HC Deb 30 May 1905 vol 147 cc292-312

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]


said that before the interval he had almost concluded his explanation of the reasons why he desired the Committee to give a rebate to coal nuts. The raw material of this manufacture was in itself really valueless. It was certainly not of any export value and could not be profitably put on any foreign market, and nobody who knew anything about it would ever suggest that it was worth anything like 6s. a ton. The principle was already accepted in the case of other manufactured products of coal made from raw material of below the value of 6s. a ton, and he thought a complete case was made out for asking for a rebate in this instance on the ground, if on no other, of equal treatment to all industries connected with, the manufacture of the waste product of coal. The right hon. Gentleman was aware of the unpopularity of the tax as a whole, and that in itself should appeal to his mind as a strong reason for redressing any grievance and removing any injustice and hardship in respect of a tax which was regarded by all concerned as a most inequitable one.

Clause (Coal nuts),—(Mr. Charles Douglas)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. BAIRD (Glasgow, Central)

supported the Motion of the hon. Member. He could quite understand that no Chancellor of the Exchequer cared to relinquish any part of a tax, but on the other hand he was equally sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to do any injustice to any particular trade. He had, therefore, great hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would give a satisfactory reply and would be able to tell them that if he could not make this concession now he would do so at the earliest opportunity. The industry affected was subsidiary to the coal industry and had only grown up in the last few years. The raw material was a poor description of coal filled with dross and impurities which by itself was practically worthless. By manufacture, however, an article was produced which had a certain market both in this country and abroad. Had this tax been in force a little earlier than was the case, in his opinion, this industry would never have grown up and the raw material would have been wasted. In his view a process which gave employment to a great deal of labour and utilised a waste product for the benefit of the community was not one that should be interfered with, and anything that would deter that trade should as far as possible be avoided. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would give a favourable consideration to this matter.

MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)

joined in the appeal made by both his hon. friends to the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he could not accept the clause which his hon. friend had moved. The sum at stake was a very small sum. It was not a sum like the coal tax which brought in about £2,000,000 a year. The question of nuts was a small matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman gave the same equality of treatment to the manufacture of nuts as he did to briquettes it would not cost him more than £40,000 a year. Seeing that this industry employed large numbers of people he thought something ought to be done to encourage it. By this industry a waste product was turned into a by-product and the difference between waste products and byproducts often determined the prosperity of a trade. Having regard to the fact that the raw material of this growing trade was of a much lower value than 6s. a ton he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to give effect to the clause moved by his hon. friend.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

thought that everybody who spoke upon this subject would no doubt take the same view, because the case they had to present was absolutely overwhelming. The case which they presented that night was not a question of the general coal tax which, for the time, was settled on the previous day, but a question arising out of the rebate given under the tax in order to make it possible for the cheapest class of coal to be utilised for the public benefit. It was perfectly certain that that was what was in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in the mind of Parliament when the Bill was passed. In the case of patent fuel the language of the Act was so drawn as to cover that particular class of goods. He was not certain whether the language of the Act would not cover the case the Committee was now discussing. It was a different question, but the same principle which governed the question of patent fuel made from dross and coal dust certainly ought to cover this case. The argument they used was not the me quoque argument that because a rebate was given to Welsh briquettes it ought to be given to coal nuts. They used this argument because the principle which governed the Welsh briquettes was right and just, and therefore it ought to be applied to coal nuts. Hon. Members would agree that one of the primary objects of taxation must always be to endeavour not to discourage industries which gave employment in this country and not to check the growth of any industry, where such industry was liable to be most seriously interfered with by existing taxation. Here was a case in which this class of small coal and dross, which in the past was wasted altogether, which people could hardly be induced to take away, had been turned into a saleable article in this country and into a large staple of foreign export by an industry which had only sprung up of late years. No argument was needed to support the proposition that an industry of that sort ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged.

But when a Chancellor of the Exchequer was pressed to make any concession he was always tempted to ask, and very naturally did ask, where such a concession would lead him and what would be the result that must follow if he made such a concession. He (Mr. Parker Smith) did not see that any dangerous extension could follow from the right hon. Gentleman treading in the path in which they desired him to tread. All they asked the right hon. Gentleman to do was to give a rebate upon this stuff, which in its unmanufactured state was unsaleable, and to show him that this shilling tax must inevitably kill the industry. This was a question which pressed very heavily on Scotland, where the coal was of a very poor and cheap quality, and where the competition of Westphalian and German coal was particularly keen, necessitating highly scientific methods on the part of Scotch miners in order to compete at all. Continuous complaints had been received of their inability to give to the foreign purchaser that uniformity of quality and cleanliness in the article which he desired for the economical working of his furnaces. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed the wish that there might be an agreement come to between the various sections of the coal industry with regard to what they required, but there could be no agreement in regard to an ad valorem duty for obvious reasons. It was different in a matter of this kind, because this was a question which only affected those collieries which produced the poorest quality of coals. He contended that if a Manufacturer took coal at its lowest value, and by the process of washing, grinding, and manufacture produced an article of higher value, he ought to have the benefit of the increased value, and for the purposes of taxation that product ought still to be taken at the lowest price of the raw material. That was the only fair way of treating this class of goods.

