§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1.
§ MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)
said the Amendment he wished to propose was to leave out the word "levied" in line 18 of the first clause. His object was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reason why that word was inserted. It seemed to him, in effect, to be a question more or less of verbiage. In a Bill of this kind it was important that every word should be carefully considered, and they did not want a word inserted which they did not know the 1029 definite meaning of. It was not a question of a few pounds being dealt with, because this Bill dealt with millions of pounds. He wished to know whether the word "levied" was a word of any service, and whether it was necessary for it to be inserted at all. In ancient times lawyers used to be paid by the number of words they could insert in a deed of conveyance and they used to get as many words as possible inserted which meant exactly the same thing. The word "levied" had fallen into desuetude and they did not want it continued in Acts of Parliament. He had searched for definitions of the word "levied" and he found that it meant "raised." If the word "raised" were put in he thought the word "levied" would not be required. In Clause 4 they found that certain rates were not to be charged any longer, and it only stated that they should cease to be "chargeable" and not "leviable and payable." He begged to move
In page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "levied."—(Mr. Soares.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'levied' stand part of the clause."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.
said he hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press this Amendment. The form of words embodied in the clause were those which had been uniformly used in finance legislation for many years past. It was not used in connection with the income-tax because Section 26 of the Act of 1896 shortened the income-tax clause and provided that the income-tax should be "charged, levied, and paid." The same meaning was attached to the single word "charged." He did not think there was much substance in the addition of the word, but as it had always been used in Acts of Parliament there might
§ be inconvenience caused by its omission, because it might be argued that the House of Commons meant something different when the old form was used. The form adopted was the form which had appeared in every Finance Act for the past ten years. He hoped the hon. Member would agree that it was not quite a reasonable or necessary Amendment. He therefore suggested that they should adhere to the words which were customary, because any departure from them might be assumed to imply a difference of intention on the part of the Hose. He thought it would be a mistake to alter the custom, and consequently he could not consent to do so. He hoped the Committee would not spend much time over very minute points of this character.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said the acceptance of this Amendment would seriously alter the Bill.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
said he had often heard it said that they ought not to pay any attention to good grammar in Acts of Parliament. If the words "charged and levied" were satisfactory in the case of the income-tax why should they go on for generations using this bad grammar. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to strike out all unnecessary words.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said if the right hon. Gentleman was right in stating that there was a definition in an Act of the nature indicated, surely the correct way to proceed would be to extend that definition to the tea duty, and not have a differentiation between one tax and another. His hon. friend's Amendment, if carried, would bring that about.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 159. (Division List No. 168.)1033
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh. O.||Bain, Colonel James Robert|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Arrol, Sir William||Balcarres, Lord|
|Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Baldwin, Alfred|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bailey, James (Walworth)||Banbury, Sir Frederick George|
|Barry. Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Graham, Henry Robert||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks||Grenfell, William Henry||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Gunter, Sir Robert||Purvis, Robert|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Randles, John S.|
|Bigwood, James||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Rankin, Sir James|
|Bill, Charles||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Bingham, Lord||Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bond, Edward||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Bowles, Lt. -Col. H. F. (Middlesex||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords., N. W||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Brassey, Albert||Helder, Augustus||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Butcher, John George||Hogg, Lindsay||Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Campbell, J. H. M.(Dublin Univ.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Carlile, William Walter||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln),|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hunt, Rowland||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A.(Worc.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Smith, Rt. Hon. J. P. (Lanarks|
|Chapman, Edward||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Spear, John Ward|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Coddington, Sir William||Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks. N. R.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Stroyan, John|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ-|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Lowe, Francis William||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Macdona, John Cumming||Tuff, Charles|
|Denny, Colonel||Maconochie, A. W.||Tufnell, Lieut. -Col. Edward|
|Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Manners, Lord Cecil||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Marks, Harry Hananel||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Maxwell. Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Moore, William||Willough by de Eresby, Lord|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.||Morpeth, Viscount||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Morrison, James Archibald||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks.)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Finlay, Sir R. B (Inverness B'ghs||Mount, William Arthur||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Forster, Henry William||Myers, William Henry||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Galloway, William Johnson||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Gardner, Ernest||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Pease. Herb. Pike (Darlington)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Percy, Earl||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Allen, Charles P.||Atherley-Jones, L.||Barry, E. (Cork, S.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Austin, Sir John||Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barlow, John Emmott||Benn, John Williams|
|Blake, Edward||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||O'Shauglmessy, P. J.|
|Boland, John||Holland, Sir William Henry||Parrott, William|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Partington, Oswald|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Jacoby, James Alfred||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Johnson, John||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Joicey, Sir James||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Burns, John||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Price, Robert John|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Priestley, Arthur|
|Caldwell, James||Joyce, Michael||Rea, Russell|
|Cameron, Robert||Kearley, Hudson E.||Reddy, M.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Kilbride, Denis||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lambert, George||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Cawley, Frederick||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Leng, Sir John||Roche, John|
|Crean, Eugene||Levy, Maurice||Rose, Charles Day|
|Crombie, John William||Lewis, John Herbert||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Crooks, William||Lloyd-George, David||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lough, Thomas||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Delany, William||Lundon, W.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Lyell, Charles Henry||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Slack, John Bamford|
|Dillon, John||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Dobbie, Joseph||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Donelan, Captain A.||M'Crae, George||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Fadden, Edward||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||M'Kean, John||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Dunn, Sir William||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Edwards, Frank||Mooney, John J.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Elibank, Master of||Moss, Samuel||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Moulton, John Fletcher||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Emmott, Alfred||Murphy, John||Toulmin, George|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||Ure, Alexander|
|Field, William||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wallace, Robert|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Norman, Henry||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Harcourt, Lewis||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Harrington, Timothy||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Young, Samuel|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Dowd, John||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Malley, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Mara, James||Soares and Mr. Barran.|
§ MR. FLYNN moved the omission of the words "or Ireland" in line 19, in order to exclude Ireland from the operation of the proposed tea duty of sixpence the pound. His object in making the Motion was two-fold—firstly, in the interest of the poorer classes of Ireland, and secondly, because this was the proper Parliamentary way to propose a differentiation between the amount of tea duty in Ireland and the other portions of the United Kingdom. If this Amendment should be carried, he would move another Amendment to provide that the tea duty in Ireland should be threepence the pound. While his proposal would 1034 commend itself to Irish Members, he hoped it would not be distasteful to British Members. In the first place Ireland was a country where tea was very largely consumed by the working population who were extremely poor; and therefore Ireland felt the burden of this tax more than either Scotland or England. Not so many years ago there was a school of thought, which included a large proportion of the population of these islands, in favour of a free breakfast table—a school which was supported by one of the greatest Finance Ministers of this country. But since then they had travelled far in an 1035 opposite direction; for now there were heavier duties on all the elements which constituted the spread of a breakfast table, such as tea and sugar, except the loaf of bread, than there had been for a long period. The Irish people had always protested against the tea duty being imposed upon them. The pious aspiration for a free breakfast table had not been realised, and in an opposite direction the cry had gone up to broaden the basis of taxation. That meant, of course, that the load of taxation was to be taken off the shoulders of those best able to bear it and put on the already over-weighted backs of the poor. If that were true in regard to this country, how much more in regard to the working population of Ireland. It would be easy, he contended, to make out a case for the entire exemption of Ireland from tea duty.
§ The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Bristol, used the argument that the high duty on tea should be maintained because it was necessary to raise taxation in order to meet the enormous expense of the late South African War, and that the working classes who had steadily supported that inglorious and wasteful campaign by their votes and every other manifestation of their feelings ought not to complain of an increase of the tea duty. But that argument did not apply to Ireland or to the Irish people. Therefore, they were justified in protesting against the tea duty when it was raised from 4d. to 6d., and from 6d. to 8d. They acknowledged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken heart of grace and reduced this duty from 8d.to 6d. per lb., but the duty was still too heavy; and he claimed that Ireland had a strong and overwhelming case for total exemption from the tea duty.
