal. Mr. Gladstone said in his great Budget speech in 1853 that the income-tax proposals were too hard on intelligence and skill, and not hard enough on property as compared with intelligence and skill. If that were true in 1853 it was much more true now. In 1853 the income derived from Schedule A 521 which related to property amounted to £2,400,000, whilst in 1903 it amounted to £9,703,000, so that it had increased four-fold; but with regard to Schedule D that in 1853 produced £1,200,000, in 1903 the income derived from trade and professions was £23,000,000, an increase of nearly twenty-fold. This year the amount was a little less, but the result was that whilst Schedule A produced double that of Schedule D in 1853, the position in 1903 was not only reversed, but the produce of Schedule D was two-and-a-half times greater than Schedule A. For many years the income-tax was a temporary tax, and the difference between A and D was very small, but now they should endeavour to act as fairly as they possibly could between the different classes of the community.
It might be said that there were difficulties in the way of differentiation, but he did not think those difficulties were insuperable, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a difference between the product of realised wealth and that of industry. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the high rate at which the income-tax now stood, would make this differentiation between the produce of realised wealth and the produce of a man's industry. There were doubtless difficulties connected with limited liability companies, capital invested in businesses, and life annuities, but those were questions of detail which did not affect the merits of the case. Trade had been unfairly treated as compared with property, but that had been the method adopted all through by Parliament. Even Mr. Gladstone had said that the main question was between land and trade. An unequal contest had been carried on, and a land-owning Parliament had taken care that property should have not only its full share of rights but a little more. The method by which the proposed differentiation should be accompanied was not of much importance, but he suggested that the simplest method would be to give a rebate from the standard rate imposed. Abatements were the order of the day; the only abatement that was not proposed was an abatement of expenditure. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would 522 not shelve the matter by promising an inquiry by Royal Commission or Select Committee, as this was a long-standing grievance which imperatively demanded redress. He begged to move.
§ Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 39, after the words 'one shilling' to insert the words provided always that all incomes under Schedule D derived from trades and professions and not derived from investments shall,be subject to a rebate of fourpence per pound.'"—(Mr. McCrae.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid in view of the fact that the hon. Member proposed to base his proposal upon Mr. Gladstone's Budget speech of 1853, no one would suppose that Mr. Gladstone was the sternest and most able opponent of the very expedient suggested by the hon. Member. Every financial authority in the country held that the proposal of the hon. Member was absolutely disposed of in Mr. Gladstone's Budget speech of 1853, which speech a couple of years ago the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, in a discussion upon a similar scheme, called that "masterpiece of finance." To penalise investments in State securities would be a most injudicious proceeding for the State to engage in. This was what the hon. Member's proposal amounted to. As to its being a question between land and trade, was the landowner's income not dependent on personal exertions? Many Members of the House could inform the hon. Member that there was very great difference between the estate where the owner gave his personal interest and time to the management, and the estate where such conditions did not prevail. Mr. Gladstone said that the only person who could really be said to receive his income without personal labour was the Fund-holder. Surely this struck at the whole basis of the hon. Member's proposal. Mr. Gladstone, who was a responsible Minister of finance and a born man of finance, did not pass these details over so lightly, because he knew that in the accumulation of these numberless details of great complexity, involving the utmost difficulty in their solution, there was an absolute obstacle, an insurmountable obstacle, to the adoption of any such proposal. For 523 instance, let them say that a widow was left with an income of £800 a year, the proceeds of capital invested in the Funds or elsewhere, on which she had to maintain herself and a young family, was she to be taxed at a higher rate than a man earning £15,000 or £20,000 a year on the Stock Exchange, in the professions, or elsewhere? Did anybody think this would place the income-tax on a fairer basis, or leave less ground for criticism than the present system? Let them take one more illustration. Let them take the case of two industrial undertakings of a similar nature returning very large incomes to the parties who owned them. One was sold to a company, and small investors, people with little capital, put their savings into it. Were they to be taxed at a higher rate than the millionaire owner of the neighbouring concern, who retained the universal management of his business and pocketed profits out of all proportion to anything these poor people received? Without wearying the House by labouring the point, which was no doubt treated in a masterly manner, that no one could hope to attain, by Mr. Gladstone, he ventured to think that he had called their attention to enough of the difficulties and anomalies that would arise under any such a proposal to make it clear that it would be most unwise to adopt it.
§ MR. McKENNAsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted the plan of putting hard cases. He would put one to him. Did he suggest that the millionaire sleeping partner drawing his £50,000 out of the business was to pay no more income-tax than his hard-working manager with £800? This was not a matter to be decided by hard cases. They could find arguments for and against any tax they pleased by adducing cases from their own point of view. His hon. friend had made a proposal which had had wide and general acceptance. It was quite true that in the working out of his scheme in practice he would meet with considerable difficulties. The line of demarcation between incomes earned by labour and derived from capital upon which no labour was employed would be very difficult to draw; but he thought the Committee would agree that, if such a line could be suc- 524 cessfully drawn, and they could distinguish accurately between those incomes which died with the persons who earned them, and those which continued after the present holder had died, it would be a useful thing to impose heavier burdens upon incomes which continued for ever rather than upon the incomes which died with the work of the man who earned them. This was a very simple proposition to make, and was one which he submitted was not dealt with by Mr. Gladstone in his great speech of 1853. It was with other complications arising out of this question that he dealt—complications which still existed, and consequently made it very difficult to support the Amendment of his hon. friend in the actual form in which it stood. But he was sure he would have the sympathy of the Committee generally in the great idea underlying his proposal, and if it were possible to put it in a form in which it could be readily worked in any Finance Bill, he was sure that it would receive the general support of the Committee.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Committee was in a somewhat amusing position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown them that Mr. Gladstone was against the proposal in 1853, but he had not shown them that Mr. Disraeli was in favour of it in 1852, when he proposed to differentiate between earned and unearned incomes very much in the way now proposed by his hon. friend. It was amusing that they should have a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer invoking the authority of Mr Gladstone and his Liberal critics sheltering themselves behind Mr. Disraeli. He found himself unable to support the Amendment, because he thought the object his hon. friend sought to attain was obtained very much better by the present methods than that he proposed. There ought to be a differentiation between earned and unearned incomes, and there was a considerable differentiation through the Death Duties. For these reasons he would be unable to support the Amendment.
§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted South African 525 millionaires and speculators of all descriptions would be able so to divide their profits into salary and dividends as to get off with a reduction of 4d. in the£on the larger part of their incomes. He was not sent to the House of Commons to effect any such object, and he failed to see how Liberalism could claim reductions for these people. If the Amendment went to a division he should vote against it.
§ MR. RUNCIMANregarded it as one of the principles of Liberalism that capital should pay a larger proportion of the cost of the upkeep of the State than was borne by labour. In view of the fact that when Mr. Cobden's views were quoted, his authority was discounted on the ground that he lived so many years ago, it was somewhat interesting to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer basing his arguments on the shibboleths held by Mr. Gladstone in 1853. Since that date the conditions of the financial and industrial world had greatly changed. One of Mr. Gladstone's reasons against differentiation was that land paid income-tax on gross receipts without deduction. That was no longer the case. Another reason was that under Schedule D there was a large amount of under-assessment, and, in that way, a certain amount of differentiation already existed. But not only had the system of land assessment been altered, but the immense extension of the limited liability system had placed capital very much in the same position that land was in in 1853. The division was no longer between land and trade, but between capital and industry. Certain incomes, drawn from investments and property, were more or less permanent; others, depending upon the health and life of the persons who possessed them, were precarious, and differentiation between the two classes, difficult though it might be, was certainly desirable. The principle had been successfully carried out in other countries, and might equally be laid down in the United King dom. The proposals were by no means new, having been made with tremendous force by John Stuart Mill, and Disraeli himself threw all the objections to the winds. Mr. Gladstone's views had been invoked; he would be quite satisfied if all the financial debates were conducted,on the principles of Mr. Gladstone, as 526 they had been wonderfully successful in the past.
§ * MR. SOARESdid not wonder there was a certain divergence of opinion on this question, as it doubtless presented many difficulties. Businesses were frequently turned into companies, with the former owners, holding many shares, as salaried managers. It would be difficult in such cases to say how much of a man's income was from investments and how much from his personal exertions. Then there was the case of small property owners who made a business of the ownership of property and who collected the rents themselves. There were doubtless difficulties, but surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not so soon forgotten that it was stated at the recent Albert Hall meeting that difficulties were made for statesmen to overcome. The difficulties in the present case were certainly such as statesmen ought to be able to overcome. There was, without doubt, a definite grievance in this matter. The income of a professional man and the income of a business man were in a very different positions from the income of a man who derived his living from permanent investments. The business man or the professional man had to save so much money every year, he had to insure his life, and to meet many other burdens cast upon him, whereas a man who lived on investments could spend every penny, knowing that he could leave to his descendants the full income he enjoyed. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to hold any inquiry whatever into the matter, he would support his hon. friend's Amendment.
§ MR. McCRAEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. McKENNAmoved to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 6. This was not an Amendment he proposed to divide the Committee upon, his object in moving it being to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that the enactments referred to in the sub-section were, so far as his experience 527 had gone, exceedingly difficult to discover. They all knew the extreme difficulties arising from legislation by reference, but this really was reference gone mad. He asked whether the Attorney-General could suggest either that in place of the sub-section, reference should be given to the particular enactments included in the words "All such enactments relating to income-tax….," or that they should be made permanent once for all.
§ Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2)."—(Mr. McKenna.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghssaid he did not think this sub-section was open to the charge of being legislation by reference. What the hon. and learned Member had said might possibly deserve consideration on some future occasion. The clause was very simple indeed, the object being to apply to the tax imposed this year enactments which had existed for many years.
§ MR. McKENNAasked leave to withdraw the Amendment. The matter was not quite so simple as the Attorney-General had suggested.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
The following Amendment was on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. MCCRAE:—
In page 3, line 4, after the word 'granted,' to insert the words "Provided that the following words in Rule 5 of No. 2, Schedule A, s. 60, 5 and 6 Vic., c. 35, Of all fines received in consideration of any demise of lands or tenements (not being parcel of a manor or royalty demisable by the custom thereof) on the amount so received within the year preceding by or on account of the party, provided that in case the party chargeable shall prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners for General Purposes in the district that such fines or any part thereof have been applied as production capital on which a profit has arisen, or will arise, otherwise chargeable under this Act for the year in which the assessment shall be made, it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners to discharge the amount so applied from the profits liable to assessment under this rule' shall be read in so
528
far as relative to the duty of income-tax hereby granted as if the proviso therein coatained were omitted.
* THE CHAIRMANThe Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, so far as I am able to understand it, is out of order. It increases the charge upon the people because it withdraws an advantage which they obtain under the section which the hon. Member is seeking to amend. By cancelling the proviso he imposes a fresh charge.
§ * MR. McCRAE,on the point of order, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had impressed on the House the importance of the general Resolution which came later in the Finance Bill, giving power to amend. He thought that entirely covered this proposal.
* THE CHAIRMANI am well aware of that Resolution. The object of that Resolution is to enable such matters to be dealt with as the abolition of the coal duty and, the reduction of the sugar duty or the purpose of relieving taxation. But the Amendment of the hon. Member, instead of relieving taxation, would impose a fresh charge upon the people.
§ MR. McKENNAsaid his hon. friend was not proposing to extend or increase existing charges, but to withdraw an exemption which this Bill proposed to make. He submitted, therefore, that the Amendment was in order.
§ Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. McKenna.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. McKENNAasked the Attorney-General why Sub-section 3 was in the Bill at all. It was not in the Bill last year.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the effect of the sub-section was that a continual valuation must be made from year to year. The valuation was for five years; and last year was the revaluation year.
§ MR. McKENNAbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. McKENNAsaid that in the Act of 1853 there was a proviso that where existing valuations were incorrect the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might direct a revaluation. He begged to move an Amendment in that direction.
§ Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 10, after the word 'year' to insert the words "Provided that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may direct revaluation where existing valuations are incorrect.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not think that any real hardship would arise under the present law, because the Inland Revenue Commissioners had at present the right to make revaluations. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
§ MR. McKENNAsaid a case had been brought to his knowledge of alterations having been made in the valuation of a house, the tenant had to pay an amount of income-tax beyond that which he could get from the landlord.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said that this was an Amendment that ought to he accepted.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman did not seem unfair, and he would be glad to inquire into the matter before the Report stage.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid his hon. friend did not move his Amend
§ ment with the view of damaging the principle of the Bill, and he quoted a case of hardship under the existing law which his Amendment would be the vehicle of averting in future. He joined in the appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment. The words were harmless and actually appeared in the original Act. The right hon. Gentleman must know that there were a large number of properties which were at the present moment under-assessed. In these days they could not afford to forego revenue which could legitimately be claimed by the State. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should accept these words; otherwise he hoped his friend would persist in carrying his Motion to a division.
§ MR. RUNCIMANtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to meet them on this very modest point.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLappealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the Committee some explanation.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not accept the Amendment, because the case was to a certain extent already covered by a sub-section. He promised, however, to make inquiries without delay and see whether there were any cases of hardship.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had listened very carefully to the discussion, and he had heard no attempt to explain why these words were omitted, and in the absence of such explanation he hoped his hon. friend would press for a division.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 80;, Noes, 171. (Division List No. 252.)
533| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Caldwell, James | Fenwick, Charles |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Causton, Richard Knight | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Allen, Charles P. | Cawley, Frederick | Fuller, J. M. F |
| Asher, Alexander | Channing, Francis Allston | Gladstone, Rt. Hn.Herb. John |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Haroourt,Lewis V.(Rossendale |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Delany, William | Healy, Timothy Michael |
| Bell, Richard | Doogan, P. C. | Higham, John Sharpe |
| Brigg, John | Elibank, Master of | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Ellice,Capt.E.C.(S.AndrewBgbs | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Emmott, Alfred | Joicey, Sir James |
| Jones,William (Carnarvonshire | O'Malley, William | Sullivan, Donal |
| Joyce, Miohael | Partington Oswald | Tennant, Harold John |
| Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W. | Price, Robert John | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.) |
| Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.) | Priestley, Arthur | Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr) |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | Rea, Russell | Toulmin, George |
| Levy, Maurice | Rickett, J. Compton | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Walton,Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Lloyd-George, David | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Lough, Thomas | Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Shackleton, David James | Whiteley,George (York,W.R.) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| M'Arthur,William (Cornwall) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| M`Crae, George | Sheehy, David | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Nanetti, Joseph P. | Shipman, Dr. John G. | |
| O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid | Soares, Ernest J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| 'O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Strachey, Sir Edward | M'Kenna and Mr. Runciman. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire |
| Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O. | Forster Henry William | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Arrol, Sir William | Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Galloway, William Johnson | Milner,Rt. Hn.Sir Frederick G. |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Gardner, Ernest | Milvain, Thomas |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Gordon,Hn.J.E. (Elgin&Nairn) | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Montagu,Hn. J. Scott (Hants) |
| Balfour,Rt.Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | Graham, Henry Robert | Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow |
| Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Greene,SirEW(B'ry S.Edm'nds | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury) | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Grenfell, William Henry | Mount, William Arthur |
| Bingham, Lord | Gretton, John | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Groves, James Grimble | Murray,RtHn.A.Graham (Bute |
| Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F.(Middlesex | Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Brassey, Albert | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hay, Hon. Claude George | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Bull, William James | Heath,Arthur Howard(Hanley | Peel,Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.) | Percy, Earl |
| Butcher, John George | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. | Hobhouse,RtHnH.(Somers't,E | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Carson,Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Hunt, Rowland | Pym, C. Guy |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Jeffreys,Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc. | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn.Col.W. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Kerr, John | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Keswick, William | Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen |
| Cochrane,Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Knowles, Sir Lees | Roberts, Samuel(Sheffield) |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks, N.R. | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S. | Lee, Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Denny, Colonel | Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Smith,H.C(North'mb, Tyneside |
| Dorington,Rt.Hon.Sir John E. | Lowe, Francis William | Smith,Rt.Hn.JParker (Lanarks |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lowther, C. (Comb., Eskdale) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Spear, John Ward |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M, |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dyke Rt.Hn. Sir William Hart | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Thompson,Dr.EC(Monagh'n,N. |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Macdona, John Cumming | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Maconochie, A. W. | Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw M. |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | M`Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW | Tuff, Charles |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Fison, Frederick William | Majendie, James A. H. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H (Sheffield | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Warde, Colonel C. E. | Wilson,A.Stanley (York, E. R.) | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Webb, Colonel William George | Wortley,Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Welby,Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas | |
| Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George | |
| Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON,in order to ascertain the intentions of the Government, moved to report Progress. The Committee had reached nearly the end of the income-tax clause; the points raised had all been of substance, and none had been discussed at unreasonable length. There still remained a considerable portion of the Bill and the new clauses to dispose of. Many matters of Considerable importance were involved, and under the circumstances he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to report Progress, as soon as he had obtained Clause 6. Unless that course were agreed to it would be necessary to continue the discussion on the income-tax and other matters. He entirely failed to see why the Committee should be forced in this way when dealing with a Bill of such importance; therefore he begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." (Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.agreed that Clause 6 required very little further discussion, but he could not agree that the discussion on the whole of the Budget, so far as it had gone, had been of a comparatively brief character. Budgets involving taxation of a novel and important character had been dealt with in Committee in a shorter period of time than had already been devoted to the present Bill. He was able only to do his best to make arrangements of business convenient to the House, and in view of the period of the session at which they had arrived, of the absolute necessity of passing the Budget in proper time, and of the other work remaining to be dealt with, he thought the House ought to make some sacrifice on the present occasion in order to get on with the business. In these circumstances he was not in a position to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)desired to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. Hon. Members representing the coal-mining districts had resisted the desire to take part in the discussion hitherto in the hope of getting a chance to debate the coal tax at length. To miners the coal tax was of very great importance, and, if anything useful could be done, they would like to put facts and arguments as they presented themselves to them before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. He thought he would agree that it was not a fitting time to take the coal tax after all the other matters had been disposed of in connection with the Finance Bill. Therefore, in the most respectful manner he presented their case— that the right hon. Gentleman should give another day, at least, for the purpose of discussing the coal tax question. They thought that, if any abatement at all were made in the Finance Bill, having regard to one of the largest industries in the country, that it should be in the coal tax, and they were conceited enough to think they could convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the right of this. Speaking on behalf of himself and his colleagues, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.
§ * MR. MCCRAEdrew attention to the fact that Clause 6 introduced an entirely new principle, viz., the question of dealing with the unclaimed dividends, and of applying the proceeds to revenue expenditure. This was a departure from sound finance, and he thought it would be quite unfair to consider a question of such importance at five minutes to two in the morning
§ MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross),strongly urged the Prime Minister to accede to the request of his hon. friend. A great m my miners felt that this coal tax had done something to depress their wages.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid nothing could be more moderate than the form 535 in which the hon. Member for Durham put forward his plea, but he hoped he would remember one or two things. In the first place, he must know that, however valuable a discussion of this kind would be in informing public opinion, it would be quite impossible this year, however able a presentation of arguments be made to them, and however conclusive those arguments might be as to the general impropriety or disadvantage attaching to the tax, to reconstruct the present Budget to meet his views. In the second place, there would be an opportunity for discussion of the coal tax on the Report stage of the Bill. In those circumstances, he hoped he and other Gentlemen interested would feel that he was not unreasonable in adhering to his view.
§ Sin EDWARD GREYcould not agree that the Report stage offered as good an opportunity as the Committee stage for the discussion of a matter of this kind. The coal tax was an important subject; and the Prime Minister himself admitted that discussion, even though it could not influence the present Budget, might be desirable with a view to future financial proposals. The tax was a modern one, exceedingly novel in principle, and the hon. Member thought it was desirable that such a tax should be annually reviewed. It was, he thought, admitted by its proposer to be one that would require to be closely watched in its working. There were in the Budget important matters that the Committee could not reasonably discuss at this period of the night, and he should support the Motion for reporting Progress.
§ MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)said they had already taken every opportunity afforded them of educating public opinion outside the House in regard to the coal tax, and they had succeeded so well that there was not a candidate, either Liberal or Tory, that dared stand for a mining constituency that was an export district without pledging himself to do all he could to repeal the tax. They now wanted an opportunity of educating public opinion inside the House, and an opportunity to inform the minds of the Government in reference to the question, for they 536 certainly thought there was a great deal of misunderstanding in their minds in regard to the coal tax, and that they were in a position to remove some of that misunderstanding if proper facilities were given them to debate the matter on the floor of the House. It was, however, impossible to have such full consideration of the question as its importance demanded at that hour; and therefore he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to report Progress, so that they might have an opportunity given them.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid the Prime Minister had shown himself unreasonable, and even harsh, in his leadership, of the House and the conduct of public business by refusing to pay the slightest attention to the weighty appeals which had been addressed to him by the representatives of the great industry affected by the coal tax. Had public business been allowed to get into such a mess, that so great a subject was not to be discussed at all except at a time when the Committee were wearied and unable properly to consider the matter? Scarcely five hours had been devoted to the discussion of the income-tax clause, which involved so many millions of money; the Amendments were of substance, and the discussions had not been unduly protracted. Under these circumstances he submitted that it was a perfectly fair proposition that Progress should be reported when Clause 6 had been obtained. The Prime Minister had said it was essential to get the whole of the Committee stage to-night, otherwise the House of Lords might be involved in a Saturday sitting. But why was the Budget in its present position? Simply because of the interruption of the discussion for two or three weeks by the interposition of other measures of importance. Nobody had expected the Bill would be forced through at the present sitting. It was true the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he intended to conclude the Committee stage, but everybody had regarded that as a piece of empty brag. Nobody imagined that the right hon. Gentleman seriously meant it, and still less that in the perpetration of so unprecedented and unfair an act the Prime Minister would be a willing accessory.
§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhondda)said the miners' representatives had preferred their modest request, honestly believing that the coal tax seriously affected the men they represented, and that they had a number of new facts to place before the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would tend to convince him that something ought to be done. Even if it was too late for any alteration to be made in the present year, they wished to put forward their case, so that something might be done at the earliest possible moment to redress the wrong from which many thousands of coal-workers were suffering. If the coal tax was to be discussed at the present sitting, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to order his breakfast, as he would require it before the discussion finished.
§ MR. MCKENNA (who was received with cries of "Oh")said the shouts of hon. Gentlemen opposite were the most complete justification of the Motion to report Progress. Hon. Members who had not been in the House during the discussion had now attended in order to shout down those who had been sticking to their posts. He wished to state some reasons in favour of reporting Progress. His hon. friends who had spoken with regard to the coal tax had treated the subject with great delicacy. They had not referred toga fact which was patent to everybody, namely, that their arguments had no chance of being reported in the public Press, if the discussion took place now. What possible hope could they on the Opposition side of the House have that their arguments would have weight with the Government unless they had public opinion on their side? It was as surely muzzling the Committee to carry on a debate at that time or night (2.10 a.m.) as it was to introduce a muzzling order on the Licensing Bill. The Prime Minister said the case was hopeless for this year and that he would not alter the Budget. But if they could get public opinion on their side, they would get the tax taken off next year. This was their opportunity to get public opinion on their side in regard to the coal tax. The tax was imposed when the coal trade was prosperous, but since then there had been a series of reductions in the men's wages, and the 538 coal-owners were not deriving such good profits as before. This was a question affecting 100,000 men, and it was not reasonable that the Committee should be asked to discuss it at this hour. He appealed to the Prime Minister to allow Progress to be reported, in order that the coal tax might be discussed in the early hours of Friday's sitting when the debate could be reported.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsupported the appeal made to the Prime Minister by the representatives of the great mining industry. It was absolutely no use trying to convert the Government, but at any rate they should get the chance of educating public opinion. To say that they could educate public opinion by discussing the coal tax at three, four, or five in the morning was simply mocking them. Let the Prime Minister give them a chance of discussing the coal tax on Friday. How could the House of Commons discuss the question if they sat all night? [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Hon. Members opposite seemed rather to relish the idea. It was quite natural. They did not want to discuss anything. The appeal made to the Prime Minister by his hon. friends behind him was perfectly reasonable. What other business had the right hon. Gentleman got for Friday? [An HON. MEMBER: The Budget on Report.] Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to take the whole of the Report stage of the Budget on one day.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI never said that I hoped to finish the Report stage on Friday. What I said was that according to my forecast we should take the Report of this Bill on Friday, and as the coal tax is dealt with in a new clause it would come up early.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid financial business was work for Committee. When I the Prime Minister postponed discussions on everything important from the Committee to the Report stage, he was absolutely reversing the traditions of the House. It was not the first reversal, he was sorry to say, that the Prime Minister had initiated. The House of Commons was the only place in which this discussion could take 539 place. There were three speeches in 1853 which took five hours each to deliver; and the right hon. Gentleman ought to be grateful to hon. Members who had confined their speeches to the dimensions they had done. He really marvelled at the moderation of the discussion.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it seemed to him that the proposal made was a most reasonable one, and if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to meet the views of those interested in the coal trade that would enable the Committee to get on to the new clauses. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to that, he would withdraw his Motion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that discussion on the Report stage was of infinitely less importance than on the Committee stage. If so he would be willing to redistribute the time, giving more to the Committee and less to Report, but both stages must be finished on Monday. If assured that the Committee stage would finish on Friday, he would agree to give that day for the discussion of the coal tax.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he appreciated the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think he was entitled to attach conditions to the proposals he had made.