It must be remembered that the washing machinery used for this purpose was not the mere scaffolding at the pithead with which those who knew nothing of the subject often confounded it. It was more comparable with a flour mill, and might cost anything up to £50,000. That showed the expenditure of making coal nuts, an expenditure much larger than that involved in making Welsh briquettes; yet under the present arrangements Welsh briquettes, which, were sold at something like twelve shillings a ton, had the full rebate, and coal nuts, which were only worth seven shillings a ton, got no rebate at all but had to bear the full weight of this shilling tax. In some of the foreign markets they were very particular as to the appearance of coal, and it was the regular thing as the last process in the making of nuts to wash them with clean water. Suppose that as a final process the nuts were washed in sugar and water to give them a bright appearance, there would then be a mixture of which perhaps 99.9 percent. would be coal and 1 per cent. sugar. Would that be a mixture on which the rebate could be claimed? The value of briquettes did not arise simply from the addition of pitch; they were brought from dross of no value to a commodity worth 12s. or 13s. a ton by a variety of processes closely resembling those through which nuts had to go, and if the principle were accepted that briquettes made out of cheap dross were not to be taxed, the same principle should apply to nuts. The total export of nuts amounted to about 1,500,000 tons, a large part of which consisted of the cheaper nuts on which no duty was paid, because if they could not be exported under 6s. they could not be exported at all. Thus the amount gained by the Exchequer from nuts represented less than half the weight exported, and was only about £40,000 a year. The industry was doubtless growing, and if they could get a process adopted which brought a marketable article out of what was formerly waste dross, whether it was consumed at home or abroad, it was a clear gain to the nation, but it was impossible for the industry to flourish if the export was hampered or diminished.

A shilling was a serious weight to carry, and it bore with extreme heaviness upon the cheapest coals and those on the margin of exemption. The Act of 1901 was passed when the coal industy was very flourishing, but the conditions were now much altered, and in the present state of depression the people concerned expected to be met with much more consideration than was meted out to them in their time of prosperity. The object of our whole fiscal system should be to encourage industry, and not to snatch revenue, and he regarded the whole coal tax as a relict of recent unenlightened times. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make a beginning with this small item in the application of the general principles of scientific taxation.

MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

hoped that after what had occurred yesterday, when, with the exception of the Chancellor's own remarks, not a single speech was delivered in favour of the coal tax, the present proposal would receive favourable consideration. The question of small coal stood in a totally different position from that discussed yesterday. The article now being dealt with was until quite recently of no value, being absolutely unsaleable. Hundreds and thousands of tons of national wealth in this shape had been thrown back into the pit because it was not worth bringing to the surface, and the amount that did get to the surface was a nuisance to the owners; it was laid out in large heaps around the collieries, where it became an absolute danger to the health of the people. That condition of affairs had now been to a large extent altered. After huge expenditure on expansive machinery and the employment of additional labour, this coal was washed and cleaned and brought into a saleable condition. The tax, however, was leviable not on the value of the article at the mine, but on the value delivered f.o.b. after it had undergone the processes of washing and manufacture. The article was of no value until it had been treated in a very elaborate and expensive way, and yet it was subjected to taxation just the same as other coal not so treated. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer could very well grant the exemption under the conditions stated in the proposed clause, and that the loss to the revenue would not be so considerable as had been suggested. It was hardly possible for those engaged in this industry to put their product on the foreign market under existing conditions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had urged tha British colliery proprietors should imitate the more scientific methods of their German competitors. Here was a case, where they were trying to do something in that direction and to get all that was possible out of the national wealth in their possession, and he asked that the right hon. Gentleman should not continue the operation of a tax which tended to check the development of a process which would provide additional employment to the industrial classes of the country. The tax was really an impost upon a process of manufacture, because without the process the coal would be worthless. Nothing should be done to discourage men who were willing to put their capital into a process likely to develop into a new and growing industry, which would bring comfort and prosperity to a large body of people, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to grant the rebate asked for by the Amendment under discussion.


said that too much stress must not be laid on the fact that his own speech was the only one delivered in favour of the coal tax yesterday. He had been Chancellor of the Exchequer long enough to know that in defending the public treasury he could count upon no support except that of his own arm, strong or weak as it might be. It was those who were dissatisfied with his action who made their voices heard in these debates, and those who agreed with him could render him no greater service than to record silent votes in his support. If all those who agreed with his proposals thought it right to express their approval in debate the discussions in Committee, even on an uncontentious Budget, would be almost interminable.