§ He had no doubt they would be told that to exempt Ireland from tea duty would involve the setting up of separate Customhouses in Ireland and Great Britain. He did not acknowledge that. For many years the tea duty was collected in Ireland by the Excise authorities and not by the Customs. If spirits could be moved from one country to the other by the Excise authorities, tea could be moved in exactly the same way. There 1036 was, therefore, nothing in the separate Custom-house argument. Tea was moved in bulk in the same manner as spirits and it could be followed to where it was consumed and the duty imposed there. The chests could be marked in a certain manner and it would be impossible to smuggle it in large quantities. At the present moment there were countries where there was a heavy duty on tea, but ladies who were fond of an afternoon cup of what was called English tea—of course; it was not English tea—were allowed to take small quantities of tea into those countries; but the Custom-house authorities did not allow them to take in large quantities in bulk. Therefore the difficulty which might be raised by the Treasury and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the exemption of Ireland could be easily surmounted. Irish Members had at present to complain of the Customs and Excise authorities who took very little trouble to trace the movement of articles of trade and consumption between Ireland and this country; and if they wanted to ascertain the volume of trade between Ireland and Great Britain they were told it could not be given. The mere fact that it was difficult was no argument against the attempt being made to ascertain it. The officials of the Customs were not so overburdened with work that they could not devise regulations to prevent smuggling or illegal transit of tea between the two countries. For the reasons stated he contended that Ireland was entitled to this exemption; and he begged to move.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
seconded the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for North Cork. The main justification for the proposal was the vital fact stated to the House the other day, that while in this country the proportion of direct taxation was 48 to 52 of indirect taxation, the proportion in Ireland was 25 per cent. of direct taxation and 75 per cent. of indirect taxation. These figures showed how, by the system of so-called equal burden, Ireland was overweighted. For long years after the principle of equal burden had been accepted in this country they were told of its injustice to the poorer classes of England and that direct taxation should at least be equal to half of the whole taxation, if not more 1037 than half. But in Ireland the classes which paid indirect taxation contributed 75 per cent. of the whole, and that in itself condemned the English system of taxation as applied to Ireland. The same system of taxation when applied in one country might be just and even generous to all classes in that country which was prosperous in its trade; but it might be cruelly unjust to the population of another country which was poor. Taxation was applied to Ireland which was only suitable to Great Britain; then mitigation was tried; but yet the House would not agree to any difference of taxation as between the two countries because it might involve the erection of Custom-houses and other impediments to trade. There, again, arose the difference between England and Ireland. They had learned in this country that the more the impediments to trade were removed the more the people flourished. No such lesson was learned in Ireland. The great principles of free trade had not brought prosperity and wealth, but ruin and misery to Ireland. All Irish affairs were considered and settled, not in relation to the circumstances of the Irish nation, but to the circumstances of another nation altogether. Hon. Members opposite admitted all that; but yet they said they would not consent to break up the United Kingdom and introduce separate tariffs. They argued that a reduction in the duty on tea would involve separate Custom-houses. It might involve a small amount of inconvenience; but it was not true to say it would involve separate Custom-houses. His own impression was that separate Custom-houses as between England and Ireland only ceased to exist in 1820. The duty on whisky, which was a very important Irish export, differed in the two countries down to 1860; the difference being much greater than that now proposed in the case of tea. Whisky was a product of the country; and the danger of smuggling was therefore infinitely greater than in the case of tea, which was not grown in Ireland; and which it was easy to see was not exported.
He admitted that a certain amount of inconvenience would be involved if the Amendment were accepted. For his own 1038 part, he would be prepared to adopt a different method; namely, that a portion of the revenue collected should be returned to an Irish body responsible to the Irish people for the benefit of the poor of the country, not in a demoralising way, but in order to develop the resources of the country. That would, however, be impossible until there was a body responsible to the people; and as long as there was no such body to control the expenditure the money would certainly be wasted. Therefore, they were stopped on that line. They now, however, were proposing a specific remedy; namely, that the huge injustice of the undue burden of indirect taxation in Ireland should be mitigated. The difficulty in connection with separate Custom-houses had been greatly exaggerated; but, in any event, the Government were bound to take some steps to obviate the injustice. That was the first duty of the Government.