§ MR. FISON (Yorkshire, W.R., Doncaster),said that at the time the coal tax was introduced, he was very much opposed to it, and he had voted against it. Curiously enough, one part of his constituency which most approved of it was a mining centre. From his own personal knowledge, not having received one single complaint against it, he could say there was no real grievance in the coal tax.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid that the general opinion was that the Report stage would be very much abbreviated if the discussion of the coal tax was then taken.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished to make a suggestion. His constituency had been very hard hit by the coal tax, and his suggestion was that the 540 House might sit on Saturday to discuss it. He was quite sure that all the hon Gentlemen who took an interest in the coal tax would be willing to sit then. while at the same time the object of the Prime Minister would be attained.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley)said he hoped that the Prime Minister's suggestion would be accepted, and that Friday should be given to the discussion of the coal tax. This tax directly affected over 4,000,000 of the inhabitants of this country, and he had received, both from colliery owners and others, communications of the strongest possible character to secure the repeal of the tax owing to the very serious injury which had been inflicted on the trade.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was prepared to accept the Prime Minister's offer to now report Progress and take the coal Resolutions and the rest of the Bill on Friday and to finish the Report stage on the following Monday. He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was driving a very hard bargain.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURassured the Committee of his desire to meet their wishes consistently with the due progress of business. But in order that there should be no misunderstanding on a matter of public honour, he wished it to be understood that they were to finish the clauses of the Bill in Committee at that sitting and the remaining part of the Bill by half-past five on Friday. There might be some difficulty as to the reprinting of the Bill between Friday and Monday next, but he thought it would be possible to have the amended Bill printed and circulated on the Saturday morning.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether under those circumstances the Report stage could not be fixed for Tuesday instead of Monday.
§ MR. LOUGHprotested that if the Report stage were to be taken on the Monday no time would be allowed in which to put down Amendments.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLagreed with the hon. Member for Poplar that the Prime Minister had offered them very hard terms. Everyone was anxious that the representatives of the great mining industry should have the opportunity of bringing their case forward at a fresh sitting when the House could properly consider the arguments. Could not the right hon. Gentleman confine the bargain to the Committee stage? It was unreasonable to desire to make a bargain upon the Report stage when they were only in the Committee stage.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid to comply with a request to confine the bargain to the Committee stage of the Bill would be the height of folly. He could not see how it was possible to devote a greater amount of time to the Bill than had been suggested. If it were difficult to take the Report stage on the Monday it might be possible to take it on the Tuesday.
§ SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he had often heard of bargains of this kind being made when Members were anxious to avoid an all-night sitting, but the bargains were always confined to one stage of the measure in question. To couple the Report and Committee stages was a very far-reaching bargain to attempt to drive in the middle of the night. The Committee were prepared to agree to conclude the Committee stage on Friday, but they were not unanimous about the Report stage. He suggested, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the undertaking with regard to the Committee stage, leaving the Report stage out of the question for the present.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Committee would recognise the difficulty of collecting the opinion of hon. Members in two or three minutes. As far as he was able he endeavoured to ascertain that opinion, but apparently he did not obtain it correctly. Under these circumstances, it was clear that the proceedings must go on.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid it was evident from the cheers on the other side that there was an organised attempt to bully the Committee in this matter. If that was 542 the spirit abroad, the Opposition were quite prepared to fight. The suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Northumberland was an essentially reasonable one, and, with a view to the rapid passage not only of the Bill before the Committee but also of other business, the Prime Minister would be well advised to fall in with the proposal.
§ MR. TREVELYANpointed out that the sitting began with three quarters of an hour's obstruction by Ministerialists; then came the Motion for the adjournment—
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid he was merely indicating that all the delay had not been caused by the Opposition. Most of the debate on the Motion for adjournment might have been avoided if any intimation whatever had been conveyed—
* THE CHAIRMANWe cannot now go into the matter. I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Motion.
§ MR. TREVELYANthought at any rate it would be in order to refer to the discussion on the income-tax clause. By far the greater part of that debate might have been avoided had the Chancellor of the Exchequer shown a more conciliatory spirit. When it could not be shown that the dilatory tactics of the Opposition had been worse than those of the supporters of the Government it was most unreasonable to ask the House to make such sacrifices as the right hon. Gentleman. demanded
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONhoped, in the interest of the dignity and efficiency of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister would agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division. With his majority behind him the right hon. Gentleman could well afford to leave over the question of the conclusion of the Report stage, and the concession would probably save a double discussion on the coal tax. As they intended to act upon the Prime Minister's 543 suggestion that they should educate public opinion with regard to this iniquitous tax, it would be absolutely necessary to rediscuss it on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that sort of arrangement was likely to facilitate and forward business.
§ * MR. EUGENE WASONthought it a thousand pities that when they were on the point of coming to an agreement negotiations were broken off; and he ventured to urge that the right hon. Gentleman might so far meet them as to agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Berwick.
§ * MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)said he should like to add one word of appeal. There
§ were two matters which had prolonged the discussion and led to the breakdown of arrangements. The Prime Minister told them first of all that he must have the Bill on Monday night, and then they found it was not necessary to have it by Monday night at all. That was one thing. The other was this. Hon. Members opposite called out that they desired to sit all night. He thought, however, they on that side would be able to last out as long as hon. Members opposite. He really hoped the suggestion of his hon. friend would be accepted by the Prime Minister.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 253.)
545| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Harcourt Lewis V. (Rossendale | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Healy, Timothy Michael | Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.) |
| Allen, Charles P. | Higham, John Sharpe | Runciman, Walter |
| Asher, Alexander | Horniman, Frederick John | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Shackleton, David James |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Joicey, Sir James | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Jones,William (Carnarvonshire | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Bell, Richard | Joyce, Michael | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Brigg, John | Kennedy,Vincent P. (Cavan,W | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Law,Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Tennant, Harold John |
| Caldwell, James | Levy, Maurice | Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lloyd-George, David | Toulmin, George |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Lough, Thomas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Delany, William | Lyell, Charles Henry | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Doogan, P. C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Elibank, Master of | M`Crae, George | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Ellice,CaptEC(S Andrw'sBghs) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Whiteley, George (York,W.R.) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Partington, Oswald | Herbert Gladstone and Mr. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Price, Robert John | William M'Arthur. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Priestley, Arthur | |
| Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E.(Berwick) | Rea, Russell | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F. (Middlesex | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Brassey, Albert | Compton, Lord Alwyne |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) |
| Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O. | Bull, William James | Craig,Curtis Charles (Antrim,S. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Burdett-Coutts, W. | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Butcher, John George | Cubitt, Hon. Henry |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Balcarres, Lord | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Davenport, William Bromley |
| Balfour,Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | Cautley, Henry Strother | Denny, Colonel |
| Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW.(Leeds | Cavendish,V.C. W. (Derbyshire | Dickson, Charles Scott |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Dorington,Rt.Hon. Sir John E. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc. | Doughty, Sir George |
| Bingham, Lord | Charrington, Spencer | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Clive, Captain Percy A. | Doxford, Sir William Theodore |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Ridley,S.Forde (Bethnal Green |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Faber,Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Loder, Gerald Wa0lter Erskine | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Long,Col.CharlesW. (Evesham | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Fison, Frederick William | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose | Lowe, Francis William | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Fitzroy,Hn. Edward Algernon | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S. W. | Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Smith,HC (North'mb.Tyneside |
| Gardner, Ernest | Macdona, John Cumming | Smith,RtHn J.Parker(Lanarks |
| Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin &Nairn | Maconochie, A. W. | Smith, Hon. W.F. D. (Strand) |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | M'Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW | Spear, John Ward |
| Graham, Henry Robert | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Majendie, James A. H. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Greene,SirEW.(B'ryS.Edm ndS | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Thompson, Dr. E C(Monagh'n,N |
| Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Greene. W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire | Tomlinson, Sir. Wm. Edw. M. |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Tuff, Charles |
| Gretton, John | Milvain, Thomas | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Groves, James Grimble | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashford | Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow | Vincent,Col.SirCEH(Sheffield) |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Morpeth, Viscount | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morrell, George Herbert | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Heath,Arthur Howard(Hanley | Morrison, James Archibald | Welby,SirCharles G.E.(Notts.) |
| Heath, James (Staffords. N.W. | Mount, William Arthur | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Hobhouse,RtHn H.(Somers't,E | Murray,RtHn.A.Graham (Bute | Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset) |
| Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Howard,John(Kent,Faversham | Nicholson, William Graham | Wilson,A.Stanley (York,E.R |
| Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Hunt, Rowland | Percy, Earl | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Jeffreys,Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hn Col. W. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Kerr, John | Plummer, Sir Walter R. | |
| Keswick, William | Pretyman, Ernest George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Knowles, Sir Lees | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Pym, C. Guy | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.N.R.) | Ratcliff, R. F. | |
| Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham | Reid, James (Greenock) |
MR. CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey),speaking seated and covered, said he had an important Amendment on the Paper which he had put down practically at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and which he had heard the Government intended to accept. Was that to be shut out by this Motion? If so, it having been placed on the Paper at the invitation of the right hon.
§ Gentleman, he thought it extremely harsh treatment on the part of the Government.
* THE CHAIRMANsaid the point raised by the hon. Member was not a point of order. Moreover, the Amendment to which he referred was down in the wrong place.
§ Question put, "That the Question That the clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 254.)
549| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Arrol, Sir William | Balfour,Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Bain, Colonel James Robert | Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. |
| Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O. | Balcarres, Lord | Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Bingham, Lord | Grenfell, William Henry | Murray,RtHn.A.Graharn(Bute |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gretton, John | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F.(Middlesex | Groves, James Grimble | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Brassey, Albert | Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford | O'Neill, Non. Robert Torrens |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Percy, Earl |
| Bull, William James | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Butcher, John George | Heath,James (Staffords.,N.W. | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hobhouse,RtHnH.(Somers't,E | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Pym, C. Guy |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Howard,John(Kent,Faversham | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge |
| Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc. | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen |
| Charrington, Spencer | Kenyon-Slaney-,RtHn. Col. W. | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Kerr, John | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Keswick, William | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Knowles, Sir Lees | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim S. | Lawson,JohnGrant(Yorks,N.R | Sackville,ColonelS.G.Stopford) |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Davenport. W. Bromley | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Smith,H.C.(North'mbTyneside |
| Denny, Colonel | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Smith,RtHnJ Parker(Lanarks |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Long,RtHnWalter (Bristol, S.) | Spear, John Ward |
| Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lowe, Francis William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Thompson.DrE.C.(Monagh'n,N |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Thornton, Percy, M. |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M. |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Tuff, Charles |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Tufnell, Liout.-Col. Edward |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Macdona, John Cumming | Valentia Viscount |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Maconochie, A. W. | Vincent,ColSirC.E.H.(Sheffield |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Fison, Frederick William | M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Webb, Colonel William George |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose | Majendie, A. H. | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon |
| Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Forster, Henry William | Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick,S.W. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R. |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Milner,Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Gardner, Ernest | Milvain, Thomas | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nairn | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Morgan,David J(Walthamstow | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morrell, George Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Greene,SirE.W(B'ryS.Edm'nds | Morrison, James Archibald | Alexander Acland-Hood |
| Greene,Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Mount, William Arthur | and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Doogan, P. C. | Joicey, Sir James |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Elibank, Master of | Jones,William(Carnarvonshire |
| Allen, Charles P. | Ellice,CaptEC((S.Andrw'sBghs | Joyce, Michael |
| Asher, Alexander | Emmott, Alfred | Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W. |
| Atherlev-Jones, L. | Fenwick, Charles | Leigh, Sir Joseph |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Levy, Maurice |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Bell, Richard | Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Lloyd-George, David |
| Brigg, John | Fuller, J. M. F. | Lough, Thomas |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Grey,Rt. Hn. Sir E.(Berwick) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Caldwell, James | Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale | M'Crae, George |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Healy, Timothy Michael | M`Kenna, Reginald |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Higham, John Sharpe | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Horniman, Frederick John | O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid |
| Delany, William | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| O'Malley, William | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Partington, Oswald | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Price, Robert John | Soares, Ernest J. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Priestly, Arthur | Strachey, Sir Edward | Whiteley, George (York, W.R. |
| Rea, Russell | Sullivan, Donal | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Tennant, Harold John | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. | |
| Runciman, Walter | Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland | Toulmin, George | Herbert Gladstone and |
| Shackleton, David James | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Mr. William M'Arthur. |
§ Question put accordingly.
550§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 166; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 255.)
551| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Forster, Henry William | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Foster,Philip S.(Warwick,S.W. | Milner,Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Galloway, William Johnson | Milvain, Thomas |
| Arrol, Sir William | Gardner, Ernest | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gordon,HnJ E(Elgin &Nairn) | Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Balcarres, Lord | Graham, Henry Robert | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Balfour, Rt HnA.J.(Manch'rE. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Balfour,Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds | Greene,Sir E W(B'ryS.Edm'nd | Mount, William Arthur |
| Balfour,Kenneth R. (Christch.) | Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamin | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. | Murray,Rt HnA Graham(Bute |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Grenfell, William Henry | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Bingham, Lord | Gretton, John | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Groves, James Grimble | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Bowles,Lt.-Col.H F (Middlesex | Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford | Percy, Earl |
| Brassey, Albert | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Bull, William James | Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Butcher, John George | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Campbell,J H M(DublinUniv. | Hobhouse,Rt Hn H(Somers'tE | Pym, C. Guy |
| Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edward | Hope,J F(Sheffield,Brightside | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Howard,John(Kent,Faversham | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Cavendish,V. C. W.(Derbysbire | Hozier, Hon.James Henry Cecil | Ridley,Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Hunt, Rowland | Ridley,S.Forde(BethnalGreen |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt Hn. Col. W. | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A.(Worc.) | Kerr, John | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Keswick, William | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Knowles, Sir Lees | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos.H. A. E. | Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Lawson,John Grant(YorksN.R | Sackville, Col, S. G. Stopford |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lee,Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Craig,Charles Curtis(AntrimS.) | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Saville | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Smith,H C(North'mb.Tyneside |
| Davenport, W. Bromley | Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham | Smith,RtHnJ. Parker (Lanarks |
| Denny, Colonel | Long, Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Spear, John Ward |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lowe, Francis William | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Dorington,Rt. Hon.Sir John E. | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Thompson,DrE.C.(Monagh'n,N |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Tuff, Charles |
| Dyke,Rt Hon.Sir William Hart | Macdona, John Cumming | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Maconochie, A. W. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Vincent,Col SirC.EH(Sheffield |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | M'Iver,Sir Lewis(EdinburghW | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | M`Killop,James (Stirlingshire) | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Fison, Frederick William | Majendie, James A. H. | |
| FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Wentworth,Bruce C. Vernon |
| Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W. F. | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Maxwell,W J. H.(Dumfriesshire | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | Wrightson, Sir Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Wilson,A.Stanley (York, E.R.) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George | Alexander Acland-Hood |
| Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. | and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Grey,RtHnSir E. (Berwick) | Priestley, Arthur |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale | Rea, Russell |
| Allen, Charles P. | Healy, Timothy Michael | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Asher, Alexander | Higham, John Sharpe | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Horniman, John Frederick | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Shackleton, David James |
| Brigg, John | Joicey, Sir James | Shaw, CharlesEdward(Stafford |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Joyce, Michael | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Caldwell, James | Kennedy,Vincent P(Cavan,W. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Tennant, Harold John |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Levy, Maurice | Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr |
| Delany, William | Lloyd-George, David | Toulmin, George |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elibank, Master of | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Ellice,CaptE C(S Andrw'sBgbs | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Crae, George | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Kenna, Reginald | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid | |
| Freeman, Thomas Captain F. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilk enny) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Malley, William | Lough and Mr. Runciman. |
| Gladstone,Rt HnHerbert John | Partington, Oswald | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Price, Robert John |
§ Clause 7—
§ * MR. MCCRAEsaid that with the exception of the tax on tea this was the most serious proposition in the Finance Bill. It went directly in the teeth of all principles of sound finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had sheltered himself behind what Mr. Gladstone had done in regard to unclaimed dividends, but the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had applied them to a reduction of debt instead of taking them for revenue purposes. This was an extraordinary proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was faced with a deficit of £5,140,000, and to meet that deficit he took £2,800,000 from the Exchequer which had been raised by way of loan, and was going to apply this £1,000,000 from the unclaimed dividends. This was not only a departure from the principles of sound finance, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not fairly and squarely meeting his liabilities by the imposition of taxation. The deficit of last year and this year ought to have been met out of taxation, but the right hon. Gentleman had taken a course which no financial authority would approve. The un-claimed dividends ought to be applied to 552 the reduction of the National Debt. He made bold to say that at no period in the history of the country was there greater necessity for reducing the capital indebtedness of the nation, not only because of its financial, but of its moral effect. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would seriously consider the Amendment and give an opportunity to apply the unclaimed dividends to the reduction of the National Debt.
§ Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 25, to leave out the words from the word 'shall' to the word 'out,' in line 26, and insert the word 'pay.'"— (Mr. McCrae.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he saw nothing financially unsound in the proposal to cancel the stock. The present time called upon the taxpayers to make great sacrifices, and they ought not to be called upon to raise extra taxation for this special purpose. Not only would he not call upon the taxpayer to make this extra sacrifice, but he would I not be a party to it.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put forward a most extraordinary plea. It was on the same footing as a householder who said, "I am so badly off that I must sell my furniture." That situation was characteristic of this Government, which had been driven into a corner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must not be too sure that this money belonged to the State. This proposal could not be defended on the ground of sound finance. The effect of this expedient would be to mislead the public as to the amount of their expenditure. No really adequate explanation of the proposal had been given, and the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with the matter was a proof of the absolute folly and the farcical character of discussions taken at that hour of the morning. The proposal was absolutely unprecedented. The right hon. Gentleman was escheating the property of private persons, and Governments had done nothing of the kind since the time of Henry VIII.
§ MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)said it was exactly the same as Mr. Gladstone had done.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was exactly what Mr. Gladstone did not do. To apply the money to the repayment of debt was a very different thing from using it for current revenue. The proposal of his hon. friend was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a perfectly sound one; it had the authority of the greatest finance Minister the country had ever seen; and yet it was perfunctorily dealt with in a speech lasting less than two minutes. That was respectful neither to the House of Commons nor to the traditions of the right hon. Gentleman's own office, and it was the greatest condemnation of the action of the Government in forcing so important a measure through Committee at four o'clock in the morning. The Committee knew where this money was going to; it was going to pay for the extravagances of the Government. But where was it coming from? Why did not the Government admit that they had run into debt, and therefore were forced to find the money somewhere and some- 554 how? The Government had evidently come to the conclusion that all they had to do was to formulate their proposals, and that the House of Commons was not to discuss, but to pass them. It was time the Committee made it perfectly clear that that was a position they could not accept. The prime function of the Committee of the House of Commons was to discuss Supply and redress grievances. The right hon. Gentleman was forcing his proposals through, knowing that he could depend upon his majority, which was mechanical in more senses than one It was a monstrous and perfectly unparalleled proceeding that £1,000,000 should be taken from that money without the transaction being explained.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,proceeding, said that if anybody could explain what this fund was he should be pleased to resume his seat. Could anybody tell him what the fund was, or where it came from? This conduct on the part of the Government was really quite in keeping with most of their legislation. The only defence they had was the defence the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave at the very start when he said:"We are poor and needy, and really we have got to get our cash somehow."
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid his hon. friend had shown the enormous disadvantages under which they were discussing the proposal. Here at that hour in the morning they were asked to discuss a totally new subject of great complication and difficulty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only condescended to give them two-and-a-half minutes explanation. He thought the hon. Member who moved the Amendment made out a strong case against the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he had not attempted to meet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in these debates had been fond of quoting Mr. Gladstone, either correcting him or following his example. When he corrected him, he put a tax on stripped tobacco and lost all his revenue, because he gave it back in rebates, and now they had it stated that he was 555 following his example. But he was certainly not following his example when, instead of using the money for the extinction of the Debt, he used it for current purposes. The right hon. Gentleman defended his actions on the ground that he wanted money. That, of course, was the chronic state of the present Government, and surely it was no defence to say that he had such a large deficit in the last year as to frighten him, so that he dared not impose taxation to meet it. Had he wanted to follow Mr. Gladstone's example, he would have asked the House to allow him to propose taxation to meet his deficiency. There were two ways of dealing with this deficiency. One was to borrow this money, which ought to have gene to the extinction of the National Debt, and the other was to carry over the deficiency of £1,500,000. He was going to meet some of it by the surplus he expected to have in hand upon the taxation of the current year. It was not a sound transaction for a Government which had reduced the credit of the country to its present state to take £1,000,000 of Consols and sell them in the open market. The financial position as evidenced by this transaction was a very serious one, and the methods adopted for dealing with it would not redound to the credit of the Government.
§ MR. RUNCIMANcomplained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not explained whether the money he proposed to appropriate would remain the property of the anonymous owners. He understood that it would, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman himself had said that claims amounting to £4,000 or £5,000 were made each year upon this fund; therefore if any of this money was subsequently claimed it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to float new Debt. The likelihood of that contingency arising was doubtless remote, but it made no difference to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was meeting current expenditure out of a loan not yet raised and not out of current taxation. The assertion that to raise further taxation for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the year would be financially unsound was the most absurd statement ever made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer 556 to the House of Commons. The total expenditure of the year, amounting to £153,000,000, was being met by £140,000,000 of taxation and about £12,000,000 loans. That was a serious situation which had not been made clear to the country. The particular transaction under discussion, however, was only one of a series for which the present Budget was remarkable; it was one of the numerous makeshifts for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible; and it proved the Budget to be financially unsound, because it increased the burdens of the country and did not meet current expenditure out of current revenue.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that at first he was surprised that the Government did not want this discussion to be taken when it could be recorded in the newspapers, but he was surprised no longer. After the total lack of defence or justification it was perfectly clear why it was desired to hustle the matter through at such an inconvenient hour. The proposal to take £1,000,000 from the unclaimed dividends account was an astounding one in itself. Could the right hon. Gentleman state the total amount of the fund?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAbout £1,750,000.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that that meant that the right hon. Gentleman was taking four-sevenths of the sum which had been laboriously accumulated during a long period of years and using it simply to pay the out-of-pocket expenses of the Government. In time of peace the right hon. Gentleman had by questionable methods produced £1,000,000 merely for the purpose of relieving himself from the necessity of imposing taxation. That was a discouraging fact and was not at all creditable to the right hon. Gentleman's financial principles. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly ready to allow spending Departments to spend on a scale that had never been permitted before, but when it came to paying the bill, instead of imposing fresh taxation which would have enabled the country to realise the true financial position, he secretly abstracted £1,000,000 from this 557 fund. The country at large did not realise how the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to balance the account. Rather than impose taxation to meet current expenditure, he had abstracted £1,000,000 from the unclaimed dividends account for this special purpose. Taxation pressed hardly on the people of this country, but there was one thing about it which was healthy, and that was its disciplinary effect. It was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman who had been called at an early age to fill a high office should have lamentably disappointed the hopes of his well-wishers. He could well imagine that an occasion might arise when it would be legitimate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to this reserve fund and to take some money from it. But during the South African War the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol refused to be a party to such a transaction as this. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long this kind of thing was to go on. The right hon. Gentleman might get the proposal through this time, but what was his successor going to do? He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to think not only of himself but of those who would follow him. He was very anxious indeed that they should arrive at a compromise on this subject, and it was his intention to move that the amount should be £500,000 instead of £1,000,000. He urged the Committee to examine this proposal with the greatest attention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had advanced no argument to justify it at all, and until the Committee got more information it was their duty to resist the proposal to the utmost.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he took part in the discussion as a business man who wished to see matters carried out on a businesslike footing. Hon. Members would agree with him that the chief characteristic of any business man should be the ability to distinguish between what was capital and what was revenue. One of the worst parts of the Budget was this particular clause now before the Committee. They had discussed the merits of stripped tobacco, and the merits of the tea duty, which was particularly obnoxious to the working people of the country.
§ * THE CHAIRMAN (who had at this point relieved Mr. JEFFREYS)said that the hon. Member was discussing everything but the Question before the House.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that what he was trying to make good was that the particular features embodied in the clause they were now discussing were very much worse than any other in the Bill. Just think what a temptation there would be to any impecunious Chancellor of the Exchequer who had overstepped prudence in expenditure, to lay violent hands on these large sums of unclaimed dividends when his Treasury was empty. The right hon. Gentleman might do so by means of his pliant majority, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman himself must have qualms of conscience. Was this particular sum of money to be regarded in the future as a kind of "Tom Tidler's ground"? The right hon. Gentleman had no right whatever to absorb any part of this money; but he was trying to dam the lade, and was practically dipping his hands into the fund which ought to remain for some critical national eventuality. His own contention was that these sums ought to go to the reduction of the National Debt. The right hon. Gentleman should find some other means of meeting the large and extravagant expenditure of the Government. Was it not wonderful that when this Government came into power Consols were higher than ever they were before, and now Consols were lower than they ever were before? He was sure that the Government and the country would look back with regret on this, the worst piece of finance the House had ever considered.
§ * MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)wished to put the case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these unused assets could only he employed in reduction of the National Debt. The country had been getting the benefit of these unpaid dividends all this time and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to use them in order to make up his deficit he could only do so by increasing the national indebtedness. The moment that dividends were unclaimed the stocks became dead and the nation 559 and the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaped the benefit of them. In this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting in a way to mislead the public and the House of Commons. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the whole matter into serious consideration and put himself in a position to give them a sufficient explanation on the Report stage.
§ MR. McKENNAasked why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not sell Suez Canal shares or mortgage Westminster Abbey in order to make up his deficit. The right hon. Gentleman was realising the country's assets in order to pay his debts, and if they allowed that form of realisation of assets to take place they would never have any assets in the country. This was an expedient to cover up the extravagant expenditure of the Government. It was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clear off the burdens of each year out of the revenue of each year. He hoped that when the time came the right hon. Gentleman would at any rate go half way, and that he would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for
§ Oldham and be content with realising only £500,000 of public property.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked whether no answer of any kind was to he vouchsafed to the Committee. Under circumstances of great physical irritation the debate had been conducted with much good-humour and patience, but it was pushing the temper of the Committee to the extreme verge when the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat there and gave no answer to the Questions put to him. Were they to be confronted with the fact that the two representatives of the Treasury were perfectly unable to give practical reasons for this proposal. It would facilitate the proceedings if the right hon. Gentleman gave answers to the Questions put to him; but instead of that, he sat on the Treasury Bench with a stony glare, saying nothing. The course the right hon. Gentleman was taking would not add to his financial reputation.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 65. (Division List. No 256.)
561| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Davenport, W. Bromley | Heath,ArthurHoward (Hanley |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Denny, Colonel | Heath,James(Staffords. N.W.) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Dickson, Charles Scott | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Doughty, Sir George | Howard,John (Kent,Favers'm) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Hozier, Hon.James HenryCecil |
| Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Hunt, Rowland |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn. Col. W. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Kerr, John |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants.,W. | Knowles, Sir Lees |
| Bingham, Lord | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Blundell. Colonel Henry | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.N.R.) |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col.H.F(Middlesex | Fison, Frederick William | Lee,ArthurH (Hants.,Fareham |
| Brassey, Albert | FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Bull, William James | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Forster, Henry William | Locler, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Campbell, J.H. M. (DublinUniv. | Foster,Philip S. (Warwick,S.W. | Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Galloway, William Johnson | Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Gardner, Ernest | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Gordon,Hn.J.E. (Elgin&Nairn | Lowe, Francis William |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Graham, Henry Robert | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| ChamberlainRtHnJA(Worcest. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Greene,SirEW(B'ry S.Edm'nds | Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Grenfell, William Henry | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Gretton, John | Maconochie A. W |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Groves, James Grimble | M`Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (AntrimS. | Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Massey-Mainwairing, Hn. W.F. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Thompson,Dr.EC(Monagh'n,N |
| Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire | Pym, C. Guy | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Ratcliff. R. F. | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Milner,Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G. | Reid, James (Greenock) | Tuff, Charles |
| Milvain, Thomas | Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green | Valentia, Viscount |
| Morgan,DavidJ(Walthamstow | Robert, Samuel (Sheffield) | Vincent,Col.SirCEH (Sheffield) |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool) | Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Mount, William Arthur | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset) |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Murray,Rt Hn.A.Graham(Bute | Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.) | Wilson,A.Stanley (York,E.R.) |
| Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart |
| Nicholson, William Graham | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Smith,H.C(North'mb Tyneside | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Percy, Earl | Smith,Rt.HnJ.Parker(Lanarks | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Spear, John Ward | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Plummer, Sir Walter R. | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester) | Mr. Ailwvn Fellowes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Healy, Timothy Michael | Priestley, Arthur |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Higham, John Sharpe | Rea, Russell |
| Allen, Charles P. | Horniman, Frederick John | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Asher, Alexander | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Runciman, Walter |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Joicey, Sir James | Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) |
| Bell,Richard | Jones,William (Carnarvonshire | Shackleton, David James |
| Brigg, John | Joyce, Michael | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Sullivan, Donal |
| Caldwell, James | Levy, Maurice | Tennant, Harold John |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) |
| Delany, William | Lloyd-George, David | Thomas,DavidAlfred (Merthyr |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lough, Thomas | Toulmin, George |
| Elibank, Master of | Lyell, Charles Henry | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ellice,CaptEC(S Andrw'sBghs) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Walton, Joseph(Barnsley) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith) | M'Crae, George | Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Kenna, Reginald | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid | |
| Gladstone,Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn | O'Brien, Patrick(Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Grey,Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick) | O'Malley, William | Churchill and Mr. Emmott. |
| Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale | Partington, Oswald |
MR. CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put.'"
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,speaking seated, asked as a point of order if there was any precedent for the closure being moved on a new tax in Committee on a Finance Bill after only two and a half minutes explanation from a Minister.
§ * THE CHAIRMANsaid no point of order arose. The closure could be moved at. any time, and it was for the Chairman to accept or refuse the Motion.
§ Question put. "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 257.)
565| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Balcarres, Lord | Bingham, Lord |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r | Blundell, Colonel Henry |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Bowles, Lt.-Col.H.F(Middlesex |
| Arrol, Sir William | Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. | Brassey, Albert |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Bignold, Sir Arthur | Bull, William James |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv. | Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley | Percy, Earl |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire | Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cecil, Evelyn(Aston Manor) | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc. | Hunt, Rowland | Pym, C. Guy |
| Charrington, Spencer | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Kerr, John | Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Knowles, Sir Lees | Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green |
| Corbett, T. L.(Down, North) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.) | Lawson, J. Grant(Yorks., N.R. | Robertson, Herbert(Hackney) |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Denny, Colonel | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.) |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Doughty, Sir George | Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.) | Smith,H C(North'mb.Tyneside |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Smith,RtHn.J.Parker(Lanarks |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lowe, Francis William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Durning-Lawrence,Sir Edwin | Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale) | Spear, John Ward |
| Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)N |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Thompson,DrE.C(Monagh'n,N. |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Macdona, John Cumming | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Fison, Frederick William | Maconochie, A. W. | Tuff, Charles |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Majendie, James A. H. | Vincent,Col.Sir C.E.H(Sheffield |
| Forster, Henry William | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) | Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.) | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Gardner, Ernest | Milner, Rt.Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin &Nairn) | Milvain, Thomas | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R. |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morpeth, Viscount | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Greene,Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds | Morrell, George Herbert | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) | Morrison, James Archibald | Wyndham-Quin Col. W. H. |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Mount, William Arthur | |
| Gretton, John | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | TELLERS FOR THE AXES—Sir |
| Groves, James Grimble | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Nicholson, William Graham | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Fuller, J. M. F. | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Allen, Charles P. | Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) |
| Asher, Alexander | Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Healy, Timothy Michael | O'Malley, William |
| Bell, Richard | Higham, John Sharpe | Partington, Oswald |
| Brigg, John | Horniman, Frederick John | Priestley, Arthur |
| Brown, George M.(Edinburgh) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rea, Russell |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Joicey, Sir James | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Caldwell, James | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Runciman, Walter |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Joyce, Michael | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W. | Shackleton, David James |
| Delany, William | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Levy, Maurice | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Elibank, Master of | Lewis, John Herbert | Sullivan, Donal |
| Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs | Lloyd-George, David | |
| Emmott, Alfred | Lough, Thomas | Tennant, Harold John |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lyell, Charles Henry | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Crae, George | Toulmin, George |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Walton, Josph (Barnsley) | Whiteley, George(York, W.R.) | Herbert Gladstone and Mr. |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) | William M'Arthur. |
§ Question put accordingly.
566§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 258.)
567| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Gardner, Ernest | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gordon, Hn.J.E. (Elgin&Nairn) | Mount, William Arthur |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Graham, Henry Robert | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gray, Ernest(West Ham) | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Greene, SirE.W(B'r ySEdm'nds | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Balcarres, Lord | Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs.) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Balfour, Rt.Hn.A. J.(Manch'r | Grenfell, William Henry | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds | Gretton, John | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Groves, James Grimble | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Hardy, L.(Kent, Ashford) | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bingham, Lord | Hay, Hon, Claude George | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Pym, C. Guy |
| Bowles,Lt.-CoJ.H F(Middlesex | Heath, Tames (Staffords., N. W. | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Brassey, Albert | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside | Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge |
| Bull, William James | Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham | Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Roberts, Samuel(Sheffield) |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv | Hunt, Rowland | Robertson, Herbert(Hackney) |
| Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh. | Kerr, John | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Knowles, Sir Lees | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow) | Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.) |
| Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A.(Worc. | Lawson, J. Grant(Yorks., N.R. | Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Lee, A. H.(Hants., Fareham) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead) | Smith,H C(North'mb.Tyneside |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Smith,RtHn J.Parker(Lanarks |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Corbett, T. L.(Down, North) | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Spear, John Ward |
| Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.) | Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.) | Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Thompson,Dr.E C(Monagh'n,N |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Lowe, Francis William | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Denny, Colonel | Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale) | Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Tuff, Charles |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Valentia, Viscount |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Vincent,Col.Sir C.E.H(Sheffield |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Macdona, John Cumming | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Maconochie, A. W. | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn.Sir William Hart | M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh,W | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset) |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Majendie, James A. H. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F | Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Maxwell. W.J.H. (Dumfriessh. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Fison, Frederick William | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Milner, Rt.Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Milvain, Thomas | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | |
| Forster, Henry William | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) | Morpeth, Viscount | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Morrell, George Herbert | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Bell, Richard | Causton, Richard Knight |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Brigg, John | Churchill, Winston Spencer |
| Allen, Charles P. | Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Delany, William |
| Asher, Alexander | Buxton, Sydney Charles | Doogan, P. C. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Caldwell, James | Elibank, Master of |
| Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs | Levy, Maurice | Shackleton, David James |
| Emmott, Alfred | Lewis, John Herbert | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lloyd-George, David | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Lough, Thomas | Sullivan, Donal |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lyell, Charles Henry | Tennant, Harold John |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.) |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | M'Crae, George | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Toulmin, George |
| Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Trevelyn, Charles Philips |
| Healy, Timothy Michael | O'Brien, K.(Tipperary, Mid.) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Higham, John Sharpe | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Horniman, Frederick John | O'Malley, William | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Partington, Oswald | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Joicey, Sir James | Priestley, Arthur | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Rea, Russell | |
| Joyce, Michael | Rickett, J. Compton | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W. | Runciman, Walter | Herbert Gladstone and Mr. |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | William M'Arthur. |
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLI rise to a point of order. I desire to draw your attention to the fact that it is now broad daylight and to ask whether it would not be for the convenience of the Committee and in the interest of true economy that the top lights should be extinguished.
§ Clause 8.
§ MR. SOARESsaid he begged to move the omission of the words, "and the Acts amending that Act," his object being to enumerate each particular Act. They were not given any reference, marginal or otherwise, to the Acts with which this one was to be construed, relating to the duties of Excise and Customs. This was another very bad example of legislation by reference, which was growing up under the present Government. There was another example in reference to drawbacks. This matter was well worthy of the attention of the Attorney-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman Might very well find time to codify these Acts. He begged to move.
§ Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 34, to leave out the words 'and the Acts amending that Act.' "—(Mr. Soares.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the hon. Member had entirely misconceived legislation by reference. This was the invariable way of incorporating Acts of this kind—the ordinary form of drafting, 568 and it would be a childish waste of time to frame the clause in any other way.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid it would be a great pity if they had to listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman in these debates with any acerbity of manner. He was bound to say that the Government refused every proposal, however reasonable. It seemed to him that the Government could hardly object to the proposal of the hon. Member, which was not only a simple plan, but a very convenient one. There was a growing inconvenience caused by legislation by reference.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the Attorney-General seemed to know all about the clause. Would his hon. and learned friend say how many Acts and amending Acts would be included in the operation of this clause.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Gentleman would find the information he wanted in the Index to the Statutes.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred him to a book which he had never heard of before. He supposed he could go to the Library of the House of Commons and consult it there, bat he did not see why he should be forced to do that. Why should there be anything in these Acts which the ordinary person who had to obey them could not understand and would have to go through all these books in order to understand, although he might not have any means of access to the books? He thought the Attorney-General had 569 not met this matter in a proper spirit at all. He maintained that legislation by reference was a growing scandal.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked if the Chairman had given the closure on
§ the whole of the clause, or simply on the Amendment to this sub-section.
§ * THE CHAIRMANOn the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 259.)
571| AYES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Gardner, Ernest | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn) | Mount, William Arthur |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gosohen, Hon. George Joachim | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Graham, Henry Robert | Murray, Rt.HnAGraham(Bute |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Greene,SirEW.(B'ryS. Ed m'nds | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Balcarres, Lord | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Balfour,Rt.Hon. A. J.(Manch'r | Grenfell, William Henry | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds | Gretton, John | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. | Groves, James Grimble | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Here, Thomas Leigh | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bingham, Lord | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col.Edward |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley) | Pym, C. Guy |
| Bowles, Lt. Col.H.F.(Middlesex | Heath, James(Staffords.,N.W.) | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Brassey, Albert | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Reid, James(Greenock) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge |
| Bull, William James | Howard,John(Kent,Faversham | Ridley, S.Forde(BethnalGreen |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil | Roberts, Samuel(Sheffield) |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv. | Hunt, Rowland | Robertson, Herbert(Hackney) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire | Kenyon-Slaney,RtHon.Col.W. | Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Kerr, John | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Knowles, Sir Lees | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Chambarlain,RtHn.J. A.(Worc. | Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow) | Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R | Skewes-Cox,Thomas |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham | Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead) | Smith,Rt HnJParker(Lanarks) |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand) |
| Corbett, T. L (Down, North) | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Spear, John Ward |
| Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S. | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Long, Col.CharlesW(Evesham) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Long, Rt.HnWalter(Bristol,S.) | Thompson,DrEC(Monagh'n,N. |
| Davenport, W. Bromley | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Denny, Colonel | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Tuff, Charles |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col.Edward |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth | Valentia, Viscount |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Macdona, John Cumming | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Maconochie, A. W. | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart | 11tIver, SirLewis(EdinburghW | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset) |
| Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.) | Majendie, James A. H. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Wilson,A. Stanley(York, E.R.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire) | Wortley, Rt.Hon. C.B. Stuart |
| Fison, Frederick William | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose | Milner,Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon George |
| Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon | Milvain, Thomas | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | |
| Forster, Henry William | Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Foster PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.) | Morpeth, Viscount | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Morrell, George Herbert | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Allen, Charles P. | Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Asher, Alexander | Bell, Richard |
| Brigg, John | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Brown, George M.(Edinburgh) | Joicey, Sir James | Runciman, Walter |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) |
| Caldwell, James | Joyce, Michael | Shackleton, David James |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Delany, William | Levy, Maurice | Sullivan, Donal |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lewis, John Herbert | Tennant, Harold John |
| Elibank, Master of | Lloyd-George, David | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.) |
| Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrew'sBgh | Lough, Thomas | Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr |
| Emmott, Alfred | Lyell, Charles Henry | Toulmin, George |
| Fenwick, Charles | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | M'Crae, George | Walton, Joseph(Barnsley) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Kenna, Reginald | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wason, Eugene(Clackmnannan) |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid | Whiteley, George(York, W.R.) |
| Grey,Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Harcourt, LewisV.(Rossendale | O'Malley, William | |
| Healy, Timothy Michael | Partington, Oswald | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Higham, John Sharpe | Priestley, Arthur | Herbert Gladstone and Mr. |
| Horniman, Frederick John | Rea, Russell | William M'Arthur. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
572§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 156; Noes, 64. (Division List No.260.)
573| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Long, Col. CharlesW(Evesham |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.) | Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Arrol, Sir William | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fison, Frederick William | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose | Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgern on | Lucas, ReginaldJ(Portsmouth) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon.A.J.(Manch'r | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Balfour, Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds | Forster, Henry William | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. | Foster, PhilipS.Warwick, S.W. | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Bathurst, Hon. AllenBenjamin | Galloway, William Johnson | M`Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Gardner, Ernest | M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire) |
| Bingham, Lord | Gordon, HnJE(Elgin&Nairn) | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col.H.F,(Middlesex | Graham, Henry Robert | Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire |
| Brassey, Albert | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Brodrick, Rt. Bon. St. John | Greene,Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds' | Milner, Rt.Hn.SirFrederickG. |
| Bull, William James | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Milvain, Thomas |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Grenfell, William Henry | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv. | Gretton, John | Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Groves, James Grimble | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. | Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Mount, William Arthur |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.A(Worc. | Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Charrington, Spencer | Heath, James (Staffords.,N.W.) | Murray, RtHnAGraham(Bute |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hope,J.F. (Sheffield,Brightside | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Howard, John(Kent,Faversha' | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil | Percy, Earl |
| Craig, CharlesCurtis(AntrimS. | Hunt, Rowland | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Jeffreys, Rt Hon. Arthur Fred. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon.Col.W | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Davenport, W. Bromley | Kerr, John | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Denny, Colonel | Knowles, Sir Lees | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Pym, C. Guy |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen |
| Doming-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Dyke, Rt. Hon.SirWilliamHart | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool) | Thompson,DrEC(Monagh'n,N | Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.) |
| Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Thornton, Percy M. | Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B.Stuart |
| Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.) | Tuff, Charles | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Valentia, Viscount | |
| Smith, H. C.(North'mbTynesid | Vincent,Col.SirC.EH(Sheffield) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks | Warde, Colonel C. E. | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| South, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand) | Webb, Colonel William George | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Spear, John Ward | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne | |
| Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Harcourt,LewisV(Rossendale | Partington, Oswald |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Healy, Timothy Michael | Priestley, Arthur |
| Asher, Alexander | Higham, John Sharpe | Rea, Russell |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Horniman, Frederick John | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Bell, Richard | Johnson, John(Gateshead) | Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) |
| Brigg, John | Joicey, Sir James | Shackleton, David James |
| Brown, George M.(Edinburgh) | Jones. William(Carnarvonshire | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Joyce, Michael | Sullivan, Donal |
| Caldwell, James | Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Levy, Maurice | Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr |
| Delany, William | Lewis, John Herbert | Toulmin, Charles |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lloyd-George, David | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elibank, Master of | Lough, Thomas | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrew'sBrhs | Lyell, Charles Henry | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Emmott, Alfred | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Wason, Eugene(Clackinannan) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M`Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | M'Crae, George | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Kenna, Reginald | |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid | Soares and Mr.Charles Allen. |
| Gladstone, RtHnHerbertJohn | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E(Berwick) | O'Malley, William |
Mr. CHANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155 Noes, 65. (Division List No. 261.)
| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire. | Egerton, Hon A. de Tatton |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Chamberlain,Rt Hn J.A(Worc. | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Charrington, Spencer | Fison, Frederick William |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Clive, Captain Percy A. | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cochrane,Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon.A. J.(Manch'r | Compton, Lord Alwyne | Flannery, Sir Fortescue |
| Balfour,Rt HnGeraldW (Leeds | Corbett, T. L.(Down, North) | Forster, Henry William |
| Balfour,Kenneth R.(Christch. | Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S) | Foster,Philip S(Warwick,S.W. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Galloway, William Johnson |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Gardner, Ernest |
| Bingham, Lord | Davenport, William Bromley | Gordon,HnJ E.(Elgin & Nairn |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Denny, Colonel | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim |
| Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F.(Middlesex | Dickson, Charles Scott | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Brassey, Albert | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Gray, Ernest(West Ham) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Doughty, Sir George | Greene, SirEW(B'ry SEdm'nds |
| Bull, William James | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Grenfell, William Henry |
| Campbell,J.H.M (Dublin Univ. | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Gretton, John |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Dyke,Rt Hn. Sir William Hart | Groves, James Grimble |
| Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford | M`Killop,James (Stirlingshire) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Majendie, James A. H. | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley | Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG. | Smith,HC(North'mb. Tyneside |
| Hope, J. F.(Sheffield,Brightside | Milvain, Thomas | Smith,RtHnJ Parker (Lanarks |
| Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham) | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Hozier,Hon. James HenryCecil | Morgan,David J(Walthamstow | Spear, John Ward |
| Hunt, Rowland | Morpeth, Viscount | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Jeffreys,Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. | Morrell, George Herbert | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W | Morrison, James Archibald | Thompson,Dr E C(Managh'n,N |
| Kerr, John | Mount, William Arthur | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Knowles, Sir Lees | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Murray,Rt HnA Graham(Bute | Tuff, Charles |
| Lawson,John Grant(Yorks.N.R | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Farehain. | Nicholson, William Graham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Vincent,ColSirC E H(Sheffield |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Percy, Earl | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Whiteley,H.(Ashton und. Lyne |
| Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham) | Plummer, Sir Walter R. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Long,Rt.HnWalter (Bristol, S. | Pretyman, Ernest George | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R. |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Pym, C. Guy | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Ratcliff, R. F. | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Reid, James (Greenock) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Ridley. S. Forde(Bethnal Green | |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Alexander Acland-Hood |
| M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh, W | Royds, Clement Molyneux | and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Harcourt,Lewis V. (Rossendale | Priestley, Arthur |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Healy, Timothy Michael | Rea, Russell |
| Allen, Charles P. | Higham, John Sharpe | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Asher, Alexander | Horniman, Frederick John | Runciman, Walter |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Bell, Richard | Joicey, Sir James | Shackelton, David James |
| Brigg, John | Jones, William(Carnarvonshire | Shaw, Thomas (Hawic,k B.) |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Joyce, Michael | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Caldwell, James | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Tennant, Harold John |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Levy, Maurice | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr |
| Delany, William | Lloyd-George David | Toulmin, George |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lough, Thomas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elibank, Master of | Lyell, Charles Henry | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Ellice,CaptE C(S Andrw'sBghs | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Crae, George | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| Fenwick, Charles | M`Kenna, Reginald | Whiteley,George (York, W.R. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid | |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Malley, William | Herbert Gladstone and |
| Grey, Rt, Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) | Partington, Oswald | Mr. William M'Arthur. |
§ Question put, "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put"
575§ Question put accordingly.
| AYES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Balfour,Rt.Hn A.J.(Manch'r | Bowles,Lt.-Co1.H.F(Middlesex |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Balfour,Rt HnGeraldW(Leeds | Brassey, Albert |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John |
| Arrol, Sir William | Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamin | Bull, William James |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Bignold, Sir Arthur | Burdett-Coutts, W. |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Bingham, Lord | Campbell. J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Cautley, Henry Strother |
§ The Committee divided:—, 156; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 262.).
577| Cavendish,V C W(Derbyshire | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Hope, J. E. (Sheffield,Brightside | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Howard,John(Kent,Faversham | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc. | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hunt, Rowland | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred. | Pym, C. Guy |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col.W. | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Kerr, John | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Knowles, Sir Lees | Ridley, Hn.M.W.(Stalybridge |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lawson, JohnGrant (YorksN.R | Roberts, Samuel, (Sheffield) |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Denny, Colonel | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool) |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Doughty, Sir George | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Long,Rt.Hn Walter (Bristol, S. | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Smith,H.C.(North'mbTyneside |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Smith,RtHn. J. Parker(Lanarks |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand) |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Spear, John Ward |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Fison, Frederick William | Macdona, John Cumming | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose | Maconochie, A. W. | Thompson,DrE C(Monagh'n,N |
| Fitrzoy,Hon. Edward Algernon | M'Iver,Sir Lewis (EdinbughW. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Forster, Henry William | Majendie, James A. H. | Tuff, Charles |
| Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W. | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Maxwell,W J.H.(Dumfriesshire | Valentia, Viscount |
| Gardner, Ernest | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Vincent,ColSirC EH(Sheffield. |
| Gordon,Hn.J. E (Elgin & Nairn | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG. | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Milvain, Thomas | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morgan,David, L(Walthamstow | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Greene,SirEW (B'ry SEdm'nds | Morpeth, Viscount | Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord |
| Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs. | Morrell, George Herbert | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R. |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Morrison, James Archibald | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart |
| Gretton, John | Mount, William Arthur | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Groves, James Grimble | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford | Murray,Rt.HnA Graham (Bute | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Nicholson, William Graham | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Alexander Acland-Hood |
| Heath,James (Staffords. N.W. | Percy, Earl | and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick) | O'Malley, William |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale | Partington, Oswald |
| Allen, Charles P. | Healy, Timothy Michael | Priestley, Arthur |
| Asher, Alexander | Higham, John Sharpe | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Horniman, Frederick John | Runciman, Walter |
| Bell, Richard | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Brigg, John | Joicey, Sir James | Shackleton, David James |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh | Jones, William(Carnarvonshire | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Joyce, Michael | Sullivan, Donal |
| Caldwell, James | Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W | Tennant, Harold John |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Thomas,Sir A(Glamorgan, E.) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Levy, Maurice | Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr |
| Delany, William | Lewis, John Herbert | Toulmin, George |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lloyd-George, David | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elibank, Master of | Lough, Thomas | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Ellice,CaptE C(S Andrw'sBghs | Lyell, Charles Henry | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Emmott, Alfred | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Whiteley, George (York, W.R. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | M'Crae, George | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Kenna, Reginald | |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid | Soares and Mr. Russell Rea. |
| Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
§ [Mr JRFFREYS (Hampshire, N.)took the Chair.]
§ MR. JOHN WILSON,who rose at 6.10 A. M., said he thought this was a fitting time to make another appeal to the Leader of the House, and to ask him to agree to report Progress. So far as he was concerned he did not move to report Progress on account of his being tired, because every vote he had given had rather refreshed him. Nor did he move it because he wanted his speeches to be reported. He moved to report Progress because he was interested in the question of the coal tax, and he was rather sorry that an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway stated incidentally that if the debate took place now those interested in the question would not get their speeches reported. If they did wish publicity it was for the purpose of making their arguments known. They did not come to the House to seek popularity. The people they represented knew them very well. He attended a Royal Commission yesterday at eleven o'clock, and he had been in the House since half past three. They were all desirous of getting to bed for an hour or two before undertaking the labours of the day. He begged to move.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. John Wilson, Durham.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think they need bandy words as to whether it would be agreeable or not to go to bed. He had no doubt they might occupy themselves more agreeably at this hour after the night they had spent, but he did not really see any ground for changing the decision which was arrived at three or four hours ago. He did his best according to his lights to give the hon. Member the opportunity for which he asked, and if the suggestion he made fell to the ground it was through no fault of his own. It might have been that the suggestion he made did not meet the circumstances of the case—he did not argue that—but it was the best he could make. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would feel that, though under rather unsatisfactory 580 conditions, they were still in a condition to argue the case in which he was interested. He would remind the hon. Member that on the Report stage on Friday he would have a full opportunity for discussing the coal tax. An hon. Member had said something about the desirability of the discussion taking place in Committee rather than on the Report stage. He did not see any special advantage in discussing it in Committee, but, of course, if the hon. Gentleman wanted to discuss the question twice this was the only way he could do it. What he wished to point out was that, so far as he knew, there was little, if any, advantage in taking a debate of this kind on the Committee stage rather than on the Report stage. There were cases in which it was very important to take the discussion on the Committee stage.
§ MR. LOUGHThere are the questions of tea and sugar to be taken on the Committee stage as well as coal.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had made the best suggestion he could.