He believed that a great deal of the misfortune of Ireland was due to over-taxation. It was an enormous difficulty; and he regretted that the House did not realise the extent to which it had kept the people in poverty and discouraged enterprise of every kind. It was an admitted experience in the history of nations that there was a certain point of over-taxation which rendered it absolutely impossible to accumulate wealth or successfully carry on trade or manufacture. They in Ireland had been prevented from accumulating wealth from the fact that among other causes taxation was out of all proportion to the taxable capacity of the people. It was very difficult for Englishmen to appreciate that view. In Ireland a million sterling of over-taxation should be multiplied thirty or forty times as regarded England; and the over-taxation of Ireland by £2,500,000 represented something like £90,000,000 in England. Would not that be considered a serious matter even for a wealthy country like England. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol declared that he felt the greatest foreboding at the increase of taxation and expenditure in this country. What must be the opinion of a man who applied his mind with a sympathetic spirit to Ireland. In that 1039 country taxation had doubled in fifty years, whereas the wealth of England had increased at least tenfold during that period. Ireland, on the contrary, was poorer to-day than it was sixty or seventy years ago; and although the wealth of the country had decreased its taxation was trebled. A case such as they were making was not met by silence or by voting it down. It was a question of principle, and the Government were bound to produce some scheme which would give some hope to the Irish people.
In page 1, line 19, to leave out the words 'or Ireland.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
§ Question proposed "That the words 'or Ireland' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. ELLIOT (Durham)
said that easy communication between Great Britain and Ireland had enormously improved during the last seventy or eighty years. That Dublin and Belfast should get any amount of tea they wanted free from taxation and that Liverpool and Glasgow should pay 6d. per pound more for their tea, and that in the absence of all Customhouse restrictions between the two countries, was an impossible suggestion. Every grocer would naturally go to Ireland to obtain his tea, so as to retail it in this country at an enormous profit. They should consider the relations, not only between one financial entity and another, but between one man and another, and it would not be just that the inhabitants of Dublin or Belfast should pay 6d. per pound less for tea than the inhabitants of Liverpool and Glasgow.
§ MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)
said it was absolutely essential to reduce the tea duty as far as possible in Ireland, because of the present condition of that impoverished country. It could not be too often repeated in the House that to the Irish people generally, the mass of whom were the poorest and worst fed people in Europe, tea was the first necessity of life. Although a great deal was heard in the House of the evils of intemperance and the measures suggested for the prevention of that great and crying evil, the Government would not do 1040 that which, above all, would do most to promote temperance in Ireland, namely, make tea cheaper. There should not be any difficulty about it, seeing that the Minority Report of the Childers' Commission found that in the matter of taxation England and Ireland were separate fiscal entities. It was absurd to say that they were to regard the peasant of Connemara as being in the same position as a rich yeoman of Yorkshire, and it was forgotten also that at the time of the Union Ireland was altogether independent of Britain, that the very Union was based on the idea that there was to be a separate system of taxation, and that, even in 1816 and 1817, it was expressly provided that abatements and exemptions should be had in respect to particular things which were affected at the time. Even in 1860, as had been pointed out, there were separate duties. The duties of the two countries were not assimilated on any grounds of convenience of collection, but on general Imperial grounds. It was quite possible to put heavy penalties on any person who tried to smuggle tea from Ireland into England, and since they had to pay a heavy bill to the Treasury it was not too much to expect that they should provide officials smart enough to stop smuggling.
It was most unjust to ask Ireland to pay an extra 2d. in the £ on account of the South African War, out of which they got nothing. The indirect taxes of Ireland in ratio with the direct taxes were as 75 to 25, and it had always been the policy of this country to assimilate and make equal as far as possible the direct and indirect taxation. The taking off of 2d. on tea would not reduce the indirect taxation to the level of direct taxation, but it would go some way towards it, and he thought the argument that it could not be done because it would be troublesome to manipulate was most unjust. So far as he was concerned he would vote for a reduction of 4d. on tea all round, but if that could not be done, there was no reason why Ireland, which suffered much more than the rest of the country from this imposition, should not be relieved. He should support the Amendment, and in doing so considered he had advocated nothing that 1041 was impossible to be obtained, and that it would only be a measure of justice that Ireland should be considered in this matter.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he would not repeat the arguments which he put forward when discussing the general question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, nor would he argue as to the amount of inconvenience or cost to traders on both sides of the Irish Channel that would be involved in the execution of such a proposal as had been made. Under the Amendment he thought the cost, inconvenience, and danger to the revenue of this country would be much greater than hon. Members opposite had been inclined to allow. He did not propose to argue this question at length, because, even if it were shown that there was no force in that practical objection, he still held that this was not a proposal he could accept, or that the Committee would be wise in adopting. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that it was clear that a system of taxation which was just in one country was not necessarily just in another country. That was an obvious principle which no one would dispute, but they were not now considering general questions of taxation, but a particular tax, i.e., the tea tax. If tea were an article of exclusively Irish use, and if some other beverage were substituted for it by the English people, he should think there was some substance in the contention of the hon. Member for East Mayo; but tea was used as much per head of population in Great Britain as in Ireland. It was used by the poor in this country just as much as by the poor in Ireland. It was said that it was monstrous for them to suppose that the poor Connemara peasant was in the same position as the rich gentleman in Yorkshire; but it was equally absurd to tell them that the poor dwellers in the East End of London were in the same position as the rich Irish farmer. They could not take the rich of one country and the poor of another country and compare them.
The hon. Member for East Mayo argued that a much larger proportion of the taxes of Ireland were borne by the indirect taxpayer 1042 than was the case in Great Britain. This was true, but it did not follow that the amount of indirect taxation collected in Ireland was greater per head of the population than in England. The contrary, of course, was true, and the contribution of direct taxes per head of population in Great Britain was greater than in Ireland. The contribution per head of population in Ireland was not greater, and the tax was not greater; and he could not be a party to the suggestion that they should have one rate of taxes in Ireland and another and heavier rate of taxes for the same class of people in this country, and support this to the country at large on the ground that relief was needed for the poor of Ireland. If relief were needed, let it be given to the poor man everywhere and not single out one particular country for relief in this respect.
Another statement had been made in the course of the debate that, owing to this and other high taxes, capital had been prevented from being invested in Ireland, and that the accumulation of wealth in that country had been arrested. Anyone who had given a little attention to the matter would come to the conclusion that there were other courses more potent in deterring the investment of capital in Ireland. They would all be glad to see more capital invested in that country in fruitful occupations, but he did not know on what ground the hon. Member for East Mayo suggested that the accumulation of wealth in Ireland was less than in England; at any rate, there was evidence that amongst the poor there had in Ireland been a steady accumulation of wealth, for there had been a steady growth in the amount put into the Post Office Savings Bank, larger, he thought, in proportion than the growth that had taken place in Great Britain. This certainly did not lend colour to the statement that taxation was pressing more heavily on the poor in Ireland than on the poor in this country. He could not be a party to this or other proposals to set up two different systems of finance for two parts of the United Kingdom. No such proposal had ever had any support from his predecessors in recent years, and he did not imagine it would receive any support from the Party opposite.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said that if the contention that this matter was one for the individual, and not one in regard to which the two countries should be looked at as separate nations were sound, there was an end to the question for ever. He submitted, however, that such a treatment of the question was incorrect, inconclusive, and unjust. It was easy to say that the poor man in both countries should have the same consideration, but the generalisation was not entirely true. For instance, no one would suggest that the population of India could bear the same taxation per head as the people of Great Britain. The contention of the hon. Member for Durham was sound only when the historic, social, and economic conditions of two countries enabled a fiscal unity to be created. How could Gentlemen entirely drawn from Great Britain be expected to deal justly with the principles of taxation which should affect another and a different country? An Englishman. named Pitt, created the Union, but it was subject to certain conditions. The Irish case was that those conditions had never been fulfilled and that the bargain which Pitt made ought to be kept. He noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that none of his predecessors had entertained the claim which was now made by Ireland, and then he added the word "recently."