§ MR. FENWICKsaid several hon. Members had been sitting on a Royal Commission and on Private Bill Committees since eleven o'clock yesterday morning. He was sure the Prime Minister did not wish to unduly cut short the discussion on the coal tax, and if it was to be adequately debated it was bound to go on for some time. Those hon. Members who were due to sit on the Royal Commission and on Private Bill Committees might very well be excused from attending after their arduous labours in the House, running into two days. He asked the Prime Minister to consider what that meant. Witnesses were called from a considerable distance. Their expenses were running on. Counsel would have to be feed as if the Committee were meeting. All that meant not only considerable inconvenience to Members of the House, but very considerable inconvenience to those who were appearing before the Committees. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would give consideration to these facts, he would be inclined to allow Progress to be reported. This coal 581 tax could not be discussed adequately under two or three hours. He and his colleagues were justified in bringing this matter before the Committee. They knew that they would have this question of their own to bring before the Committee, and they had carefully abstained from obtruding themselves on the Committee in debating other questions. Therefore they appealed to the Prime Minister to agree to the Motion to report Progress.
§ SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the Prime Minister knew—he had admitted it —that the coal tax was an important question, and that it ought to be adequately discussed. The House had already been sitting for nineteen hours, and he doubted whether the Government were prepared to discuss the coal tax at that hour of the morning. The hon. Member for Durham was perfectly prepared to discuss it, but he doubted whether under the circumstances there would he adequate discussion. All - night sittings never accelerated the business of the House; they led to a certain exacerbation of feeling and he regretted that the Prime Minister had insisted some four hours previously upon having the unanimous consent of the House, not only to a fixed date for closing the Committee stage, but also to affix a date for closing the Report stage.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid that the proposal to report Progress was perfectly reasonable. and he protested against the manner in which the Prime Minister had received it. In the twelve years of his Parliamentary experience he had never witnessed a more reasonable Motion received with such indifference by the Government. He would remind the Prime Minister that they had to deal with all the new clauses which ranged over a variety of subjects. There was a review of the sugar tax, and several questions in regard to the tea tax which was the most important part of the Budget, as hon. Gentlemen opposite would find when they went down to their constituents. There was also the clause which dealt with the Sinking Fund. and now the Prime Minister asked the Committee to go into all these questions after sitting nineteen hours on end. He main- 582 tamed that it was a monstrous abuse of the forms of the House, and an act of tyranny which he had not seen equalled during the past twelve years. He had never seen such an abuse of the closure.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid there was an abuse of the closure on the part of Ministers. They had not arrived at that stage of the session when hon. Members might assume that the twelve o'clock rule was suspended. It was merely for the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and was a totally unprecedented procedure. In the great Budget of 1894 there was no closure. He held that there had been no prolonged attempt to obstruct the business of the House, and yet in one case the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted the closure on a new clause practically without discussion. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have some feeling for the dignity of the House. He thought that some hon. Gentlemen opposite should give fairplay now if they themselves expected to get fairplay in the future.
§ MR. JOHNSON (Gateshead)asked the Prime Minister to give way and allow Progress to be reported.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid they had witnessed a most unedifying spectacle. The Prime Minister had not met in a friendly spirit the very generous proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick. The right hon. Gentleman had not been listening to the debate and probably he had been preparing his speech for the British Association. [Cries of "Withdraw."] He would gladly withdraw. but he must remark that the lengthy sitting had not improved the temper of hon. Members opposite. He only hoped that it would not prove as detrimental to their health as it had been to their manners.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid one result had been to secure that the coal tax would not be discussed in the 583 small hours of the morning at a time when discussion would not be noticed, but at a period when it would be published and an especial amount of interest would be added to the debate. The discussion would take place in broad daylight. The Prime Minister had treated the House in a merciless manner, but the right hon. Gentleman would have to sit there until the coal tax was discussed or the Speaker took the Chair to begin the business of the next day. The Prime Minister said truly that hon. Gentlemen did not want to discuss the whole matter over again, but on the Report stage they might wish to make a few additions to their previous speeches. It was most convenient to have a discussion when the House was in Committee as mistakes could then more easily be corrected and Members could rise more than once. He could not understand why the Prime Minister was so anxious to prevent the discussion on the coal tax taking place at an hour when it could be reasonably discussed. But, after all, the right hon. Gentleman was not a free agent. The feelings of his supporters had been ruffled, and therefore they would not allow the discussion to come on at a reasonable hour. As a way out of the difficulty, he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should ascertain from those interested in the coal tax how long they would require for the discussion, fix the discussion for Friday, and let them have it in Committee or on Report as they preferred. The right hon. Gentleman would not be in any way the loser, because there would be a discussion on the coal tax on Friday in any case.
§ * MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER (Cumberland, Eskdale)hoped the Prime Minister would not accept the Motion. He would suggest that the hon. Member for Old-ham was suffering, no doubt because of the great interest he took in Chinese labour, from the disease known as beriberi.
§ * MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid he bowed entirely to the Deputy-Chairman's ruling, but he had made that remark because he had heard that the most 584 marked and characteristic symptom of the disease was a terrific swelling of the head.
LYELL (Dorsetshire, E.)On a point of order, may I ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member is not precluded from discussing that subject by a Notice of Motion already on the Paper.
§ MR. BELL (Derby)said he understood that berai-beri was contagious. He wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman had caught it.
§ * MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid he thought they could have got on very well, he would not say without all, but without nine or ten of the speeches of the hon. Member for Oldham that night. He-hoped the Motion would not be accepted.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked the Prime Minister whether he intended to take this important discussion of the coal tax in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He submitted that he was gaining nothing whatever, and he was losing a great deal by forcing them to discuss the coal tax after the House had sat for over seventeen hours. It was entirely unprecedented and a violation of the regulation by which the Finance Bill could be discussed after twelve o'clock, which was only for the purpose of allowing a particular piece of business then under discussion to be finished. There was no reason whatever for refusing this Motion to report Progress. They did not wish to discuss the coal tax twice unless the Prime Minister forced them to do it. He was not only gagging the House of Commons, but he was also gagging the Press of the country, because he was forcing them to discuss it at a time when the Press could not report the matter. They would be driven to raise the question again on the Report stage and discuss it at a time when it could be reported.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLI rise to a point of order to call your attention to the hon. Member for the Altrincham Division, who repeatedly interrupts, and to ask if these interruptions are orderly.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he would appeal to the Prime Minister whether he was not dealing a blow at the prestige and political reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In his absence, how could they have a proper and adequate reply?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURHe will be here when the coal tax is discussed.
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER here again took the Chair.]
§ MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he should be glad if the Prime Minister would give them a distinct reply. He was deeply sorry the Prime Minister should be so obdurate? They were attached to the Prime Minister, but a small concession on his part would do a great deal to still more endear him to their hearts.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ MR. McKENNAasked, on a point of order, whether the closure should be accepted when the Chairman (Mr. Lowther) had not been in the House during the discussion. He was under the impression that the closure was given by the Chairman as a matter of discretion, and not as a matter of necessity whenever it was asked for by a Minister of the Crown. If it were given as a matter of discretion, he wished to ask how that discretion could be exercised when the Chairman had not been in the House.
§ * THE CHAIRMANI naturally informed myself of what had been done in my comparatively short absence.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLAre we to understand that you adhere to your ruling?
§ * THE CHAIRMANYes.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 263.)
| Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriess) | Pym, C. Guy | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Ratcliff, R. F. | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Milner,Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G. | Reid, James (Greenock) | Tuff, Charles |
| Milvain, Thomas | Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge) | Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Ridley,S.Forde (Bethnal Green | Valentia, Viscount |
| Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Vincent,Col.SirCEH (Sheffield) |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Mount, William Arthur | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Murray,Rt Hn.A.Graham(Bute | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Wilson,A.Stanley(York,E. R.) |
| Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Nicholson, William Graham | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Smith,H.C(North'mb Tyneside | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Percy, Earl | Smith,RtHn.J.Parker(Lanarks | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Spear, John Ward | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Plummer, Sir Walter R. | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Thompson,Dr.E.C.(Monagh'nN |
| NOES | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Harcourt,Lewis V. (Rossendale | Priestley, Arthur |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Healy, Timothy Michael | Rea, Russell |
| Allen, Charles P. | Higham, John Sharpe | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Asher, Alexander | Horniman, Frederick John | Runciman, Walter |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Bell, Richard | Joicey, Sir James | Shackleton, David James |
| Brigg, John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Joyce, Michael | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Caldwell, James | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Tennant, Harold John |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Levy, Maurice | Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas,DavidAlfred (Merthyr |
| Delany, William | Lloyd-George, David | Toulmin, George |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lough, Thomas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elibank, Master of | Lyell, Charles Henry | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Ellice,Capt.EC(S.Andrw'sBghs | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Crae, George | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Kenna, Reginald | Whiteley, George (York, W. R. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid | |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Malley, William | Herbert Gladstone and Mr. |
| Grey,Rt.Hn.Sir E.(Berwick) | Partington, Oswald | William M'Arthur. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Emmott, Alfred | Leigh, Sir Joseph |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Levy, Maurice |
| Allen, Charles P. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Asher, Alexander | Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Lloyd-George, David |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Fuller, J. M. F. | Lough, Thomas |
| Bell, Richard | Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Brigg, John | Grey,Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Harcourt,Lewis V. (Rossendale | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Healy, Timothy Michael | M'Crae, George |
| Caldwell, James | Higham, John Sharpe | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Horniman, Frederick John | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid. |
| Delany, William | Joicey, Sir James | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Jones,William(Carnarvonshire) | O'Malley, William |
| Elibank, Master of | Joyce, Michael | Partington, Oswald |
| Ellice,CaptE.C.(SAndrw'sBghs | Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W. | Priestley, Arthur |
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 155. (Division List No. 264.)
| Rea, Russell | Sullivan, Donal | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Tennant, Harold John | Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan) |
| Runciman, Walter | Thomas,Sir A(Glamorgan E.) | Whiteley,George(York,W.R.) |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Thomas,DavidAlfred (Merthyr) | |
| Shackelton, David James | Toulmin, George | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr |
| Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | John Wilson (Durham) and |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Walton. Joseph (Barnsley) | Mr. Fenwick. |
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Gardner, Ernest | Mount, William Arthur |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nairn | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Murray,Rt.HnA.Graham (Bute |
| Arrol, Sir William | Graham, Henry Robert | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Greene,SirE.M.7.(B'rySEdmn'nds | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Balcarres, Lord | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour,Rt.Hn. A. J.(Manch'r | Grenfell, William Henry | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds) | Gretton, John | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Groves, James Grimble | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward |
| Bingham, Lord | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pym, C. Guy |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Heath,Arthur Howard(Hanley | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F (Middlesex | Heath, James (Staffords.N. W. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Brassey, Albert | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Ridley,Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge |
| Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John | Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside | Ridley,S.Forde (BethnalGreen) |
| Bull, William James | Howard,John(KentFaversham | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hozier,Hon.James Henry Cecil | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Campbell,JH.M.(Dublin Univ. | Hunt, Rowland | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn. Col. W. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Kerr, John | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Knowles, Sir Lees | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc. | Lawson, J, Grant (Yorks.N.R. | Seely,Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Lee,ArthurH.(Hants. Fareham | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead) | Smith,HC.(North'mb Tyneside |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Legge, Col. Hon. Henage | Smith,RtHn.J.Parker(Lanarks |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Llewellyn Evan Henry | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Spear, John Ward |
| Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S. | Long,Col.CharlesW (Evesham. | Stirling-Max well,Sir John M. |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S. | Talbot, Lord E (Chichester) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Thompson,DrEC(Monaghan,N. |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Denny, Colonel | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Tuff, Charles |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col.Edward |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon Alfred | Valentia, Viscount |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A.Akers | Macdona, John Cumming | Vincent,Col.SirCEH (Sheffield) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Maconochie, A. W. | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | M'Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW. | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart | M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Egerton, Hon. A. dc Tatton | Majendie, James A. H. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.) | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Finch Rt.Hon. George H. | Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire | Wilson,A.Stanley (York,E.R.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Fison, Frederick William | Milner,Rt.Hn Sir Frederick G. | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose- | Milvain, Thomas | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow | |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| FosterPhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.) | Morrell, George Herbert | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Morrison, James Archibald | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
§ MR. LOUGHmoved a new clause providing that the sugar duty imposed in 1901 should expire on the 1st of July this year. He said that so far as his observation went there had been no obstruction on this Bill. The Amend- 590 ment which he proposed was a very important one. It would have a very striking effect on one of the most important articles of commerce, and this was the only way in which they could call attention to the operations of the 591 sugar duties. The original sugar duty, which was a most oppressive tax, was accepted very hurriedly by the House, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was to be a permanent tax, the House generally acknowledged that it was a war tax. In the first year of its imposition it produced £6,399,000; in the second year £4,898,000; and in the third year £5,426,000, so that the Committee would see that this tax was a most disappointing one. The tax was laid on one of the most important articles of food in the country, and an article which had been steadily increasing in use for manufactures. Since the tax had been imposed a check had been given to its use by the people as a food and as an article of manufacture. The sugar duties were now levied under an entirely new method from that employed in 1901, and he thought the Committee would see that if these changes were to be made they should have had new legislation. It was not enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he got as much from the sugar duty as he estimated to get. This matter was a mere subject of calculation on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was a very serious matter to the trade of the country. It was a very grave thing if the consumption of sugar was falling off as the Customs returns indicated. He asked if the downward progress was likely to be checked, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the clause, he should tell them whether he saw his way to take any steps in that direction, or whether he thought it necessary to do anything whatever.
§
New Clause (Amendment of Section 2 of Finance Act, 1901)—
On the first day of July, 1904, the duties on sugar, molasses, glucose, and other articles, imposed by Sections 2 and 5 of the Finance Act, 1901, and the drawbacks allowed under the Act, shall cease and determine."—(Mr. Lough.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
592§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that with regard to the alleged falling off in the consumption of sugar, and the inquiry whether he could hold out any expectation of a recovery having taken place, of being likely to take place, he would point out that the figures of the second year were much larger than those of the year before. Last year they got almost exactly the estimated amount. They had £5,750,000 instead of £6,000,000, and the difference of the £250,000 was due to the alteration in the duty that was charged. Sugar instead of being refined in bond was now refined out of bond, and but for that cause there would have been the anticipated £6,000,000. There had been, however, a very considerable falling off in other articles of consumption, such as spirits. Sugar held its own, and he had no reason to suppose that it would not produce the full amount estimated for the present year. As to the scale of duty imposed by the Act, it might be possible to make some alteration, but he was afraid it would have a rather disturbing effect on the trade. The hon. Member had asked whether he could hold out the hope of an early abolition of the duty. He was afraid he could not hold out any hope of that kind. When the duty was proposed by the hon. Member for West Bristol it was proposed as a permanent duty, and he could not make any pledges as to the future. He did not suppose the hon. Member expected the new clause to be accepted, and presumed it was only put down for the purpose of raising discussion.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the present discussion showed the difficulty that the House was put to in discussing these taxes which were permanent, and not annual taxes. He experienced considerable difficulty in discussing this matter at the present moment, because he did not think it would be taken that night. He appreciated some of the explanations given by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the consumption of sugar. It was clear that the tax was unwieldy and disorganised the trade, and as regarded the consumer the full weight of the tax had fallen on him and something in addition. There had been a considerable falling off in the consumption of sugar since the tax 593 was imposed three years ago, and it could not be wondered at. When the consumers had to pay five or six millions more of taxation on tea, tobacco, spirits, and beer, and six millions more on sugar, it naturally affected the consumption. The right hon. Gentleman had made no reply with reference to the basis on which the tax was levied. In the schedule there was a carefully arranged table under which the duty was to be charged according to different percentages of polarisation. In practice that scale had practically disappeared, and he submitted that before such an alteration was made the matter ought to have been brought before the notice of Parliament. He was glad the matter had been raised, though he admitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly be expected to give up the whole of the revenue under present conditions.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid sugar consumers had fared somewhat unfortunately at the hands of the Government, because, not only had there been a Convention under which the price of sugar had been raised, but a heavy tax had been imposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, by which an additional £3,000,000 a year was raised. That tax was a very real and severe tax, but it was a good tax, inasmuch as it reached the consumer, as all indirect taxation ought properly to do. It placed the burden on the backs Of consumers as a whole, and did not draw thousands of pounds out of the pockets of a few unfortunate individuals, as other proposals would do. But though he would like to see the duty removed, he agreed that it would be difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the clause. The principle of the original arrangement was that the whole of the burden should descend upon the consumer, and that the trade should not be injured at all. The calculations upon which that arrangement was based were so carefully made, that it would be difficult for any partial repeal to be effected without the concession being largely absorbed by the trade, and thus it would be some time before the consumers derived any advantage. It was not surprising that there had been a great decline in consumption, as that must necessarily 594 be the result of the imposition of a heavy duty upon an article in general use. The right hon. Gentleman also declined to embark upon an elaborate alteration of the duty. He was again bound to say that he thought he was right. There were, no doubt, some alterations some of them would like to see, but the sugar trade had been disturbed enough already. The double dislocation which had disturbed the sugar trade had made that trade highly feverish, sensitive, and in an irritable condition, and further alterations, excepting in the nature of reduction, were greatly to be deprecated. Sugar was a subject they should be particularly careful in dealing with, because it was not only an article of great importance as a commodity, but it was also a most important raw material which was the foundation of a large number of secondary industries which had increased the gross exports of the country, and had found employment for a great number of persons.
§ * THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! That has really nothing whatever to do will the Motion before the Committee.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was only endeavouring to show the importance of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said this tax was not imposed for the purposes of the war, but that it was imposed by the hon. Member for West Bristol as a permanent part of the taxation of the country. He was not sure that was the intention of the hon. Member. Of course, the excuse for the occasion was the war, and of course also there had been a steady rise in the permanent expenditure; but he did not think the hon. Member for West Bristol contemplated that the tax would stay on for ever, and that they would never have the sugar tax removed from the list of duties.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had never held that the sugar tax was not a just tax so long as the occasion was an adequate one to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in imposing it. He dared say that during the war it might have been a perfectly fair tax to impose. It was right that every class of the community should take its share of the burdens of 595 the war which the Government was carrying through. Nor had he ever taken the view that under no conditions should they impose a tax on sugar. For instance, if they had any great scheme of social reform it would be perfectly fair to impose a tax on sugar, among other things, so that the people who got the benefit should take their share of the burden. But the sugar tax was like the income-tax in this respect—that the income-tax had always been treated as a war reserve by every great Chancellor of the Exchequer and by every Government up to the present Government. He always thought that taxes like the sugar and tea taxes which involved the food of the people should be treated as special reserves. His objection to the sugar tax was the same as he had already raised to the tea tax. It was a tax imposed without any corresponding benefit at all. It was simply a tax to help the Government out of a difficulty they had brought upon themselves. He did not think that under those conditions they ought to continue a tax of that character as a permanent burden upon the people of the country. It added a burden to the poorer classes of the people, because sugar was an essential part of their daily food, and if they cut it down very largely, they diminished the comfort of the poorer classes of the community. It was a tax that the poor bore more proportionately to their incomes than the wealthy portion of the community, and therefore it ought not to be imposed without very good reason for doing so. The hon. Member for Islington had pointed out that one effect of the tax was to diminish the consumption. That must necessarily be so. The tax amounted to a considerable part of the income of a working-class family. If the country were confronted with great perils and had to put forth all its reserve and energy in order to go through those perils, then every section of the community, rich and poor, high and low, ought to take their share; but when that trouble was passed and the only difficulties were the difficulties of the Government, then he thought the poorer classes of the people had a right to say they really ought to release them from this burden.
§ MR. RUNCIMANcalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
§ A count having been made and a quorum formed.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcontinued his remarks, and submitted that the Government had not really considered how their financial arrangements affected the great bulk of the people. They had only to look at the sugar tax to see how their taxation had depressed the standard of living. The consumption of sugar had so diminished that the amount derived from the duty had decreased from £6,400,000 in 1901–2 to £5,700,000 in 1903–4, a decrease which represented a prodigious diminution in the consumption of sugar, probably by the poorer classes of the community. He protested against the tax because it imposed a heavy burden upon the poorest of the poor, and because it was necessitated, not by any great national emergency but by the extravagance and mismanagement of the Government.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid it was only by such an Amendment as that under discussion that this duty could be brought before the Committee. But for the war with the Transvaal they would probably never have witnessed the birth of the tax, but the condition of the national finances was such that it had now to be regarded as a permanent part of their fiscal system. Sugar was one of the prime necessities of life.
§ * THE CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Member was not entitled to go over the whole field of indirect taxation.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsubmitted that he was simply following a line of argument which had been pursued by others.
§ * THE CHAIRMANsaid he had already stopped other hon. Members from taking that course.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he would not pursue that point further. According to the figures of the right hon. Gentleman the duties had not produced 597 the amount which had been estimated to come from them, but he thought the Committee ought to have statistics showing the present consumption of sugar as compared with the consumption when the duties were imposed, so that the actual effect of the duty might be seen. Figures might also be given showing the result of the duties upon prices.
§ * THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member seems determined to go beyond my ruling. I must warn him that if he again infringes it I shall have to put the Standing Order into force.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he had no desire to contravene the ruling of the Chair, but it was somewhat difficult to know where the line had to be drawn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that returns dealing with the taxes upon food gave evidence of a decrease in the purchasing power of the people. That was a very important statement coming from one in the right hon. Gentleman's position, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had increased the price of tea, sugar—
§ * THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now dealing with matters which are wholly irrelevant to the Motion before the Committee.
§ MR. McKENNAsubmitted that as the duty upon sugar affected the price the hon. Member was surely in order in discussing the price.
§ * THE CHAIRMANBut the lion. Member was dealing with other matters, including tea.
§ MR. McKENNATea and sugar together.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that at any rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that the purchasing power of the people was decreasing. That was a most grave statement, and he could only hope that next year the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give la better account of the financial position of the country.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid the objections to this tax were first stated when it was 598 proposed to impose it, and every prophecy which was then made had been fulfilled. The tax had increased the price of sugar so considerably that the consumption per head had actually gone down. The reduction was by no means insignificant, being no less than 10 per cent. in the course of three years. That was a serious drop, and the present Government were directly responsible for it. In order to arrive at what had been the decrease or increase in the consumption of commodities they were bound, of course, to depend upon the Customs figures which varied from year to year as revenue was anticipated or not anticipated. In regard I to the sugar tax they had now had three years in which to judge of the effect of it. The figures showed clearly that, so I far from this being a tax that would be easily absorbed by the trade without falling in any great measure on the consumer, the whole of the tax had fallen on the consuming classes. One of the great faults of this tax was that the graduation of the burden went in the wrong direction. Those who were the poorest had to pay the largest portion of the tax. Another objection was that it was not only a tax on an article of food but a tax on trade. He did not refer to subsidiary trades, but to some trades which had to use sugar in the course of their manufactures. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pledged to a system which would not allow any tax to be laid on raw materials. The 10 per cent. tax proposed by the tariff reformers was not to touch raw materials. There was here a tax of 33 per cent. on a raw material, and it was having a serious effect on certain trades which were bound to use sugar in the course of their manufactures. If the right hon. Gentleman would not consider the poor, he hoped he would consider the case of the manufacturing classes and that this protest would have some effect on the Budget of next year.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his sympathetic answer stated that the duties which were imposed in 1901 required his attention. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was a serious falling off in the consumption of sugar. That was a matter of very grave significance, and he 599 thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well during the year to turn his attention to it. The duties on articles which contained sugar were of the most complicated character. He thought they were entitled to point out that, while a great burden had been cast on the people, the sugar tax was rather disappointing as a source of revenue. He was sorry to hear the hon. Members for Carnarvon and Oldham rather approve of the tax. He thought they were both free-traders. The sooner the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or some of his successors, could turn their attention to the question how to get rid of the sugar duties the better it would be for the country.
§ MR. McKENNAsaid the figures showed a total decline in the consumption of sugar amounting to 10 per cent., but the position was still more serious than appeared from that fact, because if they analysed the figures it would certainly be fair to say that the sugar duty had not affected the consumption of sugar in the case of at least half of the people of this country. What did that mean? It meant that the 10 per cent. decrease in consumption had altogether fallen on the remaining 50 per cent. If they were to analyse them further, it would be found that, so far from being a decline of 10 per cent. in the case of the poorest class, it would be 20, 30, or 40 per cent. That was a very serious matter. He was
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Hammond, John | Priestley, Arthur |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale | Rea, Russell |
| Allen, Charles P. | Higham, John Sharpe | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Asher, Alexander | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Runciman, Walter |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Horniman, Frederick John | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Bell, Richard | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Shackleton, David James |
| Brigg, John | Joicey, Sir James | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Cornarvonshire | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Caldwell, James | Joyce, Michael | Sullivan, Donal |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Kennedy,Vincent P. (Cavan,W. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.) |
| Delany, William | Levy, Maurice | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lewis, John Herbert | Toulmin, George |
| Elibank, Master of | Lloyd-George, David | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ellice,CaptEC(SAndrew'sBghs. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Emmott, Alfred | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith) | M'Crae, George | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Kenna, Reginald | |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid | Lough and Mr. George |
| Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn | O'Brien (Patrick Kilkenny) | Whiteley. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Malley, William | |
| Grey,Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick) | Partington, Oswald |
§ sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer realised how important it was for the health of children, at any rate, that they should have an adequate supply of sugar. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention most seriously to the need of getting rid of this tax. If his hon. friend went to a division he would support the new clause.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid his hon. friend the Member for West Islington had been unnecessarily severe when he rebuked him for the way in which he had spoken of this tax. Everyone would like to see indirect taxation reduced to a minimum, but he believed this had been an exceedingly good tax for it had operated on the people in such a way as to make them feel it. He thought it ought to be felt. He did hope that the hon. Gentleman would pursue his Amendment to a division. He thought it was very important, although he regarded the tax as a valuable financial expedient. He protested against the way in which the Committee had been treated for the last seventeen or eighteen hours, It was so different from the manner in which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had managed his financial arrangements.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 150. (Division List No. 265.)
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Mount, William Arthur |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Graham, Henry Robert | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Murray, Rt.HnAGraham(Bute |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Greene,SirEW.(B'ryS.Edm'nds | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Balcarres, Lord | Grenfell, William Henry | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J.(Manch'r | Gretton, John | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds | Groves, James Grimble | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Balfour,Kenneth R. (Christch.) | Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Bingham, Lord | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Heath, James(Staffords.,N.W.) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col.HF(Middlesex) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Pym, C. Guy |
| Brassey, Albert | Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Howard,John(Kent,Faversham | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bull, William James | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hunt, Rowland | Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green) |
| Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.) | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon Col.W. | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Kerr, John | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire | Knowles, Sir Lees | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Chamberlain,Rt.Hn J.A.(Worc. | Lee, Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Charrington, Spencer | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Smith, H.C(North'mb.Tyneside |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Smith,RtHnJ.Parker (Lanarks) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand) |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Spear, John Ward |
| Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Thompson,DrE.C.(Monagh'n,N |
| Davenport, W. Bromley- | Lowther, C.(Cumb.Eskdale) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Denny, Colonel | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) | Tuff, Charles |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Valentia, Viscount |
| Douglas, Rt.Hon.A.Akers- | Macdona, John Cumming | Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Maclver, David (Liverpool) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Maconochie, A. W. | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne) |
| Egerton, Hon. A. D. de Tatton | M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh,W. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Majendie, James A. H. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fison, Frederick William | Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon | Milner,Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Milvain, Thomas | |
| Forster, Henry William | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S,W.) | Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Morpeth, Viscount | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Morrell, George Herbert | |
| Gordon, Hn.J.E(Elgin&Nairn) | Morrison, James Archibald |
§ MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he claimed to speak for the whole body of miners on the subject of the coal tax. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Doncaster say that he represented a very large number of miners, and that he thought if he spoke in favour this tax he was expressing their will and their wish. He (Mr. Wilson) had attended all the conferences which had been held by the miners of the nation and had seen on all occasions the representatives of Yorkshire miners there in very large force, although not in such 602 large numbers as they who were on the seaboard. They felt that their trade was jeopardised by this tax. If the hon. Member held the views he had put forward he was surprised that the miners had sent him there to represent them. No doubt when the next general election came the hon. Member would find a tribunal erected for him, and if he voted for this tax the condemnation of his of conduct would be most severe. The Prime Minister had said that they who represented miners were eager to get to the coal tax and had little, if any, 603 regard for the tea and sugar taxes. He hoped the Prime Minister did not believe that, because they took an interest in both the tea and the sugar taxes, as they felt that these indirect taxes were pressing very heavily upon the people, and were pressing still more severely on account of this coal tax. In discussing this question they took up the position that the smaller the income the heavier was the pressure of taxation. Taxation was simply like a burden, and when put upon a strong man was not nearly so heavy as when put upon a weak and delicate man. A miner whose income was only 15s. or 16s. a week found this imposition a dual evil because wages were lessened through the working time being limited and the burden upon his small income was enlarged. They had not taken any active part in the discussion on the tea and sugar duties simply because they tried to reserve their strength for this opportunity and did not desire to make themselves in any way a bore to the House. They reserved themselves for the question of which they had knowledge, and which they could state in such a manner as to give some enlightenment to the House. He and his colleagues wanted to discuss this matter in a friendly fashion. He liked to wear his heart on his sleeve, and he had some sympathy with the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he had seen the right hon. Gentleman do his best to pull through an obnoxious Budget. He was not a god, but he would like to put himself in the position of a god who sympathised with a good man who was struggling with adversity.
This was a question which no man by any amount of abstract reasoning or theoretical statement could understand as well as the man whose life interests were touched. It was true that the Amendment recognised the principle of taxation, but that was simply as a matter of expediency. He was a "wholehogger" in the matter of the tax, but he had been informed that this was the only way in which they could bring up the matter. The tax was an outcome of the war into which the country rushed in 1899, but he believed that had the same conditions existed then as existed now no Chancellor of the 604 Exchequer would have dared to impose the tax. It had taken all the power of some of the leaders of the men to prevent a national strike. But they were then in the hey-day of circumstances and in the full flush of trade, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tried to impose the tax under circumstances of trade such as at present existed there would have been a war within our own borders, because no power on earth would have prevented the men from going on strike. The wages of the miners had been and would be reduced; their working days had been and would be diminished; their opportunities for full and right living had been and would be restricted. The right hon. Gentleman might say that he sympathised with the men; in the words of St. James, "Let him show his faith by his works." There were other sources of taxation to which the right hon. Gentleman might have turned. The line of least resistance was not always the safest line to take. The line of right was the one that ought to be sought. Those who received the largest incomes from the nation's operations ought to hear the largest proportion of the cost of the upkeep of the State. It was necessary in this matter to distinguish between the consumer and the producer. They were pleading at present for the miner because he was a producer, although it was perfectly true that he was also a consumer. It was a direct tax and nothing more nor less. It was gathered at the port of shipment, a shilling for every ton. The tax had to be paid by the coal-owner, and therefore it was a direct tax.
Another reason was put forward for this tax; it was urged that the coal was so precious to the life of the nation that it ought to be kept at home. This was a very unsound and dangerous argument. It was an argument which only a very bold man dared to advance so absolutely. If coal were so precious to their national life, why not absolutely prohibit any coal from being exported? Why be satisfied with a shilling, because there was a certain class of coal, most essential to their national life that they got outside that shilling? It was the superior coal that would bear the shilling. If this argument were logical, then, of course, having regard to their national life and prestige they should say 605 that this coal should not be exported at all. What did that mean? It meant that they had to deal with a trade now employing 842,000 men and boys, and with counties. which the hon. Member for Wansbeck and others represented, 80 per cent of whose trade in coal was export. They had to deal with Scotland on the East and with South Wales on the West, and, if it were logical that they should keep this coal at home because it was one of their best national assets, he said they should consider what to do with those men who had produced that 80 per cent., and those men who had produced the export coal in South Wales, Scotland, and Durham. It was unsound from the commencement, it was wrong in principle, and in practice it was dangerous to the best interests of the country. Let them see its ramifications and its effect upon the trade of the country. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol introduced the tax he felt that he was treading upon dangerous ground, and he said that, of course, he saw how their shipping enabled them to bring buck commodities at lower rates than otherwise would be possible. Every cargo of coal they restricted from exportation interfered with the free intercourse of trade, limited its operations, and raised the price of the commodity the ship was to bring back to the consumer in this country. It was equal to a tax upon imports.
He was told, and a great deal was made of it, that Mr. Gladstone approved of this in 1845, but he ventured to say that if Mr. Gladstone had been alive in 1900, under the changed circumstances and conditions in their relations with other countries, and in the development of coal-fields in other nations, he would not have advocated it. In 1845 they were the coal-producing nation of the world; all nations turned to them for coal, and they could put what price they liked upon it. But now the thing was different. They were in direct competition with other countries—Belgium, France, and Austria on the Continent; and America. The same circumstances and conditions did not obtain as at that time. They were assured enough at the time the tax was imposed that certain things in their 606 minds were true, and experience had borne them out. They asserted that it was unsound economically and dangerous to trade to put a tax on coal, and they said that the real effect would not be seen until depression had gone some way down. In the first year or two after 1900 the downward tendency of the trade was not felt. Men's wages were comparatively high. He had, however, been surprised that newspapers such as The Times and others should have spoken of the fabulous wages the miner was receiving. The average wage of the miner in the highest times was not above 7s. 6d. a day, and would anybody say that 7s. 6d. a thy was too much for a man working in a two feet seam—he had seen them working in 18 inches—cramped, cabined, confined, in comparative darkness, wet and dirty, two or three miles underground in a noxious atmosphere surrounded by dangers? They asserted then, and asserted now, that the depression would be, and was, a long way ahead of what it was in 1900. All these objections were being accumulated and intensified, and to those immediately concerned they were becoming more regretful and urgent. A number of men who otherwise would have been employed had been discharged. As secretary of the Durham Miners Association he could say that there were over 1,000 men out of work more than was the case a year ago, and those men had been kept out of the workhouse only by grants from the organisation to which they belonged. The result of the tax had been to depopulate villages. There were districts in which the whole of the trade depended upon the mines; if through depression of trade and low prices the mine stopped, the whole district was depopulated, and that had happened in more cases than one as a direct result of this tax.
In Northumberland in 1900 the price of coal at the pit-mouth was 11s. 2d. per ton; at the ascertainment in May last it was only 6s. 4d., or a drop of nearly 5s. per ton. Wages had gone down in Scotland by 25 per cent., in Durham by 30 per cent., and in Northumberland by more than 40 per cent. The restriction of the export of coal also brought about greater competition in the home market, because 607 coal which otherwise would have been exported was sent inland. Under ordinary conditions, 80 per cent. of the Northumberland coal was exported, and the amount by which that exportation was restricted in consequence of the export duty went to compete in markets in which other coal had previously had a clear field. Thus the tax had bad effects in both ways, and the miners in each case felt the full burden. The nation's strength and stability depended upon its coal, but if coal was nature's element, the miner was the human element, and as such he ought to be regarded in these questions of taxation. The tax had also tended to develop Continental coalfields, and thus the foolish home policy had intensified foreign competition. He was old enough to remember the Franco-German War. He knew the sudden development that took place then in the coal trade in his own county. When the war broke out the men in France and Germany were drafted from the mines, and these countries sought England for their coal supplies. He held in his hand a quotation taken from a Newcastle paper anent the present development of the German coal trade. It said—
There is remarkable activity in the German coalfields; exhaustive surveys are being made with a view to sinking new shafts, and experimental borings are being made.There had been a suggestive development in the German coalfields which arose simply and solely from the operation of this tax. He had with him a quotation from a Conservative paper of 18th April, and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him that it spoke words of truth and soberness. It said—There have been many instances on Newcastle Quayside recently of losses sustained by Northern coal exporters through the coal tax The contract for 40,000 tons of coal for the Montana Iron Company, Santander, which has annually come to Durham, has been placed with a German firm. Not the slightest doubt is entertained as to the reason of this loss to the Northern coalfields. The order was given for a shilling less than the Durham tender.The loss of contracts here lessened the demand for men's labour. The deputation that waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago consisted of shippers, coal-owners, and miners' representatives. He knew the men who spoke for the workmen, and he felt sure that they considered they had a real 608 grievance in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to his deputation, said—Other speakers have suggested that the tax falls mainly upon particular sections of those engaged in the production and export of coal, and, in particular, that it falls with very depressing effects upon the wages of the men employed in the mines. Now, if I thought that was seriously the case I should certainly admit that that was good ground for a reconsideration of our policy. But I am not by any means convinced of it, and even after the explanation which Mr. Cory put in as a postscript to the remarks of other members of the deputation I do not think that it is proved, or that it is even made probable, that this tax is responsible in any degree for the fall in prices or for the fall in wages which has taken place in the last year or two."He had dealt with that statement by anticipation. He had endeavoured to show that there was a direct and indirect influence arising from the operation of this tax. There was the shilling duty, and the competition with coal which otherwise would be exported. While it might be difficult to give a mathematical definition as to the amount of reduction of wages that arose directly from this coal tax, yet he thought the words of men from Wales, Scotland, and Northumberland were worthy of attention. He asked the Committee to consider the amount paid in coal tax for the past three years. From a Return issued not long ago by the right hon. Gentleman it appeared that the total for the United Kingdom for the three years was £5,322,825. Would any gentleman say, except the employers, that the payment of that sum in taxation would not interfere with the wages of the workers? Speaking for his own county, and other districts, he could say that, with slight differences, it was the price of coal that regulated the men's wages. It was axiomatic that the tax was bound to interfere with men's wages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had defended the tax by stating that the output of coal had increased. But had it increased in proportion to the number of men? He would show, comparing 1900 with 1903, that while the output had increased the men had decreased. If they took the number of tons produced and divided it amongst the workmen employed, the result was 305 tons per man before the tax and only 289 tons last year, or a reduction of 5 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said 609 that some Consuls had told him that the tax did not interfere with the foreign trade. There were more Consuls than one. Mr. Martin Cecil Gurney, the Consul-General at Marseilles, said that the tax weighed heavily on the trade in his district, and that if it were taken off it would be quite sufficient to replace British coal in a position to compete successfully with that produced abroad. There were three other Consuls all giving the like evidence. In fact the balance of evidence was all on his side. The increase arose from the bunker coal, which was below 6s. per ton. The value of small coal had been raised from 6s. 3d. to 7s., but the vendors had been compelled to sell it at 6s., in order to evade the tax.One other thought as to this deputation which met the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said that the tea tax had been decided upon when all other resources on taxation had been exhausted. He, however, contended that there were other sources of taxation. He would take the coal trade, in which there were three people interested, the employer, the employee, and the royalty owner. In 1903 the royalty owners, at the royalty of 6d. per ton, had obtained £6,000,000 on the output of coal. He believed that the land and the minerals belonged to the nation; but of course that was a complicated question. But if the coal of the country was to be taxed, then the employer and the employee should not be the only persons to be taxed, and the royalty owner allowed to go scot free. He was one of those who believed that the land of this country should bear extra taxation. They should go back to first principles, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should follow the example of the bold effort made by his great predecessor in his Budget of 1894, and place the burdens of this country on the shoulders best able to bear it. Every word he had said and every fact he had stated he believed to be true and could be borne out by experience.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONin rising to second the clause which had been so eloquently, ably, and unanswerably moved by his hon. friend, said it would be regretted by every Member of this House, that this most unfortunate hour should have been selected for this discussion. 610 The speech was so weighty, convincing and unanswerable that it ought to have been listened to in a House with crowded Benches and it ought to have been reported at length in all the newspapers. In the hon. Member for Mid-Durham the House had a representative of the working class of whom Members on both sides of the House were justly proud. The hon. Member had so covered the ground that it only remained for him to glance at a limited number of points upon which, perhaps, the hon. Member had not fully touched. Upon this, the great coal industry, depended the livelihood of 5,000,000 people throughout the United Kingdom. They had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the coal tax had not proved injurious to the export trade in coal because he showed that more coal had been put on ships last year than in the previous year. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had included 5,000,000 of tons of coal exported under 6s. in value and not subject to the coal tax. He had also included 16,000,000 tons of bunker coal which bore no tax. If they compared the coal exported and subject to taxation they would find that in 1901 there were 43,329,000 tons, whilst in 1903 the quantity was only 41,660,000, a decrease of 1,660,000 tons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted certain other figures showing that our exports were going up and not down. They could do a little grouping of figures which would show a very different result as far as certain countries in Europe went. In 1901 they exported to Belgium, Holland, and France 8,900,000 tons, whilst in 1903 the quantity was 7,376,000 tons, a decrease of 1,500,000 tons. If they took the figures of increase in the coal production of different countries they would find the increase in Germany last year was 9.20, in France 16.80, and in England 1.40. This coal tax violated the principle of equal incidence of taxation. They were taxed in connection with collieries in every respect the same as other great industries and in addition they had to make returns for income-tax based on five years, instead of three years or on the preceding year. Thus there was an enormous sum to be paid in the shape of income-tax beyond their real 611 income. That was a very heavy burden and made this coal tax still more unbearable.
On what ground could this imposition on this great industry be defended? They were told that it was necessary in order that they should husband their coal resources. Had this tax had that effect? It had been absolutely opposite, because owing to the great fall in price they got 1s. per ton less at the pit's mouth. The result was that they could not afford to work the more expensive seams and had to work the cheaper seams in order to keep going at all. The tax was a protective duty in favour of every other coal-producing country against this country. Coal from Scotland, Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire was sold on the Continent in competition with coal pro-duped by Belgium, Germany, and France; the price asked by the Continental countries fixed the price the British exporter could get from the foreigner; and were the export duty abolished to-morrow the exporter would not get a penny less for his coal abroad, but he would get a shilling more at the pit-mouth. He submitted that they had a right to object to the British Government hindering and harassing one of the greatest industries in the country by the imposition of a protective tax in favour of the foreigner. It meant nothing more or less than a confiscation of £2,000,000 out of the earnings of the miners, mine-owners, and coal exporters. Eighty per cent. of the cost of coal was represented by wages, and there were 840,000 men and boys employed in the industry. If the export trade was injured, the inland trade suffered through the additional competition to which it was in consequence subjected, and thus the whole trade was affected. Those interested did not receive the sympathy to which they were entitled in the matter. Coal consumers had the idea that they had only to restrict the export of coal to reduce the price to their own advantage. Human nature being what it was, that was not surprising, but surely they might be asked to take a juster view of the situation, and consider whether it was really a sound principle that was embodied in the tax under discussion.
One of the largest collieries in Northumberland averaged for the 612 first two months of this year four days a week; it exported 103,000 tons of coal; it paid export duties amounting to £3,500, with the result that that huge colliery, employing 2,500 men, was out of pocket to the extent of £1,700, whereas but for the export duty there would have been a profit of £1,800. He could give a yet stronger case from his own division. From one colliery there they exported 240,000 tons, and paid £12,000 export duty, with the result that the colliery was being worked at a loss, and the owner had decided that he would be driven to close the pit. But for this unjust imposition there would have been no necessity to consider such a step. If the tax was to be continued at all, it ought to be as an ad valorem duty. It was perfectly ridiculous that the same rate of duty should be charged on coal worth 6s. as on coal worth 12s. per ton. The rate should also be levied on the price at the pit, and not f.o.b. It paid a colliery better to sell coal at 5s. 11d. than at 6s. 10d., because on the latter price the duty of 1s. had to be paid. Rates of carriage to put coal f. o. b. varied considerably. A colliery that had to pay 2s. 7d. rate of carriage and received 6s. 1d. for its coal, actually obtained 3s. 6d., out of which is. duty had be paid, leaving 2s. 6d. for the coal at the pit; whereas another colliery producing the same class of coal, might have a sixpenny cost of carriage, and by selling the coal at 5s. 11d. would have no duty to pay, and thus make 5s. 5d. for Precisely the same class of coal. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion that had been mad a, and put 2d. per ton on the whole coal output of the country, charging one-half to the royalty owner and one-half to the mine-owner the hardship would be much less. No hardship would be done to the royalty owner, because in the great majority of cases his royalties were fixed according to a sliding scale, so that when prices went up the royalty owner obtained enormously increased royalties, and consequently when prices went down, having shared in the increase, he ought to share in the decrease. If that could be arranged it would, at any rate, make it more equitable, but, of course, what was contended was that they could in justice demand the entire 613 removal of this tax, which involved a complete revolution of their fiscal system, and was really a protective tax to every other country producing coal outside the British Isles.
They had had convincing figures given them to show what large reductions in the price of coal and in wages in every coal-producing district in the United Kingdom had taken place. He would not, therefore, labour that point, but he would give an expression of opinion as to the present position and future prospect of the coal trade. These words were uttered in a coal-exporting district by the ex-Colonial secretary—
You miners are only waiting to be eaten up. If you look, you will see that the production of coal in Germany, France, and America has been increasing at gigantic speed, and it is as sure as anything that in a comparatively few years they will want no more of your coal, and they will probably be exporters of coal here. What is your standby?Certainly not the British Government. Instead of being their standby they bad injured them and their trade by giving a protective tariff of ls. a ton in favour of every country but their own. Why did they object to sugar bounties on the one hand and then give a bounty of Is. a ton to every nation which sold coal in competition with them? A more absolutely unjustifiable and suicidal course they could not find. He challenged the Government to mention any country in the world where they hampered their coal trade by such a mischievous tax. They had had it proved that this tax had decreased the wages of the miner and was likely to decrease them still further, and therefore, on all these grounds, he submitted to the Committee that they had made oat an absolutely unanswerable case, and in demanding the removal of this most iniquitous and unjust tax they were only seeking that measure of justice from Parliament that every section of the community had every right to demand.
§
New clause (Reduction of Coal Duty)—
On and after the first day of August nineteen hundred and four one penny shall be substituted for one shilling as the duty on coal under Section 3 of The Finance Act, 1901." —(Mr. Join Wilson, Durham.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
614§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid that when the tax was first imposed it was generally supposed, especially by those favouring it, that it would have little effect upon our exports. The opinion was expressed that foreign counties were more or less dependent upon us for their coal supply and that consequently they would pay this tax. But, since then, they had had a very rude awakening indeed. Not only had they not been dependent upon us, but we had lost considerably in the markets which hitherto we thought we had the monoply of. Therefore, every argument that had been used against high prices and low wages hitherto, as favouring foreign competition and killing our trade, should be used with great force against this tax. America had profited to some degree as a consequence of the tax, but Germany had benefited more than any other country. Once the English contracts with France terminated, the duty became applicable, and the shipments from Rotterdam increased by leaps and hounds, cheap transit from the colliery to the port and from the port to the destination giving them such an advantage over us that for the first time in history the freights from German collieries to the markets in France were reduced the same level as those from Welsh and English ports. Consequently, the imposition of this Is. tax had given the German vendor the full benefit of that amount to be used against us in the markets that were entirely our own. It was really not until 1902 that the Westphalian Syndicate turned itself to the object of invading French ports. As soon as the Is. tax was put on, the German vendors saw their chances and they conducted their business accordingly. He found by returns supplied by the Consuls at the respective ports that the importation of German coal showed the following progressive increases: In 1901 they sent 5,000 tons; in 1902 it had increased to 242,000; and in 1903 to 630,000. It would be seen at a glance what a great advantage German exporters had over English the moment the duty was imposed. We were losing ground just as Germany was gaining.
615 The assertion that the tax had not made the slightest difference to the workers was altogether erroneous. Two-thirds of the South Wales output had not been affected to the same degree as other exporting districts because of the quality of their coal; the workers there had benefited from the fact that their fellowmen were murdering one another; the demand for coal for war purposes had enabled them to work a little more regularly. But the western part of South Wales had been very seriously affected. Thousands of men had been thrown out of work, and their organisation had paid thousands of pounds to assist them to live. Even the districts with the best coal had suffered with other districts a reduction of wages of over 30 per cent. since the imposition of the duty. The whole of that might not have been effected by the coal tax, but it was impossible for the competition not to be intensified by the loss of Is. per ton. As a rule the workers nominally received about 10 per cent. in the shilling so that for three years they had been losing 10 per cent. of their wages. During the past three years that shilling alone meant to every man earning 5s. a day no less than £23. That loss was directly in consequence of the tax. He hoped there would be no effort made in the face of these facts to assert that the workers of South Wales had not suffered loss on account of the coal tax. They, knew that it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to meet their request this year, but what they asked was that, in view of the facts stated, the imposition should be removed at the earliest possible moment.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid hon. Members had raised this question rather with a view to future consideration than with any expectation of an immediate and satisfactory answer. They had directed attention to the effect of the tax, urging that the course of trade should be carefully watched. Of course he would do that. At the present time a Royal Commission was sitting, appointed to examine a great number of questions affecting our coal industry and coal supplies, and among other matters the effect of this tax on our export trade. The Report of that Commission 616 would in itself provide material of great value and would require the serious attention of His Majesty's Government. Earlier in the year he received a deputation representing every interest in the coal-mining industry, and on that occasion he had thought it only courteous to give a reply in detail, and yet he had been blamed for not confining his observations to an acknowledgment of the case presented and merely pleading the financial necessities of the year. Probably hon. Members would now expect a full answer, and he could assure them that he was keeping an open ear for any new evidence and an open mind for the consideration of the Report of the Commission. The hon. Member complained that our coal trade was being destroyed and that we were being cut out of markets where we used to have a large trade. But was that true? In 1903 we exported more coal than in any previous year.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman included the 5,000,000 tons of coal below 6s. per ton in respect of which no duty was paid?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he certainly did include both the small coal and the bunker coal. As to German competition, of course there had been a great development in the German coal trade in the last few years, but it did not begin with this tax, and it would have come just the same whether there had been a tax or not. There was no doubt that the facilities for water carriage which Westphalian coal now enjoyed enabled it to compete on more favourable terms than were possible formerly, and, further, it was shipped for the market with greater care and anxiety to meet the needs of the particular market than was common with our coal. It was graded better and put on the market with a closer standard as to quality than our own coal. But during the first six months of this year the expert of coal had risen again, compared with the same period last year. It was true that the prices were much lower, but hon. Gentlemen could not expect that high prices could be maintained from season to season. There must be a greater falling-off in prices and wages than before 617 prices were lowered in 1900–1901, 1902–1903. They were, in fact, lower than in any year previous to 1886, except at the beginning of 1890.
§ MR. FENWICKNo, that is not so, at least in reference to my own county.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he had not the figures for more than four months of the present year, but if they compared them with the corresponding four months of last year they would find that the export from the Channel ports showed an increase, the export from the East of Scotland showed an increase, the export from the north-eastern ports was practically unchanged, while the export from the north-western ports and the West of Scotland showed decreases. If it was true that our export trade as a whole had been larger, so also was it true that it bore a larger proportion to the total output of coal in this country than in any preceding year. It was a remarkable fact which had some bearing on this question as to whether wages had been lowered. No doubt there was a great falling-off compared with abnormal years, bat the exports had increased not only in themselves but also in proportion to the total exports of the country. He found that in the first five months of the present year we had exported to Germany more coal than in 1903 or in 1902. The same remark applied in the cases of Holland, Belgium, and Russia. In the case of France, which was said to be a vanishing market, the five months showed the figures to be almost unchanged. He did not think he need detain the Committee longer; he had put before them some of the observations which he wished to make and he asked their attention to those points, whilst he would certainly give his own attention to the points they had raised. He did not think it right whilst this question was sub judice before the Royal Commission to definitely commit the Government to any course of action for them to follow. He could not pledge himself to anything without considering the Report and the evidence laid before the Commission. Nothing he had said that day was meant to indicate any intention to close the door against new facts which might be brought before his notice, but he felt bound to call their 618 attention to the case as presented to him.