§ MR. LOUGH
said he gave up Mr. Gladstone at once. The last understanding Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question was Sir Robert Peel. He knew the case and the obligations with which he was bound. The bargain made by Mr. Pitt was that equal taxes should not be demanded; that for every £1 an Irishman paid, £3 10s. should be paid by an Englishman, and that for every £1 paid on tea by Irishmen, three and a-half times as much should be paid by Englishmen, until the wealth, population, and commerce of Ireland should enable a change to be made. The English kept the accounts and consequently they were able to make the condition true with 1044 regard to debt, but not with regard to wealth and population. If this arrangement was so simple and just, why was it that under this fiscal system the one Island of Great Britain had always flourished while the other was ruined? The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not appear to have got accurate information upon this question. Cocoa was used twenty-five times as largely in Great Britain as in Ireland, and coffee nearly ten times as largely in proportion.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said that the consumption of tea in this country was as great and a little greater than in Ireland.
§ MR. LOUGH
said they must take into account these tea substitutes. Let them take two countries like France and England. The French would not care about a tax being placed upon tea, because they drank very little, but if they were to put a tax on coffee England would not be affected so much as France. At the time of the Union Ireland had a population of 12,000,000, and the taxes amounted to £1,250,000. Now the taxes amounted to £10,000,000 and the population had gone down to 4,000,000. That was the effect of the working of this cruel system which the hon. Member for Durham thought was not open to any criticism, and which the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had blessed. Something must be wrong.
A great deal of nonsense had been talked about Custom-houses. He considered that they would have to restore the Custom-houses in Ireland, even if they had to alter the taxation, because without them they could never discover the economic facts which affected any country. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Durham should speak of the difficulty which would be created by tea being smuggled across the Channel. That difficulty did not exist in regard to whisky which Ireland could produce at 1s. per gallon, and which was worth 10s. or 12s. a gallon when it reached this country. There would be no difficulty in carrying out this change in regard to Custom-houses. Take tea. Would less tea be used in Ireland if it were let in free than with a duty of 6d. per 1b. The great 1045 British interest in tea was that everybody should drink plenty of it. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but he wished to point out that tea was mostly grown in British territory and was conveyed in British ships to this country, and the Irish people displayed their loyalty in this matter by drinking mostly Indian tea. He thought the Irish people were only doing their duty by pointing out these inequalities. There were poor women in Islingtion, but it should be remembered that the burden of taxation in Great Britain was adjusted by conditions which did not exist in Ireland. That was seen by the Return which was published the other day in regard to the wages of agricultural labourers. The same wage could not be got in Ireland as in England because the economic conditions were different. We might levy the same tax on tea in Ireland, but we could not create the same condition of ability to pay the tax. Until we made the people of Ireland as wealthy as in Great Britain it was unjust to put the same tax on Ireland. The question whether the difference could not be adjusted by reducing the tax ought to be seriously considered.
§ MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)
said that while there were, no doubt, difficulties in making the proposed differentiation of the tea duty, these difficulties had been grossly exaggerated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the hon. Member for Durham. "Where there's a will there's a way." and if this House wished to act in a just way it could carry out the suggestion contained in the Amendment. Ireland was a country in which the poorer class largely drank tea. He regretted it, because he thought they could find better substitutes for their diet. If the people used more cocoa or coffee it would be better, but things must be taken as they were at present. Before the famine, when they largely fed on vegetables, they were mentally and physically a finer people than at present. It was notorious that the tea consumed by the poor people of Ireland was of a very much better quality than that consumed in the poorer districts of Great Britain. While there was great poverty in Great Britain as well as in Ireland, it should be remembered that the poor here were 1046 very much better able to bear taxation than in Ireland. At the present moment thousands of men were employed in Mayo on relief works and the highest wage they received was 1s. a day. Thousands on the western seaboard were, he would not say on the brink of poverty, but actually in a state of famine, a heavy gale last year having caused a failure of the potato crop. He ventured to say that the unemployed here would reject the wages which were paid to the men engaged on public relief works in Ireland.
§ MR. POWER
said he merely mentioned that as an illustration of the incapacity of the average poor man in Ireland to bear a tax which might be imposed on the people of this country. In considering the question of poverty in Ireland they should recollect that enormous sums had come into the country from America. But for that assistance the people would be very much poorer than they were. The old arguments against the claim now made on behalf of Ireland had been trotted out to-night. There was no use in comparing the poor of Ireland with the poor of Yorkshire, because the cases were entirely different. Since the Union the poor people of Ireland had suffered much at the hands of the richer people of this country who had violated the terms of the Union when it suited them.