§ MR. FENWICKsaid he could not find fault with the tone or temper with which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed himself to the consideration of the case. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the observations with which he concluded his speech would be welcomed on that side of the House and would also be welcomed by miners in the country whose wages were adversely affected by the operation of this tax. If he had to criticise some of the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed before the Committee he begged the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he did not criticise either his arguments or his figures in any unfriendly manner. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to upset their figures they would be very & to welcome any information that he was able to give them. Before he dealt with some of the points raised by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he thought he should like to offer his congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid-Durham for the very able and lucid way in which he had raised this question. The Committee appreciated the enormous physical as well as mental disadvantages under which his hon. friend had laboured in having to raise this question after the House had been in session for eighteen and a half hours and after the hon. Member had been engaged continuously on public duty for more than twenty-two and a half hours. Yet the Committee would agree that the vigour and eloquence with which the hon. Member presented this case for the consideration of the Committee were, under the circumstances, very creditable indeed. His hon. friend had referred to the reduction which had taken place in the wages of Northumberland miners, and he (Mr. Fenwick) interjected an observation to correct what he thought was a mistake in stating that wages had fallen 42 per cent. in Northumberland. He should explain that that fall was from the highest point to which wages had risen in the coal trade. The actual fall in wages from the time that the coal tax was imposed up to the present was 10 per cent. on the miners' wages and the fall in price from the highest point to the present was over 4s. 10d. per ton at the pit's mouth, though, since the 619 tax was imposed, the fall was represented by something like 2s. 4d. per ton.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right in saying that he never had anticipated that the wages and prices would be kept up to the high level of 1900 or 1901. They knew perfectly well that from natural causes both prices and wages would fall, but they contended that the imposition of this tax accelerated that fall and accelerated the rate at which the wages had been reduced. In Northumberland wages were lower than they had been for many years past. They were not endeavouring to throw the burden upon another set; their complaint was that the other set, whoever they were, had thrown an additional burden upon them. The dislocation of trade alleged by The Times had not arisen from the action of districts like Northumberland, because they produced absolutely for a foreign market. Eighty per cent. of their sales went abroad, and did not interfere in any way with the competition in the home market. The people who, according to The Times, got the high prices were not the people who were penalised by this tax. Of all the taxes imposed by the present Government the coal tax was the least defensible. It was a tax not upon an industry as a whole, but upon a portion of an industry; it was not even upon a class, but upon a section of a class, and it was levied in such a way as to give foreign competitors a bounty in the markets where the British producer had to compete with the foreign producer. The Prime Minister justified the repeal of the corn tax on the ground that one-fourth or one-fifth of the tax was a charge on the raw material of the farmer. What was the fact in regard to the coal tax? The total yield last year was £2,303,411, of which no less than £583,383 was collected from Clyde and Tyne ports. If the Prime Minister's argument was valid in the case of the corn tax, there was infinitely more justification for claiming the repeal of the coal tax, because more than one-fourth of the total produce of the tax fell upon a small proportion of the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman had informed the Committee that last year the exports were greater and that the number of persons employed was larger than in any previous year. That was true, but he 620 had left out of account that the increase was entirely due to the natural increase in the population. For the ten years prior to the tax the average annual increase in the export was 1,502,389 tons; but since the imposition of the tax the increase had been only 138,229 tons. He thought the Committee, and especially the commercial men, would be able to appreciate the position he put before them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite correct when he said that our export was greater last year than ever before, that the number of persons employed was greater than it had been in any previous year, and that the total aggregated amount of wages had been higher than at least for some considerable time, but there was the stern fact confronting him, that the normal or average annual rate of progress and development of the industry had been checked, in their judgment at least, by means of this tax to the very serious extent of nearly 1,500,000 tons per annum. He was certain that if a tax were imposed upon any other industry, say, the textile or the iron and steel industry, which had the effect of checking the normal average annual increase or development of those industries, they would have an outcry from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were interested in those industries; and, while they allowed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly correct in saying that the exports had increased and that the number of persons employed had also increased, he had not borne in mind that the natural rate of development had not been maintained. He was perfectly sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to mislead any one in putting the case before the deputation or this Committee, but from information which he (the hon. Member) had received, an impression had been created in certain quarters by the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the deputation which waited upon him in April that they could not be badly off, seeing that their exports had increased, that the number of persons employed had increased, and that the aggregate amount of wages paid I had also increased; but he thought he would see, when he examined the 621 facts he (the hon. Member) had brought to his notice, that in the checking of the natural development of the industry they had a grievance. He was glad to hear that he preserved a perfectly open mind on the subject and was quite prepared to be guided by the recommendations of the Royal Commission that was now considering the question of our coal supply. He was not sure that he would find a great deal of guidance from the Report and recommendations of that Commission. He believed it was quite true to say that, whilst they had taken incidentally some evidence in reference to the coal tax, the Commission did not consider this was a question that was directly referred to them.
§ * MR. JOHNSONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a quotation which rather startled him. He stated that the highest point of wages was touched in 1901. This rather differed from the parts he (the hon. Member) had in his mind. So far as their trade in Durham was concerned, that was not so. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman was speaking for the whole country in 1901.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINNo, not 1901: 1900.
§ * MR. JOHNSONI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I understood him to say 1901. Proceeding, he said the coal tax was one very keenly felt, at all events amongst the mining community which he had the honour to represent,' because they felt and knew that it interfered with their wages. The miners were not slack and had no desire to shirk their fair share of responsibility in paying this enormous war tax, but they did object to paying the tax two or three times over. There was a general consensus of opinion not only among the miners of the northern counties and Wales but throughout the whole of the mining districts in opposition to this tax. The miners were not disposed to tax themselves, and yet they had done so in the following manner. Year after year they had held conferences and condemned this tax; they had sent deputations to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and had. 622 put before him their views and indicated to him that what they were concerned with mostly was the effect that the tax had upon the workmen's wages. In 1901 they waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. who was then Chancellor of the `Exchequer, and indicated to him that they did not hold a brief for the coal-owners or capitalists but they were specially and particularly representing the miners. They expressed the opinion that the owners could no doubt take care of themselves, and they put before him such facts as they could to influence his mind as to the feeling of the working miners. They clearly indicated to him that the effect would be a falling wage, and that the unanimous opinion of the miners throughout the country was that those having the larger incomes ought to be called upon to pay the larger share of taxation. The hon. Member for Mid-Durham had said it was not well to take the line of least resistance in this matter, but that would appear to be what the Government had done. He had heard workmen express the opinion time and again that if there was to be increased revenue it must come from them instead of from the large landowners and those who had large incomes, who were quite able to bear a larger portion of the burden of taxation than the workmen. The right hon. Gentleman finally based his tax on increased trade. But they had to base their case on diminished wages and diminished working time. That was the hest test upon which to try this question. With the workman it was not a question of dividend or of the balance of his banker's account. It was a question of his actual wages, his actual bread and butter, and the workman said he had been taxed sufficiently, and if increased taxation was sought it must be sought in some other direction.
It could not be gainsaid that the coal trade had been considerably handicapped in the Continental markets through this tax. That was proved by the consular reports sent from Rotterdam and Hamburg. The Consuls of those towns who were on the spot were the best able to judge what the conditions were, and they had come to the conclusion that 623 the I s. per ton imposed on coal exported from this country had been a very great hindrance to our trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others continued to state the fact, however, that our trade was not diminishing although we had suffered considerably both in wages and in working time. While on a journey to London recently from Durham he was informed by a colliery owner that he had lost two contracts, one for 275,000 tons of coal spread over two years and another for 40,000 tons of coal. Those contracts were both lost because of the coal tax, which would not permit him to compete in the foreign market. If this tax did not handicap the coal industry then it meant that the coal-owners before the imposition of this tax were selling their commodity at 1s. a ton less than they had any reason to do. He had sufficient knowledge of the colliery owner to know that they would not sell their coal at 1s. a ton less than they could get, and he did not blame them for it. It must be perfectly plain that the 1s. a ton had to be paid by them, which meant that a competitive advantage of 1s. a ton was given to the Continental coal industry. It was patent on the face of it that if a commodity was taxed it must be at a competitive disadvantage with the commodity with which it competed which was not taxed, and he asserted that these contracts were lost simply and solely because of the tax which had been put on coal exported from this country.
The miners were quite prepared to pay their fair share of taxation, but they objected to be taxed two or three times over. One of the ways in which they were now taxed was that the miners' associations had to provide for those out of employment. From June, 1902, to the 1st July, 1903, the society with which he was connected paid nearly £6,000 to members out of employment. That was a very great tax indeed on the miners' association, because it meant that not only were the men thrown out of employment because of the operations of this tax, but those men so thrown out had to be kept by those in work, and so they were paying a double and triple tax. It had been suggested in the course of this debate that there 624 might be other sources of taxation if the Government only had the courage to face them. Why did they not take a portion of the £6,000,000 royalty rent owned by a class who did nothing whatever for it, who went into no speculation, who sunk no shafts, nor took upon themselves any of the financial burdens undertaken by the coal-owners. In this way the industry was handicapped and taxed for the benefit of the income of men who did nothing to advantage the country. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer get hold of some of that £6,000,000; but, after all, perhaps it was not likely that the right hon. Gentlemen or the present Government would attempt to tax their own friends, because they believed in the dictum of Artemus Ward, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." If they wanted money they did not go to the wealthier but to the poorer classes. There was another great source of taxation in this country—the land. The land did not bear by any means its fair share of taxation, the landed proprietors of this country were shuffling from their shoulders a large burden which they were putting on the heavily taxed poor. If the Government would face this question of land taxation and would make the landowners bear their proper share of the burden of taxation the Government would receive the thanks of the whole of the working classes of this country. He hoped that these observations would not be lost upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer or on his successors but that they would seek some means by which the incidence of taxation should fall more equitably on the rich and on the poor, so that life might be made more tolerable for the latter, on whose shoulders the heavier portion of the burden now fell.
§ * MR. BURT (Morpeth)stated that he was closely associated with a mining district which was very seriously affected by this tax. According to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was keeping an open mind on the subject and was fully considering facts which had been put before him. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the coal tax had not killed export trade. Well, he (Mr. Burt) did not think that anybody had ever said that it had. But it had greatly checked exports and had 625 brought the increase to a standstill. The right hon. Gentleman stated that 1903 was the highest export year for coal in their records. That was true; but there were certain considerations connected with 1903 that greatly increased the export of coal during that year. There was a good deal of extra trade with France and the United States. owing to strikes of miners in these countries. To the latter country more than 1,000,000 tons of coal were sent because of the strike, and that was entirely exceptional and abnormal. If they deducted that, and if they further deducted bunker coal they found that the exports for 1903 were really considerably less than not only 1901 but a1so 1900. The right hon. Gentleman objected to 1900 being taken into comparison on the ground that it was an exceptional year, and he excluded 1901 on the same ground; so they had never had a normal year since the tax was imposed. But 1900 was the year when the tax was imposed, and the tax itself was an abnormality. In his own district of Northumberland the tax was affecting wages. What the workmen objected to was that they were not only taxed as citizens on tea, tobacco, beer, and other articles, but that they were a1so called upon to pay an entirely exceptional tax, which affected one trade only and only a portion of that trade. He was glad to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give every consideration to the question that was put before him. Both the present Chancellor and his predecessor declared that if they believed this tax would injuriously affect the miners it would be an important consideration in dealing with the subject. It had been conclusively shown that the coal tax had a very considerable effect in diminishing wages, and that it tended to diminish the price of exported coal. He hoped circumstances would change, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a surplus next year, and that one of the earliest things he would do would be to abolish this wholly inequitable and exceptional tax.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMANsaid he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to the hour of the day which the Com 626 mittee had now reached. They had had an interesting and temperate discussion, temperate on both sides of the House. on the coal tax, but the subject was by no means exhausted even in the most moderate interpretation of the word "exhaustion," because he would mention one particular item that up to now had not even been referred to. That was the Scotch case which had peculiar elements in it which were not represented in the speeches to whichh the House had listened. The Committee had now arrived at the hour when the ordinary business of the House of Commons, not in the House itself but e1sewhere, commenced. The Grand Committee on Trade commenced its sitting at 11.30 and had to consider the Irish Labourers Bill, a Bill which excited a great deal of feeling among Irish Members, at any rate. On that Grand Committee there ought to be eighty-three Members present. Besides that there were three Private Bill Committees, one of which sat at 11, one at 11.30, and one at 11.45, each having four Members, so that there were ninety-five Members of this House whose Parliamentary duties called them to another part of the building; and who would have to sit there in spite of the fact that they had been kept all night here. That was a very strong reason why the Committee should report Progress at this point. This particular discussion, as he had said, was not in the most moderate interpretation of the term exhausted. There were other clauses of great importance which deserved the attention of the House, as part of the general scheme of the taxation of this country, so that the Committee could not be held to have come to the end of this stage of the Finance Bill by any means. It was rather hard for these ninety-five Members who had been up all night to be transferred from one place of torture to another. He assumed a1so that at two o'clock the consideration of the Licensing Bill would come before the House, it being one of the allotted days given for the purpose. On those grounds which he had endeavoured to put as temperately as possible he thought he was justified in moving to report Progress. He had devoted himself for the greater part of the night to the discussion in the House, which had been most temperate in its character, and he hoped that the Committee would 627 now in the same temperate spirit come to the conclusion which he invited them to come to, which would at all events discharge them from overlapping one day's duty with another, and thus bringing Parliament into disrepute.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR,who was cheered on rising, said the right hon. Gentleman had been quite accurately informed by those who, in his own words, had had the fortune to sit up all night, that their proceedings had, with some small exceptions, been conducted in a good-natured and friendly spirit. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that this clause had already bee a long discussed. This part of the Budget proceedings had extended over a larger period than any Budget proceedings in his recollection. The Committee stage had lasted two days more than the Committee on the Budget in which a shilling duty on food was proposed. That proposal involved a whole set of considerations absolutely novel and of great importance. This Budget did rot involve any new principle, and the discussion they were-engaged on was one which could not at this stage modify the Budget. This clause had been discussed for more than three hours, and would again come on for discussion early in the next stage of their proceedings on the Bill. Therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in suggesting that they should leave the debate midway and proceed to other matters. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that other duties required the attendance of a large number of Members, but in the first place the inconvenience was not so great numerically as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, for the Grand Committee had separated for the day—
§ MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)said he might perhaps explain as Chairman of the Grand Committee that by Standing Orders it could not sit whi1st the House was sitting without leave obtained from the House. [Cries of "Order."]
§ * THE CHAIRMANsaid an interruption was not necessarily out of order.
§ ME. A. J. BALFOURaccepted the hon. Member's explanation. and said it disposed of a large part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked to be allowed to say, without being guilty of disorder, that if Progress were reported the Speaker would return to the Chair, the Chairman would come into relations with the Speaker, and on the adjournment the Gland Committee might proceed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURrather thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. A large part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument being disposed of, he hoped it would not be felt that he was making an unreasonable request in saying that they really ought to finish the discussion on the coal tax at this sitting; and, if Members thought it was a question not thoroughly disposed of, the Report stage would offer a further opportunity for discussion.
§ SIR EDWARD GREYdemurred to the statement that this Budget had already taken an unduly long lime. The discussions on Budgets immediately preceding this could not be regarded as normal, as they were conducted under pressure in a time of war. A great deal of the time taken up on this Budget had been occupied with a number of detai1s as to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first place had received imperfect information. The coal tax had been passed with little discussion in former years. Its opponents had chosen this year for bringing their ca se against it in full force, and for that they had only had three hours. Surely, considering the many aspects of the coal tax and the great strain to which the House had been subjected, it was only reasonable that Progress should be reported, especially as, if the Motion were agreed to, it would not lengthen the ultimate proceedings on the Bill.
§ MR. EMMOTTquite agreed with what the Prime Minister had said about the temperateness with which their long discussion during the night had been 629 carried on—in fact, he did not know, but for one speech in singularly bad taste, the speech by the hon. Member for Eskdale [MINISTERIAL laughter and ironical cheers], that there was any very—[the close of the sentence was drowned by interruptions by MINISTERIALISTS and cries of "Divide."] There was no use in hon. Members crying "Divide," he was not going to be shouted down by them. The Prime Minister said the Budget in which the 1s. tax on corn was imposed involved new and novel principles whereas this Budget did not. He ventured to contest that point. They had already had a similar duty on sugar and when the Budget containing that proposal was introduced it was explained that no protection was meant. The same thing was said of this Budget and they found that protection would at any rate be carried out. The next point he wished to make was this. Was it not a farce to allot days to the Licensing Bill and then to spoil them by an all-night sitting preceding. How could they do their work properly when they had to sit up all night without getting any sleep at all and then go straight on to the consideration of the Licensing Bill. It was not treating the House fairly. The Finance Bill had always been treated somewhat exceptionally by the House. A great deal more latitude had been allowed in regard to that Bill than in regard to any other matter. But they could not discuss the Finance Bill properly in the circumstances in which they had been discussing it. Was it not a very bad example to set to the Liberal Party [Cries of "Oh, oh'"] if they ever crossed the floor of the House and had the introduction of a Finance Bill. There was no possibility of dealing with that Bill in the House of Lords. This precedent had now been set, and if the Prime Minister was going to force the Bill through was it not a very bad precedent to put into the hands of the Liberal Party and one which might be used at a moment when the Conservative Party might not like it, and be, as they might perhaps think, much to the detriment of good government. Finally what good could possibly be done by making them discuss the matter any longer now, he did not mean the Motion to report Progress, but the Finance Bill. There they had been 630 debating for twenty-two hours and surely it was time that their discussion might be stopped and resumed again on Friday. He was perfectly certain it would add to the good temper of all Parties it the Prime Minister could see his way to accept the Motion.
§ MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he had risen half-a-dozen times in his desire to put before the Committee the views of the Scotch miners upon this tax. He had not much to say, but it was only right that the views of his constituents who were largely miners should be heard. Therefore he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It would be good, not only for Members of the House but a1so for the officia1s, if Progress were now reported. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to that course he would, for his part, promise to only occupy a very short time.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERsupported the appeal. Many of those he had the honour to represent were miners and felt very strongly upon this matter. Their views ought to be heard, and therefore he hoped the Prime Minister would give way and allow this coal tax to be a little more fully discussed than it could be if they were to continue it now. He did not agree with the statement that there was no novelty in this Budget. There were some perfectly new features in it, not the least novel of which was the way in which the unclaimed dividends were being dealt with.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)observed that four hours ago he endeavoured to get a word in on this question. His object then was not to make a further appeal because he thought then, and he thought now, that the appeal made by the hon. Member for Mid-Durham and his colleagues was appreciated fully by the Prime Minister. He felt that if the Prime Minister could not agree to their request it was impossible for an outside Member to make an appeal which would have any effect upon him. The Prime Minister hardly knew what he was doing just now with the 631 Party that was supporting him. That was his opinion. He did not think Mr. Balfour fully appreciated the work that had been going on in the last twenty-four hours—and certainly since midnight. ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "He has not been here."] He was making no charge that the Prime Minister had not given fair attention to the debate, but what he wished to point out was that this matter of the coal tax had been before the House one way or the other for six weeks, and it had compelled the attendance in London of representatives of the coal-mining industry almost weekly. It had cost a few hundred pounds for the associations to have their men there to do the work of their Members and what was the return for it? They were told that they must not have a fair opportunity. They were told that their Members should speak when they had been in the House twelve, fourteen, or sixteen hours and lay the case of the men before that Assembly when they had been attending to the debate on other matters. Who were they who were making that request?—he wanted the country to know it. Half a million of those men in districts throughout the Kingdom would remember the slight that had been done to the leaders of the miners in a matter which affected them seriously, which had been the means of reducing their wages, of curtailing their hours of employment, and which had brought continual suffering on their families. He wanted the House to realise that they would not forget that day's proceedings—that they would tell the miners of the treatment they had received at the hands of the Prime Minister, backed by his Party—yes, backed by his Party. He was glad of that cheer, it only added power to the argument. He felt certain that the day would come when Mr. Balfour would regret having treated the representatives of that industry in the manner he had done early that morning.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)concluded that the Committee was justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to give the reasons which justified him in this course of procedure, and for asking them to sit longer on this occasion. There was no urgency for this Bill, and the only difficulty, if this Motion were accepted, would be the absorption of 632 perhaps three hours some afternoon later on. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to dragoon the Committeee in this matter. No doubt the only consideration which weighed with the right hon. Gentleman was that he desired to get his Budget through, but would any Budget carried by the Government under such circumstances as these be an advantage to them in the long run? Surely some compromise might be arrived at in this matter. Let the right hon. Gentleman estimate the amount of time he would be content to give for the discussion of what remained of the Budget, and then some arrangement might perhaps be made. He, himself, represented some thousands of miners, and had received many communications from them on the subject of this tax. Their views might be right or they might be wrong, but they were certainly entitled to complain if this question was not fully and adequately discussed. The right hon. Gentleman himself had supporters who represented large mining districts, and he might appeal on their behalf a1so for some consideration in this matter. He a1so appealed on behalf of the officia1s of the House who had been on duty continuously for twenty-four hours, and he believed if the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the Motion he would greatly gain in the end.
§ * SIR FREDERICK MILNER (Nottinghamshire, Bassetlaw)said that during the whole of the time he had been a Member of the House of Commons, and he had been a Member for many years, he had never witnessed such a deliberate attempt as had been made this session on the part of the Opposition to make legislation impossible. He had never witnessed more scandalous obstruction.
§ * THE CHAIRMANsaid that "scandalous" was rather a strong epithet, and he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw it.
§ * SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid he would withdraw the word "scandalous." He had never witnessed such wilful and deliberate obstruction.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON,on a point of order, said he recently brought exactly the same charge against hon. Members opposite as that now made against the Members of the Opposition, and it would be in the recollection of the Chairman that on that occasion he (the Chairman) made him withdraw the phrase. He therefore asked that the hon. Member should be made to withdraw this statement, which was quite untrue.
§ * THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has put himself entirely out of order by telling another hon. Member that what he said was untrue.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONI withdraw that, Sir.
§ * THE CHAIRMANOn the occasion referred to the hon. Member was imputing a motive which was not in order. On this occasion the hon. Gentleman was stating what he conceives to be a fact. Whether the fact is well founded or not it is not for me to say, but the word obstruction has constantly been used in debate—
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANBut, Sir, "wilful and deliberate."
§ * THE CHAIRMANI say with regard to those epithets what I said with regard to the epithet "scandalous." I think they are disagreeable if not reprehensible. I do not think the hon. Member ought to use such epithets, and I hope he will withdraw them. But the word obstruction is one that has been used frequently on both sides of the House and it is not one I can ask the hon. Member to withdraw.
§ * SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid he did not wish to add to the difficulty of the Chairman's task. He would content himself with the word "obstruction" and leave it to the majority of the House to decide whether what he had asserted was correct or not. When the hon. Member assumed the task of Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he supposed the hon. Member thought that time would soon come—he hoped the Unionist Party would not retaliate by following the evil example set by the Opposition in this debate. He hoped the 634 Prime Minister would stand firm and insist upon carrying on this stage of the Bill.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)said he had been in the House since the commencement of the discussion on the coal tax and he did not think the Minister in charge of the Bill would allege for one moment that a single act of obstruction, or an unnecessary speech or sentence, had been made use of in regard to this particular tax. If there had been obstruction the chief obstructionist was the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat as was shown by the speech he had made. Up to now there had been good temper on both sides of the House, but the speech they had listened to had put an end to all good temper. Forty minutes had no w been absorbed in the discussion of this Motion, they would go to a division, and from the Government's point of view a whole hour would have been wasted in discussing whether the Committee should or should not go on with the debate. He had never known a Government to gain anything at any time by pressing a thing when the Opposition were determined to hold out. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the Motion to report Progress and to bring the discussion to an end now, so that they might come to the further discussion of the subject with fresh minds.
§ * MR. MCCRAEsaid as one who had taken part in the debate since the House met at two o'clock on the previous day he felt he was entitled to repudiate the statement of the hon. Baronet opposite. He had no desire to ruffle anybody s susceptibilities and he was quite sure that no. one on the Treasury Bench would suggest that there had been any obstruction. Let hon. Members look through the Paper and consider how these Amendments had been debated and they a1so. would agree that there had been no obstruction. Everybody must concede tie fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown the greatest good temper and good feeling throughout the whole discussion, and it would be unfortunate if any heat and ill-feeling were now introduced into the debate. The right 635 hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would lose nothing by accepting the Motion, and, therefore, he would suggest that they should now separate in good feeling with each other; that they should consider this a drawn battle and that they should resume the discussion of the coal tax under more favourable conditions.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said he approached this question in a spirit of perfect calmness, having on the previous night "slept the sleep of the just." He did not quite understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry this sitting over until after two o'clock if it was not finished before, because in that case he would gain nothing, because, that day being an allotted day for the discussion of the Licensing Bill, if the Committee went on with the present discussion the Licensing Bill could not come on as first order, and any discussion which took place on that Bill after the Committee had disposed of this question could not be held to be as coming within the allotted day. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, in his own interests and in the interests of Parliament, would do well under the circumstances to take the Licensing Bill at two o'clock and give some other day to that debate. The right hon. Gentleman would see that he gained no more time for himself, but, in fact, lost time by pursuing the course he was now taking.
§ SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESS (Hartlepool)said he wished to associate himself with the appeal made by the hon. Member for Mid-Durham. He had listened with pleasure to the remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was ready to consider with an open mind any fresh facts that were brought before him. For this reason he now ventured to occupy a little of the time of the House. The imposition of this coal-tax, or indeed of any tax upon an article of consumption—
| AYES | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bell, Richard | Burt, Thomas |
| Allen, Charles P. | Boland, John | Buxton, Sydney Charles |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Brigg, John | Caldwell, James |
§ THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the tax, he must confine himself to discussing the Motion to report Progress.
§ SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid he had associated himself with the appeal of his hon. friend the Member for Mid-Durham, and he was proposing to give one or two fresh facts to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but if that were not in order he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and thus give him (Sir Christopher) the opportunity of bringing those fresh facts to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked whether the First Lord of the Treasury would state to the House the grounds for his not accepting a Motion which had the united support of the entire Opposition.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)said that if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Motion to report Progress, hon. Members who wished to discuss this tax would, he was quite sure, be quite willing, if the discussion was taken again on Friday, to bring the debate to a conclusion by the hour at which the House rose for luncheon. He hoped this suggestion might meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. LOUGHappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this suggestion which, in his opinion, might form the basis of a compromise. Surely before the House commenced its ordinary sitting at two o'clock the right hon. Gentleman would like the place cleaned out. He put it to the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the suggestion made by his hon. friend, some compromise could not be arrived at.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 266.)
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rea, Russell |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Joicey, Sir James | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Joyce, Michael | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cullinan, J. | Lambert, George | Runciman, Walter |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Langley, Batty | Russell, T. W. |
| Delany, William | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington) | Shackleton, David James |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Levy, Maurice | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lloyd-George, David | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Doogan, P, C. | Lough, Thomas | Sheehy, David |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | London, W. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Elibank, Master of | Lyell, Charles Henry | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Ellice,Capt.EC(S.Andrw'sBghs | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Stanhope, Hon. Philip James |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Crae, George | Sullivan, Donal |
| Farrell, James Patrick | M`Hugh, Patrick A. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Kenna, Reginald | Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mooney, John J. | Tully, Jasper |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Grey, Rt Hon.Sir E.(Berwick) | Norman, Henry | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Hammond, John. | O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid | Wi1son, Henry J.(York,W.R.) |
| Harcourt, LewisV.(Rossendale | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wi1son, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Harwood, George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Woodhouse, SirJT(Hudd'rsf'd) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shee, James John | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Higham, John Sharpe | Parrott, William | Young, Samuel |
| Hobhouse, C.E.H.(Bristol, E.) | Partington, Oswald | |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Paulton, James Mellor | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Herbert Gladstone and Mr. |
| Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Price, Robert John | William M'Arthur. |
| Jacoby, James Alfred | Priestley, Arthur |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Co1ston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Agnew Sir Andrew Noel | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S. | Greene, SirEW(BrySEdm'nds) |
| Ark wright, John Stanhope | Cross, Herb.Shepherd (Bolton) | Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cost, Henry John C. | Grenfell, William Henry |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Gretton, John |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Davenport., W. Bromley | Groves, James Grimble |
| Balcarres, Lord | Denny, Colonel | Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r | Dewar,SirT.R.(TowerHamlets) | Hare, Thomas Leigh |
| Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds | Dickson, Charles Scott | Harris, Dr.Fredk. R.(Dulwich) |
| Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) | Dorington, RtHon.SirJohnE. | Haslett, Sir James Horner |
| Beach,Rt.Hn.Sir MichaelHicks | Doughty, Sir George | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Douglas, Rt.Hon.A.Akers | Heath, James(Staffords.,N.W. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Heaton, John Henniker |
| Bill, Charles | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. |
| Bingham, Lord | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Hoare, Sir Samuel |
| Bowles,Lt.-Col,H.F.(Middlesex | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Hope, JF(Sheffield, Brightside |
| Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn | Fergusson, Rt.Hn SirJ (Manc'r | Horner, Frederick William |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Finch, Rt.Hon. George H. | Hoult, Joseph |
| Bull, William James | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Howard, John(KentFaversham |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas | Howard, J.(Midd.,Tottenham) |
| Campbell, J.H.M(DublinUniv. | Fisher, William Hayes | Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Fison, Frederick William | Hunt, Rowland |
| Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Jameson, Major J. Eustace |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon | Jeffreys,Rt.Hon.ArthurFred. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Forster, Henry William | Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh) |
| Chamberlain, Rt.HnJA(Worc. | Foster,Philip S.(Warwick,S.W. | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W. |
| Charrington, Spencer | Galloway, William Johnson | Kerr, John |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Gardner, Ernest | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Gordon,Hn.J.E (Elgin &Nairn) | Knowles, Sir Lees |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th | Mount, William Arthur | Spear, John Ward |
| Lawson,JohnGrant(YorksN,R, | Murray, RtHnAGraham(Bute | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead) | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Nicho1son, William Graham | Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester) |
| Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley | Thompson, Dr.EC(Monagh'n N |
| Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham | Pemberton, John S. G. | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Bristol,S.) | Percy, Earl | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Tuff, Charles |
| Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale) | Platt-Higgins,Frederick | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Plummer, Sir Walter R. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Valentia, Viscount |
| Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield) |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Purvis, Robert | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Pym, C. Guy | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Ratcliff, R. F. | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und,Lyne |
| M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Reid, James (Greenock) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW | Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge | Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset) |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Ridley, S.Forde(BethnalGreen | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Wi1son, A. Stanley(York,E.R.) |
| Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Robinson, Brooke | Wi1son, John (Glasgow) |
| Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire) | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wi1son |
| Milner, RtHnSirFrederickG. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Milvain, Thomas | Sack ville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Mitchell, William (Burnley) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Yerhurgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J. | Younger, William |
| Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.) | Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.) | |
| Moore, William | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow | Shaw-Stewart,SirH(Renfrew,E | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Smith,RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks) | |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he made no apology for detaining the House at this hour. because he represented a constituency largely composed of a mining population who took the deepest interest in this question, and who believed that it affected to a great extent their prosperity and the prosperity of the industry in which they were engaged. He could not understand, in the first place, how the Government could have so far forgotten their political economy as to put an export tax on anything sent out of this country. It was a well-known axiom with political economists that the very worst me ms of raising revenue that a country could adopt was an export tax. This was the only export tax they had at the present time, and in no other case should, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer impose a tax of this kind without giving over whelming reasons for its necessity. Where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol imposed the tax he said he desired to raise revenue: that it would do no harm to the coal industry: that even if it did some harm to the coa industry that industry was well able to 640 bear it. The right hon. Gentleman a1so said that it would be a good thing to put a tax upon coal, because it would save the coal from exportation, and keep it for home consumption; but those familiar with the trade knew perfectly well that that was a fallacy; that instead of saving the coal for our home consumers the result was likely to be the absolute loss of the mineral which would otherwise have come into use for the benefit of the community. The mines in the Wansbeck Division were the oldest coal mines in the country, and could only be kept working with difficulty at the present prices, and if once it was found that they were losing money and had to be closed, then we might say good-bye to all the coal in those mines, because it was well-known that when a mine was closed the workings were apt to fall in and cover the coal seams, and in the present condition of affairs it would never pay to go to the expense of putting them into working order again. It must be remembered that it was only when one was on the fringe of a particular coal district that one could successfully compete; in any other part of the coal district the cost of carriage became so 641 large as to render it quite impossible to compete with any prospect of success.
When this tax was imposed the coal trade was in an exceptional condition. He stated to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Bristol, at the time that it would be quite impossible to judge of the effect of this tax for certainly two or three years after its imposition. It was now perfectly clear that they had lost a considerable amount of trade, owing to the imposition of this tax, particularly with countries like Germany, Holland, France, and Belgium, to which might be added Australia, Chili, and all those countries within reach of our ships. They were a1so losing trade by the opening up of coal mines in India and in South Africa. People forgot that there was in all parts a large quantity of coal, and that it only wanted to be sought for and developed in order to compete with them. This tax was a protective tax to every country in the world producing coal in competition with them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it was a most pernicious and unfortunate thing that the Chancellors of the Exchequer had not sufficiently encouraged trade in this country as against foreign trade; but what did the right hon. Gentleman do in this case? He gave a benefit to France in this case and had really protected France and other countries against the producer of coal in these islands. In his opinion as time went on the effect would be much more serious than it had been. During the last two years, owing to the exceptional condition of the shipping trade, which had resulted in extremely low freights, the coal producers had not lost so very much, but like the coal trade shipping was in a very bad financial condition. Shippers were losing money instead of gaining it; he doubted whether a single ship was paying its expenses, but there would come a change, and when that change came with a great rise in freights, it would result in a very much greater loss to the export coal trade of this country.
He could not understand how any hon. Gentlemen could say that an export tax like the coal tax was not paid by this country. It was clear to him that, if they paid 1s. export duty on coa1s sent to 642 every country with which they competed, it had exactly the same elect as if they paid 1s. a ton more for railway carriage or for freight to the port of delivery. Therefore, in the market where the competition took place, it was perfectly clear that the one country which put an export duty of 1s. a ton on its coal must be handicapped very considerably. Supposing he sent coal to Hamburg, where he competed with Westphalian coal, and suppose that he was able to secure a market at the price of 15s. a ton, that being the price that the foreign coal producer charged,and the price they allowed him to get. If an export duty of 1s. a ton was put upon the coal he was supplying, he would have to supply it at the price of 14s. a ton excluding the max in order to compete with the foreign producer, and therefore he had to pay the tax by reducing his price in order to secure the market. If any tax reduced the price the coal producer received, it must of necessity a1so reduce the wages given to the miners. If this 1s. ton was to be paid by the foreigner, he would be the first to say, "Don't let it be 1s., let them pay 5s. or even 10s." But everybody knew and could see perfectly clearly that it was paid by the coal trade in this country.
For the ten years ending 1900, before this export tax was imposed, our export trade in coal was increasing—it had increased 1,500,000 tons per annum; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer looked into the figures he would find that on the coal exported from this country since the tax had been imposed, there had been practically no increase for two or three years. No Government had a right to tax any trade in such a manner as to restrict the operations of that trade, unless they had the strongest belief, supported by the most overwhelming proof, that it was their duty to do so in the interests of the country at large. He challenged the Government to show that any argument had been brought forward, either by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody e1se, in favour of the tax which had not been destroyed again and again by the arguments brought forward to rebut it. He thought the Government had better be guided by those 643 engaged in the industry. In this matter the Committee had sees what had taken place with regard to the tobacco duty in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepting the advice of experts at the Treasury and e1sewhere, which had proved to be absolutely wrong, and which had done an immense injury to the tobacco trade, which it would take many years to recover from. It was the same thing with regard to the export coal trade; they had seen channe1s of trade, which for the past fifty years coal-owners had worked hard to secure for themselves, stopped up by this tax and secured by foreign producers for themselves. That was a most severe loss, because it was very difficult to open again a channel of trade which had once been closed. It might have been true that German coal, as was suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been shipped in cleaner and better condition than English coal, but the British producers had adapt themselves to the present conditions, and were putting coal upon the market in exactly the same condition as their German competitors. The right hon. Gentleman had a1so accounted for the falling off in exports, by saying that the use of machinery had substituted to a great extent small coal for large coal, which accounted for the large increase in the export of small coal. That increase was due to the facts that small coal did not pay the export tax and that Germany was able to make coke far cheaper than this country. As he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to be largely guided by the Report of the Royal Commission in this matter he would not detain the House further.
§ * MR. EUGENE WASONwas very glad indeed to have an opportunity of saving a few words in Committee on this all-important question. They had had speeches from hon. Members who represented the great mining constituencies in England and Wales, many of whom had themselves known what the life and the peril of a miner were, but up to the present time they had no representative from Scotland to address the Committee, although he had several times—he might say all night— 644 ineffectually endeavoured to catch the Chairman's eye. The hon. Member who had just addressed the House had shown pretty conclusively that, so far as this 1s. export duty on coal was concerned, it was a tax which was not paid by the foreigner, but by the producer and miner at home, and there was a unanimous consensus of feeling amongst the miners that that 1s. directly or indirectly helped to lower their wages. He represented a considerable body of miners in Scotland. A deputation had come up to see him on the matter and he had always voted, since that tax was put on by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, against it, and he would continue to do so until the end. He could assure the hon. Members from England and Wales who had spoken in that debate that so far as the Scotch miners were concerned they were determined to leave no stone unturned to get the 1s. tax removed, because they believed it was an injury to their wages. Earlier in the morning the hon. Member for Mid-Durham, in one of the most moving and eloquent speeches he had ever listened to, gave a quotation from a man who was well known on the East Coast of Scotland—Mr. Weir. He thought the hon. Member put it that the effect of this tax had been to reduce the miners wages by something like 25 per cent. But he happened to have with him the exact figure which Mr. Weir did state that tax had caused wages to fall. Mr. Weir said that so far as the Scotch miners were concerned they had suffered to the extent of at least 10 per cent. From what he knew of the mining industries in his own district while the wages were at present falling they had not got he was afraid, as yet, to the lowest point they were likely to reach because of this imposition of 1s. duty on exported coal. Mr. Weir a1so stated that this was the opinion of the whole of the Scottish miners. They were of opinion that this tax was an injury to the whole of the coal trade, injuring the wages and decreasing the trade. They saw men going about idle or only doing two days a week, and they a1so observed in some parts of Scotland that soup kitchens had to be opened in order to relieve the distress occasioned by the loss in the coal trade. Having regard to these 645 things it was the unanimous opinion of the Scottish miners in the East that the tax should now be removed, and he thought he might say that the same applied to the miners in South Ayrshire, a constituency which he once had the honour to represent. Miners believed that the effect of the tax had been to lower wages, and as a representative of the miners he would certainly oppose it by every means in his power.
MR. PARROTT (Yorkshire, W.R., Normanton)said as a representative of a mining division he wished to join his friends on that side in entering his protest against the 1s. tax on exported coal. He was very much impressed when the Deputy-Chairman ruled an hon. Gentleman out of order because he used the word "scandalous." He felt some amusement at his own thoughts then. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, along with the Prime Minister and as many of their friends as they chose to take, would go into the mining counties and explain to the miners that this tax did not affect them in the least either in trade or wages they would hear language which would cause the word "scandalous" to feel ashamed of itself for being so mild. He could not understand how Gentlemen could state earnestly and emphatically that the tax did not affect either miners or mine-owners. At the present moment the question of a 5 per cent. reduction was being discussed by nearly 400 miners in the Miners' Federation. That tax was made use of as one of the reasons for that reduction. They knew that trade was very bad, and they had hundreds and thousands of miners who were only working a few days a week and many who were not working at all. They believed, and he a1so believed, that it was largely because of this 1s. tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said some tithe ago to a deputation, which he accompanied, that if it could be proved to him that it did affect the trade he would then reconsider his decision. He had been told again and again that it did affect the trade both by the colliery proprietors and by the miners' representatives, and he thought no one in the House mould for a moment doubt the word of 646 the hon. Member for Morpeth, whom they knew to be a consistent, a truthful, and, as a rule, a non-exaggerating gentleman. That hon. Member had stated again and again that the tax was injurious to the trade and that the miners and mine-owners in Cumberland and the North were suffering. What more did the Chancellor of the Exchequer require? He told him from Yorkshire that the miners were suffering, and that the mine owners said that they were suffering.
One hon. Member had stated that the miners were not opposed to the tax in the district which he represented. The miners were opposed to it and he was now speaking for the whole of Yorkshire. The coal-owners would tell the right hon. Gentleman if he asked them whether they had suffered or not. They told the miners they had suffered and that was why they wanted a reduction, and that was a1so why the question was being debated by the Miners' Federation. What more did the Chancellor of the Exchequer require? The owner of some very large collieries told him the other day that he had been in the trade from boyhood and had never known it so bad as at the present time; certain collieries that he and his partner owned were doing, worse than ever they did. No one need try to make him believe—they might try but they could never succeed—that miners who were only working two days a week did not feel the effects of that tax. It was a fact that they were very much affected and were protesting in all parts of the mining districts in the country against the tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer required petitions they could get them, and he was quite sure the hon. Member who represented Doncaster would find that the miners in his Division would protest by petition.
MR. PARROTTY s, and they would remind the hon. Member of it at the next general election. He knew the Prime Minister represented a few miners in his Division, but he would be surprised after this if any miner in the country voted for a Conservative again for a long time. They had ruined the trade and were ruining the people. There were 647 800,000 or 900,000 people with their wives and families, which added up to millions, who were feeling this ax very seriously and he would advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Amendment to pass, substituting 1d. in the place of 1s. He took that opportunity of ente ing his protest against that ruinous tax on the coal trade. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not put a tax on all trades in the country? Why did he select the coal trade alone? He knew that if he put a tax on other trades there would be such an uprising in this country as had never been seen before. The miners were getting disgusted with the Conservative Party and they were swearing by all that was sacred that they would never vote for them any more.
§ SIR EDWARD GREYsaid it was, he thought, the first time the hon. Member who had just spoken had taken part in debate. He was sure on both sides of the House they would congratulate him upon having contributed materially. He thought they would all condole with him in the very exceptional circumstances under which his first speech had had to be delivered. They would wish that the hon. Member should continue to take part in their debates, and that it would be seldom he would have to do so under such trying conditions. If anything could convince the Government and the country of the earnestness and the sincerity and the deep importance which hon. Members attached to this question it would be the force, the vigour, the knowledge and the clearness with which this debate had been pressed under such exceptional circumstances. Most of the hon. Members who had spoken—he thought it would be admitted with great ability and knowledge —against this tax, had done so after they had been at work, some of them for twenty hours and some of them even longer, and he thought everybody who had listened to the debate would agree that since they entered upon the debate on the coal tax there had been a degree of earnestness and vigour which nothing but great zeal and great sincerity could have maintained undiminished under such trying circumstances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the fairness of whose tone a1so under trying circumstances 648 they all recognised, had told them that he had an open mind with regard to the future of that tax. That, he thought, was what his predecessor told them. He felt this about an open mind. It was rather like an open door. One ought to be careful of releasing their pressure for fear one should find the doors had become shut. So while they welcomed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's open mind he did not think that that was a reason for not pressing strongly upon him the arguments which had already been pressed with regard to that tax, because even if they could not have effect on the present Budget the vigour of them might at any rate do something to keep the Chancellor's mind open.
All taxes were disagreeable but this tax was really an invidious and odious tax. It was, of course, especially disagreeable and disappointing that it should be kept on, because it was one of the taxes imposed while they were at war. It was quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day said he contemplated it becoming a permanent part of their system of taxation, but the general feeling of the House and the country was that if there had been no war this tax would never have come into being. There was a sense of disappointment that now the war had been so long over the tax showed no signs of being removed. They were told the tax was going to fall either on the foreigner or on the coal-owner, and there was some feeling at the time as to the miners' position. The miners were getting very high wages, the price of coal was high, and it was urged that the rest of the community had been so penalised by the high price of coal that neither the mine-owners nor the miners could be regarded as objects of sympathy if some burden fell upon them. The answer of course was that the miners were having temporary conditions of prosperity sure to be followed by a reaction. In the mining, just as in other trades, he had heard the leaders of the unions impress upon the men that in good times they ought to be provident so as to have something to fall back upon during long spel1s of bad trade. Those times were being felt now. Surely in principle an export duty was about the most vicious thing 649 one could impose. It must handicap them in competition, not only in the coal trade but in other trades as well. It affected the shipping trade as well as the coal trade. They could not tell how that tax in time might disturb shipping by altering the export trade. If they disturbed their export of coal they not only affected the shipping trade in that way, but they probably increased the charge upon the other cargo which was brought to this country, and in this way such a tax affected the shipping industry and those who depended upon it. He was told that last year the additional price which British ships had to pay for British coal purchased in foreign ports, being coal which had paid the export duty, amounted to no less than £275,000. The shipping industry was not prosperous at the present time, and such a charge as that pressed heavily upon the shipping interest. Then they had the effect of the tax upon different ports. In some cases coal was shipped from one port instead of from another, going in some cases to the port which entailed the shortest railway journey. That was hard lines on the port that lost the trade and a1so upon the coal trade.
So far as the monopoly coal was concerned—the coal of special quality, of which they had a monopoly—he had always been ready to admit that that coal might perhaps bear a tax, and, if that coal was a monopoly, some of the tax would be paid by the foreigner, but that was a small proportion of the whole, the bulk of the trade being a competitive trade. It might be urged that they had coal of such a fine quality that it would be an advantage to impose a tax which would reserve that coal to their own use. That was just the class of coal which would not be retained by the tax, and if there were coal of that sort of which it was desirable for Admiralty or other purposes that they should keep a good reserve, the proper course was for the Government to purchase it and work it. As to the rest, the burden certainly did not fall upon the foreigner. The burden he believed had been coming out of wages, which had been falling heavily. Everybody admitted that the whole of the fall was not due to the tax, but could they believe that with this definite 650 and permanent tax upon the coal trade it would not in the long run come upon the wages? However much the tax might hit the owners and other interests, in the long run the tendency would be, where there was competition, for it to filter through to the miner. Everybody pushed off the tax if they could on to somebody e1se. The miner was at the bottom rung and could not push it off on anybody e1se, and therefore upon him it was likely to be fixed. That was why he called this an invidious tax—because it bore upon a particular class which already bore its fair proportion of the other burdens of the war. They were face to face with a fall in profits and in wages and there was no prospect at present of that tendency diminishing. If that were so the tax would be felt with a keen sense of injustice, because it fell specially upon one class of the community, and that was why he urged again that that tax of all taxes was the one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to remove on the first opportunity. It pressed with special injustice upon a particular class of the community and, being an export tax, it was especially vicious in principle, being certain to bear upon the shipping and other export trades.
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)said the case for the British coal trade had been so well put that he honed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think public opinion was less strong in Scotland upon that subject than in the North of England. Their arguments would be much the same as those advanced by the representatives of the North of England, but their case was an even stronger one, because their coa1s were cheaper and the duty pressed more heavily upon them than upon the English coal trade. There was only one opinion upon the subject that he had heard in Scotland, that was that all of them who had any connection with coal loft, and that the working miners lost most of all. Their exports were very large to the Eastern ports in the Baltic, and there they came into direct competition with German coal. There was no doubt that but for the abnormal development of recent years in the port coalfields there would be far greater depression 651 than there had been resulting from that tax, because it could not be denied from the figures and the evidence of all concerned in the trade that the 1s. tax had handicapped their export trade with the Baltic from the Scottish ports. There was one other point with regard to the effects of the tax—its influence upon shipping. The export trade in coal was so much the basis upon which a great part of their shipping trade rested as a paying enterprise, that anything which tended to discourage the export trade in coal was a discouragement to the great shipping industries of the country. It should not be assumed, as was often done, that this was merely a coal-owners, coal masters, or coal miners question. The future of the shipping industry was affected by it as much, he believed, as the coal trade itself, and the two together represented in Scotland
| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Dorington, Rt. Hon.Sir JohnE. | Jameson, Major J. Eustace |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Doughty, Sir George | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T.(Denbigh) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W. |
| Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO. | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Arrol, Sir William | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Faber, Edmund B.(Hants.,W.) | Lawrence, Sir Jos.(Monmouth) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Mane'r | Lawson, J. Grant(Yorks., N.R. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r | Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds | Fisher, William Hayes | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. | Fison, Frederick William | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose | Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham) |
| Beach, Rt.Hn.SirMichaelHicks | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Bill, Charles | Forster, Henry William | Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale) |
| Bingham, Lord | Foster, P. S.(Warwick, S.W.) | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Galloway, William Johnson | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F.(Middlesex | Gardner, Ernest | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Bull, William James | Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn) | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv. | Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) | M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Gretton, John | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich | Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G |
| Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc. | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Mitchell, William (Burnley) |
| Charrington, Spncer | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Moore, William |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. | Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow |
| Co1ston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Horner, Frederick William | Mount, William Arthur |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham(Bute |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hoult, Joseph | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham | Nicho1son, William Graham |
| Denny, Colonel | Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Hosier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Hunt, Rowland | Percy, Earl |
§ so very important a section of the national life that he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would recollect that Scotland was just as much against the tax as was public opinion in England. There was no doubt that a great deal of their competitive trade had been going to the Germans, whenever they were competing in a neutral market. He had heard the strongest opinions expressed against the tax ever since its real effects became known.
Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move,. "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 267.)
| Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Samuel,Sir HarryS.(Limehouse | Vincent,Col.Sir C.E.H(Sheffield |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J. | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Plummer, Sir Walter R. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew) | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Purvis, Robert | Smith,HC.(North'mb.Tyneside | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Pyrn, C. Guy | Smith,RtHn. J.Parker(Lanarks | Wi1son, A. Stanley(York, E.R.) |
| Ratcliff, R. F. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Reid, James (Greenock) | Spear, John Ward | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wi1son |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart- |
| Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Robinson, Brooke | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Younger, William |
| Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Thompson,Dr.E.C(Monagh'n,N | |
| Round, Rt. Hon. James | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Tuke, Sir John Batty | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Valentia, Viscount | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) | Parrott, William |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Hammond, John | Partington, Oswald |
| Allen, Charles P. | Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Harwood, George | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hayden, John Patrick | Price, Robert John |
| Bell, Richard | Higham, John Sharpe | Priestley, Arthur |
| Boland, John | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol,E.) | Rea, Russell |
| Brigg, John | Holland, Sir William Henry | Reckitt, Harold John |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Jacoby, James Alfred | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Burns, John | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Burt, Thomas | Joicey, Sir James | Runciman, Walter |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Russell, T. W. |
| Caldwell, James | Joyce, Michael | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W. | Shackleton, David James |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Kilbride, Denis | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B. |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lambert, George | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Cawley, Frederick | Langley, Batty | Sheehy, David |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Levy, Maurice | Stanhope, Hon. Philip James |
| Cullinan, J. | Lloyd-George, David | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dalziel James Henry | Lough, Thomas | Sullivan, Donal |
| Delany, William | Lundon, W. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Tomkinson, James |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Tully, Jasper |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | M`Kenna, Reginald | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Elibank, Master of | Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Ellice,Capt.E.C(SAndrw'sBghs | Mooney, John J. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Esmonde, 8ir Thomas | Nolan. Joseph (Louth, South) | Wi1son, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Norman, Henry | Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd |
| Fenwick, Charles | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Young, Samuel |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny' | TELLERS FOR TILE NoEs—Mr. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Dowd, John | Herbert Gladstone and Mr. |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | William M'Arthur. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Shee, James John |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the clause be read a second time."
| AYES | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Brigg,,John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Brown, George M. (Edinburgh |
| Allen, Charles P. | Bell, Richard | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn |
| Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry | Boland, John | Burns, John, |
§ The Committee divide:— Ayes, 129; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 268)
| Burt, Thomas | Jacoby, James Alfred | Price, Robert John |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Priestley, Arthur |
| Caldwell, James | Joicey, Sir James | Rea, Russell |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Cantley, Henry Strother | Kilbride, Denis | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lambert, George | Runciman, Walter |
| Channing, Francis Al1ston | Langley, Batty | Russell, T. W. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Law,Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lawson, Sir Wilfrd (Cornwall) | Shackleton, David James |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Leese,Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Cullinan, J. | Levy, Maurice | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Lloyd-George, David | Sheehy, David |
| Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Lough, Thomas | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Delany, William | Lundon, W. | Smith,H. C(North'mb.Tyneside |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Stanhope, Hon. Philip James |
| Donelan, Captain A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Doogan, P. C. | M`Hugh, Patrick A. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Kenna, Reginald | Tennant, Harold John |
| Elibank, Master of | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E. |
| Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs | Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.) | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts) | Mooney, John J. | Tomkinson, James |
| Emmott, Alfred | Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Murphy, John | Tully, Jasper |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Norman, Henry | Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Norton, Capt, Cecil William | Wason,JohnCathcart (Orkney) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Freeman-Thomas,Captain F. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wi1son, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Dowd, John | Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd |
| Grey, Rt. Hn Sir E. (Berwick) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Hammond John | O'Shee, James John | Young, Samuel |
| Harcout,LewisV(Rossendale | Parrott, William | |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Partington, Oswald | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr |
| Higham, John Sharpe | Paulton, James Mellor | Herbert Gladstone and Mr |
| Hobhouse,C. E. H. (Bristol,E.) | Pirie, Duncan V. | William M`Arthur. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Plummer, Sir Walter R. | |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| NOES | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E | Forster, Henry William |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Co1ston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Galloway, William Johnson |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Compton, Lord Alywne | Gardner, Ernest |
| Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn. Hugh O | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cust, Henry John C. | Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) |
| Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r | Davenport, William Bromley | Gretton, John |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Dickson, Charles Scott | Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Hare, Thomas Leigh |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE | Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich) |
| Beach, Rt.Hn.SirMichaelHicks | Doughty, Sir George | Harwood, George |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Bill, Charles | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Haslett, Sir James Horner |
| Bingham, Lord | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F.(Middlesex | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. |
| Bull, William James | Faber, Edmund B.(Hants.,W.) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sir J.(Manc'r | Hoare, Sir Samuel |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv. | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Hobhouse,RtHn H(Somers't,E |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas | Horner, Frederick William |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Fisher, William Hayes | Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry |
| Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Fison, Frederick William | Hoult, Joseph |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham |
| Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A(Worc. | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Hosier, Hn. James Henry Cecil |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Moore, William | Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew) |
| Hunt, Rowland | Morgan, D. J. (Walthainstow) | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Morrell, George Herbert | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Morrison, James Archibald | Spear, John Ward |
| Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh) | Mount, William Arthur | Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk) |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W. | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Nicho1son, William Graham | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Thompson,Dr.E C(Monagh'n,N |
| Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R) | Peel, Ha.Wm.Robert Wellesley | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Percy, Earl | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Valentia, Viscount |
| Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Vincent,Col.Sir C.E.H(Sheffield |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Pretyman, Ernest George | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.) | Purvis, Robert | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Pym, C. Guy | Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E(Taunton |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Ratcliff, R. F. | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Reid, James (Greenock) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge | Wi1son, A. Stanley (York, E.R. |
| MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Robinson, Brooke | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wi1son |
| M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W | Round, Rt. Hon. James | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Melville, Beresford Valentine | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Younger, William |
| Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | |
| Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G. | Samuel, SirHarryS.(Limehouse | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Mitchell, William (Burnley) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Alexander Aclan.1-Hood and |
| Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he desired to obtain from the Chairman an explanation of "where they stood." He submitted that they had no right to continue the sitting after 2 o'clock. The Standing Order laid it down that—
Unless the House otherwise order, the House shall meet every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 2 o'clock for an afternoon sitting and at 9 o'clock for an evening sitting.That was perfectly explicit—the House must meet at 2 o'clock for the afternoon sitting unless the House otherwise ordered. The only orders at present were the orders of the Government, but there was nothing in the Standing Order to say that these were to supersede the Orders of the House. He submitted as a matter of order, therefore, that the Committee had no right to proceed with the present discussion.
§ * THE CHAIRMANWe are still in yesterday's sitting. Until that comes to a conclusion in some way or other, I have no power to leave the Chair.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANAs this question has been very naturally 658 raised, I think it well to ask the Leader of the House, at this stage, what the intentions of the Government are with regard to the business of the House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is not a point of order. [Opposition cries of "Move."]
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThen I will move that the Chairman do report Progress in order to ascertain what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the scheme of business. It is perfectly clear that matters have got into a tangle. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Some hon. Members think they have not. I think they have. In any case, one necessary thing for us to know is what view the Government take on the matter, and in order to give them an opportunity of explaining their intentions to the House I move to report progress.
§ Motion made and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is perfectly true that the rather unusual, and, I may add, unexpected proceedings which have occurred since yesterday have, no doubt, 659 altered the programme which I originally sketched to the House as being the one most convenient for the transaction of public business. As the Chairman has pointed out, yesterday's sitting will remain, I understand, yesterday's sitting until it comes to a conclusion. It cannot now come to a conclusion at such time as will enable us to give the full sitting which I had desired to give to-day to the Licensing Bill.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEIs it not au allotted day for the Licensing Bill?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI will not stop to argue that now. I will argue it when we reach to-day. It would, I take it, in ordinary course, become an allotted day.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy hon. friend says it cannot be an allotted day. But we need not dispute about it because I should certainly be very reluctant, even if I had the technical power under the closure rale which was moved in regard to the Licensing Bill, to take advantage of the transactions of the last twenty-four hours materially to shorten the time of debate which was allowed for the Report stage of the Licensing Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think themselves rather ill-used by what has passed. I think myself rather ill-used, but I will not make any further reference to that. At all events, whether we have a grievance or not, I do not propose, whatever our technical rights may be, to ask the House to take the Licensing Bill to-day. I think probably it would be most convenient, though the notice is short, to take Colonial Supply to-morrow—by the ordinary time. The House is aware that in the previously existing state of things I proposed to have no Supply day this week, but to have two days next week. I very greatly regret that the Government have been driven out of that situation, and I think now probably the best plan would be to take Thursday for the Colonial Vote, for which, I think, the House is quite prepared. I have been long pressed about it, and I imagine that hon. Members know the case they want to bring up. In these circumstances, we shall go on, of course, with the Budget to-day and take Supply to-morrow.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANAnd what about Friday?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI must not be taken as pledging myself, but I think we shall take the Report of the Budget.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI wish to ask a further Question in order to clear the matter up. A good deal of conjectural misapprehension prevai1s as to the possibilities of to-day. I presume that what the right hon. Gentleman means is that to-day, so far as the House shall sit to-day, will be occupied in finishing Tuesday's sitting.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR.Yes.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANFERMANAnd that there cannot be initiated a new Wednesday sitting to-day in succession to what I may call the fag-end of Tuesday's sitting. I understand the right hon. Gentleman expects the Committee, to go on with the Budget Bill, but, of course, no, other part of the business on the Paper for Tuesday can be proceeded with now as it is after twelve o'clock at night.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he took it that the Prime Minister proposed to proceed with the Budget Bill right through to the end—with the new clauses as well as with the Amendments. Some of the new clauses were of very great importance and stood in the names of hon. Gentleman on both sides of the House. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposed to set up the evening sitting, or whether he meant to go through this business at this sitting, and not take any further business at all.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAs the House will see, I have been asked a Question which can only be finally decided, I take it, by Mr. Speaker. But my own personal impression is that, under the rules of the House, when Tuesday comes to an end Wednesday begins, and that we could go on with other business at the second sitting which will begin when this sitting is over. But, as I have said, that is a question which cannot be decided by me. It is a question which must be decided by the Speaker, and by the Speaker alone.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)What about prayers?
§ MR. A. J BALFOURI respectfully submit that that becomes a question of order for the Speaker rather than fir But I take it that Wednesday will not begin till after three o'clock, that is to say, after Question time. That is my view. I quite agree that the position is not without difficulty, and I may be entirely wrong.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEIs there going to be a Wednesday at all?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI shall not propose to ask the House to undergo any great exertions on Wednesday. I have promised not to take the Licensing Bill, and I should not desire to take any other Bill of first-rate importance.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to go on immediately, or at nine o'clock.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANAnd before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, will he explain how, either immediately or at nine o'clock, he can proceed with the Orders of the Day, which are prescribed for two o'clock oil Wednesday? How can he bring into life the second portion of the sitting when the first portion has not been brought into life?
MR. GIBSON BOWLESOn the question of sittings, am I not right, Sir, in saying that although one sitting may become merged in the previous sitting, as this has done, that does not in the least interfere with the sitting at nine o'clock? The right hon. Gentleman has held out expectations of this day beginning; Sir, this day can never now begin. This day continues to be yesterday evening, and when the right hon. Gentleman suggests that there is some period, which he cal1s three o'clock, when the day might begin, may I point out to him that that is an unknown hour?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, no!
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI was asked whether when Wednesday began we should begin with Questions. ["Prayers."] With regard to Questions, I said that I was not qualified to give an opinion, but that, as Wednesday would probably begin after three o'clock, Questions might not be put. But I am not the authority on the subject.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESThat is the point. There is no such thing as three o'clock in the Standing Order. What, then, is to become or the Questions? The Standing Order says that Questions "shall" begin at a quarter past 2 and end at five minutes to 3 o'clock. Am I right in the belief that under the present extraordinary circumstances there can be no Questions, and that the Answers thereto will have to be circulated with the Votes?
§ MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)It would be well if we could arrive at some practical solution. What I am going to submit to the right hon. Gentleman is this—that the Parliamentary Wednesday is the day which begins at 2 o'clock, and that if the House has not sat at 2 o'clock on Wednesday there is no Wednesday possible at all. I do not at all agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the 9 o'clock sitting is an independent sitting; it is nothing of the sort, but a mere continuation of the 2 o'clock sitting after a convenient interval.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESIf the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Standing Order he will see that there are two sittings.
§ MR. ASQUITHI have done so, and that is my construction. Then are one or two points to be settled. We want to get an authoritative ruling as to whether the Parliamentary Wednesday is possible or not, and I take it that that can only be given by Mr. Speaker in the Chair.
§ MR A. J. BALFOURI should think that is so.
§ MR. ASQUITHI presume Mr. Speaker will resume the Chair before the conclusion of this sitting on the question that the House do now adjourn, and that will probably be the most convenient moment. But I am going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman what I think is a more simple solution. Let us continue Tuesday's sitting until we have disposed of the only business which can be taken on a Tuesday sitting after 12 o'clock, namely, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, for none of the other orders can be taken. Why not dispose of that, and then get rid of the question of a Wednesday sitting by taking nothing e1se at all? I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to take any other serious business, and if, as I believe, the Wednesday sitting is an impossibility, he will by that means get rid of all technical difficulties.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion which I am sure is dictated by a desire of getting through business; and if that is the understanding generally come to—namely, that we should get this stage of the Bill—I would not press the House, which I admit must be fatigued, to take at a new sitting new business. I have already told the House that I would not in any circumstances take business of an important controversial character—I do not think that would be fair to the House, and if it would really conduce to the amenity of our feeling on the remaining new clauses of the Bill, and to the general harmony of our proceedings, I should be glad to make that concession, which I hope will be received by both sides of the House.
§ MR. LOUGHThe right hon. Gentleman suggests that it might be possible to take the Report stage of the Budget on Friday; but that will not allow time for the Bill to be reprinted.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROf course, I will consider it. I ought, by the way, to enter a caveat, which may affect the form, though not the substance, of what I have just said. I think it quite 664 possible that Mr. Speaker may take the view that I, with great humility, have offered to the House—namely, that in the natural and ordinary course of our Parliamentary procedure there must be a Wednesday sitting, if Wednesday still exists, when the Tuesday sitting is over; and in that case I presume Mr. Speaker will think it necessary, when this sitting comes to its natural conclusion, to take the Chair. But all that is necessary for me to say is that I will not ask the House to proceed with any Bill.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWill there be the usual ceremony, prayers, etc.?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI hope so.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWill all the ceremony take place which would accompany the ordinary beginning of a sitting at the usual hour, and then immediately after that will the House be adjourned?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROf course it will be understood that no objection will be offered to the Motion for the adjournment. A difficulty occurs to my mind, which is that when Mr. Speaker takes the Chair it will, evidently be after one o'clock last night, and at one o'clock at night Mr. Speaker adjourns without Question put.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid a practical difficulty, if the sitting were not avoided altogether by the plan suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, would be that they would meet without any Orders of the Day having been printed, and they would not know what was the business appointed.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid the course which the right hon. Gentleman was going to pursue would be according to the precedent of 1881, when the House met at Tuesday at four o'clock and sat till after two o'clock on Thursday. Mr. Gladstone moved the adjournment of the House on Thursday, and the Wednesday sitting was obliterated, but he reserved the power of asking the House to do more business on Tuesday's Orders, although he did not think it fair to ask the House to proceed with them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think in substance that precedent is illuminating, but whether the change in our procedure rules since then has made any difference I do not know.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked what was to become of Wednesday's Questions. Would there be an instruction to carry them over to Thursday?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI should think that would be the convenient course, but it is one on which I can give no ruling. There are two courses, one is for Ministers to whom Questions are addressed to put their Answers on the Paper, and the other is that they should be transferred bodily to Thursday's Paper. It rests with Mr. Speaker, but I should think the House would prefer the second course.
§ MR. ASQUITHThe right hon. Gentleman has suggested that there is a difficulty owing to the one o'clock rule, but I think not. The rule is that if the House is sitting at one Speaker adjourns the House Question put, unless exempted business is then under consideration. But at one o'clock exempted business was under consideration.
SIR H. CAMP BELL-BANNERMANI presume we have got all the satisfaction we can. I therefore will ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LOUGHmoved a new clause dealing with the warehousing charges on tea. The object was to remit these charges, the hon. Member said. When 666 they were first imposed in 1850 there was some idea of service being rendered in return for them, but now there were no services rendered. So far as he knew the Customs had not themselves opened any of these warehouses. They were private property, and consequently these charges simply constituted an addition to the Customs duty. There were two clauses on the Paper—his own, and one in the name of the senior Member for Devonport, who had asked him to submit it to the House. His own suggested the abolition of the charges altogether; his hon. friend suggested merely an alteration of them. In reply to a Question he put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was informed that last year these charges produced £16,000. Four years ago, before the tea duty was raised, they only amounted to £10,000 or £11,000. This year there had been another increase of the tea duty and the sum of £20,000 would probably be collected. He submitted that that was not fair; on the contrary it was harsh and unjust and for this reason, that the extra amount paid would not arise from the handling of an increased quantity of tea. Less tea was handled last year than four years ago, and it certainly was not likely that more tea would be handled with the duty at 8d. than there was with the duty at 4d. The loss through the abolition of these charges would be very small indeed, and the result would probably be to increase the dealings in tea. With regard to the proposal of his hon. friend, which suggested that it was impossible to deal with tea separately, he thought it was a case of making two bites at a cherry. The whole charge, including tobacco, sugar, wines and spirits, etc. produced less than £50,000. The charges were antiquated and unjust; they were a great 667 imposition on trade, and instead of varying them it would be better to abolish them altogether, and he would suggest that alternative to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman who, he hoped, would make a handsome concession. He begged to move.
§
New clause. (Charge on delivery of tea from warehouse.)
Such part of the Customs Tariff Act, 1876, as refers to a charge upon the delivery of tea from any warehouse for home consumption is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Lough.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONconfessed that he was not prepared to go so far as his hon. friend suggested in urging on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total abolition of the duties. It was only fair that certain charges should be made for services rendered, but that they should not increase proportionately with the duty, seeing that no additional service was involved.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had had this matter under consideration and he felt some sympathy with the views that had been put forward. But he would be placed in a position of very great difficulty if he made this concession in respect of one article only. On the other hand, he felt it was an additional irritation to the trade that when the duty on an article was raised, automatically this warehousing charge was raised a1so. He was prepared to accept a new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devonport reducing the present warehousing charges on all goods. He had 668 hoped,to meet the views of the deputation which waited upon him on the subject in another way, but he found that that was not possible.
§ MR. LOUGHthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the handsome concession he had made. He asked leave to withdraw his clause.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§
New clause. (Amendment of 39 and 40 Vic., c. 35.)
In lieu and instead of the additional rates provided for in The Customs Tariff Act, 1876, there shall be charged upon the delivery of the following goods from any warehouse for home consumption, in addition to the duties of Customs and any other charges thereon, for every one hundred pounds of such duties of Customs payable thereon, the rates following (that is to say):—In respect of tobacco, 1s. 3d.; in respect of other goods, 2s. 6d.; whether such tobacco or other goods shall have been removed to such warehouse under bond or not.' —(Mr. Kearley.)
§ Brought up, and read the first, and second time and added to the Bill.
§ MR. BUCHANANnext moved a new clause dealing with the amount of permanent annual charge for the National Debt. It was, he said, remarkable that no proposal was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget for the substantial reduction of the Debt, and particularly that part of it due to war expenditure. It was a particularly disappointing Budget, and thy might fairly have anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman entering freshly upon office would have been prepared with some scheme by which in the course of the next few years substantial inroads might be made upon 669 the accumulated Debt under which we laboured and particularly of that part which was incurred for the war. No doubt, however, the present state of national finance had prevented him making any substantial proposal. Last year the right hon. Member for Croydon in his Budget suggested various schemes by which within a limited number of years there might be a substantial reduction of the Debt, but they all hinged upon the anticipated receipt from the Transvaal of £30,000,000. The first instalment of that amount was not likely to be paid for some years to come, and he would like to know how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reconsidered the subject in view of that fact. This country ought to maintain its claim, both as a matter of justice and in order to enable Parliament to advance some scheme for the reduction of the Debt. There was a very general feeling that some immediate steps must be taken by the right hon. Gentleman to curb the ever-increasing loan expenditure in respect of naval and military works. Here was a separate field of action for the right hon. Gentleman. Some steps ought certainly to be taken by the head of the Treasury to check this constantly increasing loan expenditure. The Public Accounts Committee had made a very strong recommendation on the subject. They had reported that save for works of a very special and permanent character entailing large expenditure over a long period of years, the present system of aiding naval and military Estimates out of loan money should be discontinued, and the former system of meeting expenditure on new works out of the Estimates of the year reverted to. Referring to the Unfunded Debt, he said it stood at a higher figure than at any previous period in their history. He 670 hoped the right hop, Gentleman in the ensuing year Would be able to accept that recommendation in substance. In the course of the last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer had again been in the market and raised two million more Treasury bil1s, so that they had the total Unfunded Debt standing at £79,133,000. That was the highest figure in the history of the country, and he asked the Chancellor what steps he intended to take to bring about an early diminution of this amount.
§
New clause (Amount of permanent annual charge for National Debt.)
The amount of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt during the current and every subsequent financial year shall be the sum of twenty-six million pounds, and 'twenty-six million eight hundred thousand pounds' shall he substituted for 'twenty-seven' in Section six (on of Tile Finance Act, 1903."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he quite appreciated some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but he had unfortunately not supplied himself with such full information as he would like to have done, and he did not like to trust to his memory in the matter of figures. It was, of course, true that the amount of Treasury Bil1s outstanding at the present time was very considerable. As long as the income-tax stood at so high a figure the Treasury borrowings in the early part of the year must be considerable, and the reason was that a very large proportion of the income-tax was only paid in the last quarter of the year. With regard to the borrowings under the Military and Naval Works Acts, the 671 Report which had been made upon that subject by the Public Accounts Committee would have to be seriously considered by the Government. It was never intended, he believed, that these borrowings should be a permanent annual charge. They were adopted in the first instance he believed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite at a time when the need for capital expenditure was very great, and works for the Navy had not advanced in proportion to the growth of the Navy, and great arrears had to be made up. The growth of capital expenditure for the Navy and the Army had been such that it would be impossible for the country to bear the enormous burden by annual Votes. He had, however, been in communication with the spending Departments to impress upon them the need at the present time for having recourse as little as possible to borrowings for this purpose, but of course the Committee would understand, when vast contracts were entered upon, it would not be economic to stop half-way, and thus obtain no remunerative return on half-finished work. With regard to the Transvaal war contribution, it would not be in the public interest to discuss the matter in detail, but he looked forward when circumstances were favourable to receiving the promised contribution. With regard to the Sinking Fund, and the question of its adequacy or otherwise, he would like to point out that it represented nearly 1 per cent. on the interest of the Debt. He thought it was not inadequate. He had looked at the figures for 1879, 1884, 1889, 1894, 1899, and 1904, and he had found that only in 1884 and 1894 did the percentage of the Fund stand higher than at present. He quite appreciated the importance of reducing the National Debt, but at the present 672 time, when our burdens were so heavy, he could not have proposed the imposition of fresh taxation for the purpose of increasing the Sinking Fund.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he, too, was unprepared with figures for that discussion, which he ie9c1 hardly expected would be reached.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid he did not propose to press his clause. He thought, however, it was a question whether 1 per cent. was a fair Sinking Fund for a large Debt like ours.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYmoved a new clause relating to the exemption from income-tax in the case of unregistered friendly societies whose income was less than £160. His object was to place these societies in the position of individua1s who were aggregated together.
§
New clause. (Amendment of 5 and 6 Vic., c. 35, and 59 and 60 Vic., c. 16.)
Section one hundred and ninety-two of the Income - Tax Act, 1842, shall read as if the words and unregistered friendly societies having an income of less than one hundred and sixty pounds a year' were inserted after the word 'corporate.'
Section two of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, as extended by the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, etc., Continuance Act, 1901, which authorises certain payments to be made out of the Local Taxation Account and requires the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to pay to the Local Taxation Account, out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived in England from personal property, the annual sum required by that section to be paid to that account, shall cease to have effect from and after the thirty-first day of March next after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. A. K. LOYD (Berkshire, Abingdon)said he had intended to move the Amendment standing in his name, but as the Government, so far as the important concession which they had made went, had practically followed the words of his Amendment, he should not feel justified in detaining the Committee, after so protracted a sitting, with any controversial matters. Two things, however, he wished to have clearly understood. First, that it was not the object of the present Amendment to ask for any new privilege for unregistered societies, but only to put an end to a long-standing injustice and illegality. Secondly, it was not desired in any way to discourage registration. He desired to encourage voluntary registration in every legitimate way. He did not think it a legitimate way of encouraging registration to deprive unregistered societies of income-tax exemptions to which they were legally entitled. The clause, as accepted by the Government, was declaratory and would prevent the continuance of an illegality.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ * MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUmoved a new clause (standing in the name of the hon. Member forMiddlesborough)providingthat alcohol which had been suitably denatured and rendered unpotable and was required for motive power, lighting, heating, and manufacturing purposes should be sold without payment of any duty or tax, and that absolute alcohol should a1so he exempt from duty when employed in manufacturing operations where it could be proved 674 to the Commissioners that denaturing agents would prevent its use. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a Committee could not be appointed to investigate the whole subject. It would be a great advantage to the agricultural community and to manufacturers a1so.
§
New clause. (Exemption from duty of alcohol used for motive power.)
On and after the first day of August, 1904. where it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that alcohol which has been suitably denatured and rendered unpotable is required for motive Power, lighting, heating, and manufacturing purposes, it shall be lawful to sell such sprit without payment of any duty or tax thereon. and further, subject to such regulations as the Commissioners may require for the security of the revenue, absolute alcohol shall a1so be exempt from duty when employed in manufacturing operations where it can be proved to the Commissioners that denaturing, agents would prevent its use."—(Mr. Scott-Montagu)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, end Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not accept the clause as it stood on the Paper, but be would accept the suggestion to have a Committee appointed to look into the matter. He was aware that a great deal of importance was attached to the question, and he agreed that the public should have an opportunity of explaining what it was they wanted as well as an opportunity of learning the facilities which the law provided—facilities which were not so well known as they ought to be. He could not undertake to deal with a point of legislation in the Finance Bill. He would be pleased to consult hon. Members interested as to the terms of reference.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)asked whether alcohol for motive power would be the only question inquired into by the Committee, or whether the inquiry would be extended to the exemption of alcohol for use in various trades.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI intended the Committee to cover both subjects.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESwarned the right hon. Gentleman against agreeing too readily to these exemptions of alcohol. Exemption of one man meant an increased burden on another. The Committee might disclose grievances, of course, but the right hon. Gentleman should not be led away to propose in his next Budget anything in the interest of the motor industries or any other industries. He did not agree with the proposal that spirits which were not drunk should be exempt any more than spirits that were drunk. He could see no greater merit in spirit used for propelling motor-cars than in spirits used for raising the spirits of Members of Parliament during a long all-night sitting.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn
§ Schedule.
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 4, line 27, to leave out the word 'said.'
In page 4, line 27, after the word provisions,' to insert the words applicable thereto.'
In page 4, line 33, at end, to insert the words '(5) Notwithstanding anything in Section 1 of The Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863, drawback on tobacco shall be allowed in respect of fractions of a pound in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of The Customs Consolidation Act, 1876.'
676
In page 4, line 36, at end, to insert the words, 'and that sub-section shall apply to stalks, shorts, and other refuse of tobacco not of the fineness of Snuff.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, speaking on behalf of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, he was sure they were all really very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very good-natured and good-humoured way in which he had carried through his Bill under what had been very trying circumstances.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI thank the Committee generally for the courteous way they have treated me during the discussions upon this Bill in Committee.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 276.]