§ MR. CHARLES DEVLIN (Galway)
said the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that while the tax fell heavily on a portion of the people of Ireland it bore equally heavily on, say, the poor people of the East End of London. That argument had already been dealt with by some of his colleagues who had pointed out that the conditions in the two cases were absolutely different. When they spoke of the poor people of Ireland they did not speak of isolated cases, but of the overwhelming majority of the population. He had in his hand a report which had been circulated by Lady Dudley, the wife of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had had brought under her notice the conditions of extreme poverty which existed in the 1047 West of Ireland. He was sure such conditions did not exist even among the poor of the East End of London. In the West of Ireland families of twelve persons were to be found living in cabins of one room. From a Government Report recently issued he found that the meals on which the agricultural labourers in Ireland lived were: Breakfast, bread and tea; dinner, bread, tea and potatoes; and supper, bread and tea. Upon such meals they had to live and do their heavy work. That was the reason why the Irish representatives asked for a reduction of the tax on tea. That pointed to the great truth that a tax upon tea was not a tax upon a luxury, but upon a necessity of life. It must not be imagined for one instant that the Irish Members had no sympathy with the poor in this country and that they would not be glad to see the tax removed in Great Britain also. The objection to that came from the benches opposite. The removal of any tax on tea was very popular in other portions of the Empire; indeed, there were parts of the Empire in which a tea tax did not exist and where, if the Government attempted to reimpose it, they would lose place and power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, trying to make an argument against the position the Irish Members had taken, said that the deposits in the savings banks in Ireland were growing. Admitted, but who were making these deposits? The police and other officials generally. The deposits in the country districts were not growing. The poor people in the West of Ireland had not money enough wherewith to buy the necessaries of life, much less to put it away in a bank. Another objection they had to the tea tax was that the Irish people had not sanctioned the war which necessitated this expenditure.
Order, order! The question before the House is the tea duty, and not the late war.
§ MR. CHARLES DEVLIN
said he accepted the Deputy-Chairman's ruling and protested once more against the imposition of the tea tax in Ireland.
MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)
said that the arguments brought 1048 forward by hon. Members opposite went a long way to show how unfair and unsuited to Ireland was the system of taxation which had been adopted in this country. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Islington, who seemed to speak as if this system had been adopted in order to get money out of Ireland. That was not the case. The system had been adopted simply because we had not in our fiscal principles given any consideration to Ireland whatever. Of course, it was perfectly true that the poor man in this country was oppressed by taxation as much as the poor man on the other side of the Irish Channel. But the poor man here had the compensation which was derived from the general prosperity of the country; and, therefore, he contended that the present system of taxation did press with special force on the poorer class in Ireland. The proposal to set up separate Custom-houses between England and Ireland did not seem to him necessarily out of the question; for, after all, Custom-houses were made for man, and man was not made for the sake of Custom-house simplicity. But he attached considerable importance to free commercial relations between different parts of the country in the interests of unity. Take the German Zollverein—
MR. PARKER SMITH
said he was trying to deal with the argument which he understood to be one of the main points against the Motion before the Committee, viz., that it would involve the setting up of separate Custom-houses between England and Ireland. Custom-houses were objectionable, but what was infinitely of more importance was good feeling between different parts of the Empire; and if they were to insist upon unity between England and Ireland, then it was important that the predominant partner should do what the predominant partner in the German Zollverein did, and, instead of establishing a system which did good to the strongest and harm to the weakest, be content, for the sake of the political ends it had in view in the future, with a system under which the strongest 1049 men suffered very considerable pecuniary loss, while at the same time securing the advantage of the growth of unity of feeling. While he agreed that the burden of the tea duty fell especially heavily on Ireland, he did not think the Amendment was the way to secure a remedy. What he would advocate was a reduction all round of the duties which pressed especially hardly upon Ireland, and the placing of the burden on the general imports of the country.
Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not in order in pursuing that line of argument.
MR. PARKER SMITH
said that while he thought the burden of taxation on tea in Ireland was too heavy, he was convinced that the present proposal was not the way to remedy the evil.
§ MR. DILLON
said that he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Partick Division with the most intense interest. The hon. Member met their protest in a very fair and sympathetic spirit. The financial grievance under which Ireland suffered was due to the faot that the system had been constructed without any reference to that country. The system was based on the interests of a rich manufacturing country and pressed most cruelly on a poor country like Ireland. He hoped there would be another opportunity of discussing the question.
§ exploded again and again. The poor man in Ireland was oppressed by this taxation because the amount of poverty in that country was almost infinitely greater than in England. His hon. friend suggested it would be better to substitute cocoa, chocolate, or coffee; but if these articles were used, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money for another Mullah Expedition he would immediately double the duty. The existing system, in his opinion, disclosed a deliberate intention as against Ireland on the part of the Treasury.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)
said that the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was exceedingly disappointing. More tea was consumed per head in Ireland than in England; and in the circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very gracefully assent to the proposal embodied in the Amendment. He urged that not only from a temperance point of view, but even from a humanitarian standpoint. Tea was the main beverage in the South and West of Ireland; beer being scarcely used at all. He hoped in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. It would not cost the Government much. There was a higher standard of taxation than that of the mere establishment of a separate Custom-house. The poor had no right to be taxed to the same extent as the rich; and that was the difficulty in Ireland.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 169.)1053
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Bull, William James|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Butcher, John George|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Banner, John S. Harmood-||Carlile, William Walter|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.||Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Cayzer, Sir Charles William|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bigwood, James||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Bill, Charles||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy||Bingham, Lord||Chapman, Edward|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bond, Edward||Cive, Captain Percy A.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Coddington, Sir William|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Brassey, Albert||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Campton, Lord Alwyne||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert]|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Hunt, Rowland||Randles, John S.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Rankin, Sir James|
|Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Kerr, John||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Keswick, William||Ritchie, Bt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kimber, Sir Henry||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Denny, Colonel||Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks., N. R||Runciman, Walter|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Smith, H C(North'mb.Tyneside|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Smith, Rt. Hon. J. P. (Lanarks|
|Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Macdona, John Cumming||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Finlay, Sir R. B (Inverness B'ghs||Maconochie, A. W.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W||Stock, James Henry|
|Fison, Frederick William||Malcolm, Ian||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Marks, Harry Hananel||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Forster, Henry William||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)||Tuft, Charles|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets||Moore, William||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Morpeth, Viscount||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morrell, George Herbert||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Morrison, James Archibald||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Greene, Sir E. W(B'rySEdm'nds||Mount, William Arthur||Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.)|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry||Myers, William Henry||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Partington, Oswald||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath|
|Heath, Sir Jas.(Staffords., N. W.||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Helder, Augustus||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Wylie, Alexander|
|Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)||Percy, Earl||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Pretyman, Ernest George||TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Hoult, Joseph||Price, Robert John||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Viscount Valentia.|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Purvis, Robert|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Bright, Allan Heywood||Crean, Eugene|
|Austin, Sir John||Caldwell, James||Crombie, John William|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Cameron, Robert||Crooks, William|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Delany, William|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway|
|Blake, Edward||Clancy John Joseph||Dillon, John|
|Boland, John||Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Dobbie, Joseph|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Leng, Sir John||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Doogan, P. C.||Levy, Maurice||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Lewis, John Herbert||Rea, Russell|
|Dunn, Sir William||Lloyd-George, David||Reddy, M.|
|Edwards, Frank||Lundon, W.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Elibank, Master of||Lyell, Charles Henry||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Ellice, Capt E. C(S Andrw's B'ghs||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Richards, T. (W. Monmouth)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone||M'Fadden, Edward||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Roche, John|
|Ffrench, Peter||M'Kean, John||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Mooney, John J.||Slack, John Bamford|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Moss, Samuel||Sullivan, Donal|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Murphy, John||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Harrington, Timothy||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)||Toulmin, George|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Ure, Alexander|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Wallace, Robert|
|Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Johnson, John||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Dowd, John||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roseommon, N.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.||O'Malley, William||Young, Samuel|
|Kilbride, Denis||O'Mara, James|
|Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||O'Shaughnessy P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Parrott, William||Field and Mr. Flynn.|
|Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)||Perks, Robert William|
§ And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.