The mover of the Amendment under discussion based his claim for the exemption of nuts on the precedent of patent fuel or briquettes. No sooner had the Budget of 1901 become law than the Lanarkshire Coalmasters' Association approached his predecessor the right hon. Member for West Bristol and asked him to consider this question. His right hon. friend went into the matter at length in a correspondence with the association, and the case made out by the right hon. Member for West Bristol for distinguishing between nuts and briquettes was much more solid and real than hon. Members might be ready to admit. Certainly he had not been impressed by the force of the reasoning of the mover of the Amendment when he attempted to assimilate the case of the two. Under what conditions did briquettes or patent fuel obtain rebate? Under a sub-section of the Act it was provided that if an article was mingled with another article on which duty was charged, and was exported in a mixed state, then the duty was to be charged, not on the whole weight of the export, but on the amount of the dutiable material which it contained. In the case of briquettes or patent fuel, there was the pitch—which, in view of the warning of the hon. Member opposite, he would handle delicately—which was not dutiable; then there was the coal below the value of 6s., which also was not dutiable: then there was a certain amount of other coal of a higher value than 6s., and upon that duty was charged. In nuts, however, there was no material which was not dutiable, because there was no admixture of anything which was not coal, and there was no coal which did not exceed the value of 6s. a ton. They could not, therefore, claim an exemption on the grounds which secured the exemption of briquettes. But he admitted that that was not the whole of the case. If it were, and the whole case rested on a comparison, with patent fuel and briquettes, he would agree that nuts differed from patent fuel and were not at all entitled to exemption.

But the whole case as stated did not rest there. It had been pleaded by hon. Members that the tax had a direct deterrent effect on the process of preparing this species of coal for sale. He felt the force of that argument. It was true that this process of washing was comparatively a novel one, that it had been introduced in recent years, first in Scotland, and that it was just beginning to spread to other districts. We were probably only at the beginning of its development, and he would be sorry to see the development checked unnecessarily if he could possibly avoid it. So far he was in complete accord with the argument on that portion of the case which had been addressed to him. No part of the Report of the Royal Commission was of more interest to the trade than that in which they dealt with this subject of the preparation of coal for market, and none was of greater consequence to the future of the trade, and none, therefore, deserving of more serious consideration both of the trade and the Government when it was alleged that the particular provision they were now considering acted as a direct deterrent to improvements. But this was a new contention presented to him practically for the first time. He received joint deputations from the whole of the coal trade last year, and this year he had met two deputations, one representing the owners, managers, and shippers, and the other deputation representing the miners, and workers in and about the mine. They addressed very interesting speeches to him which wore now more or less familiar to the House, because naturally they formed the subject-matter of the debate yesterday, but he did not think that either of the two deputations he had received this year directed his attention to this new phase of the subject. The first attempt to call his serious attention to this matter was a letter from the Scottish Exporters' Association, which. was dated on the very day that the Budget was introduced, and apparently after the contents of the Budget were known. It was not till the Budget was an accomplished fact that the matter was brought to his attention.

He had been looking into this matter, and had been much struck, he regretted to say, with the complications to which the proposal gave rise and the difficulties which surrounded any attempt to meet the objects sought to be attained. In the first place, if they adopted the principle, they would make a revolutionary change in the whole basis of the tax which would, in many cases, seriously affect the revenue, and in some cases have the result, not of relieving the coal from duty, but of bringing coal now exempt within the purview of the duty. His second difficulty was not a less one. The concession which his predecessor made on behalf of briquettes was now pleaded as involving this further concession on behalf of nuts. If he could see his way to making the concession on behalf of nuts, had he any assurance that that concession would not be treated merely as giving hon. Gentlemen a stronger right to claim still further concessions? The process of washing required the provision of costly machinery which added to the cost of production. But would it be agreed by the trade at large that a line might fairly be drawn at such a process, and that a concession in respect of coal so washed would not be followed by a claim for a similar concession in regard to screens? It was very difficult to find a logical basis for the distinction which he had been asked to draw.

In view of the short time he had had for the consideration of the matter and the many difficulties he saw, it was impossible he should accept the Amendment as it stood, or even promise that he would bring up proposals another year which would be directed to meeting the object of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. At the same time, he recognised the strength of the case which had been brought forward in respect of this process on its own merits—not as following the analogy of briquettes—and he was anxious to find a way of removing any deterrent effect which the Act might have on those engaged in the preparation of coal for marketing. He would certainly consider whether that could be done, and he thought his task would be facilitated if gentlemen interested in the coal trade could assist him to draw a line of distinction which would be generally accepted by the trade itself. That was as far as he could go at the present time. Those interested would see that he was not insensible to the case which had been presented to him, and he would give it his best consideration, and he hoped he would have their co-operation in endeavouring in the course of next year to arrive at some common agreement upon this subject.


said that at present considerable expenditure was necessary in order to prevent the pollution of rivers as a result of screening and washing the coal, and some consideration should be shown to those who thus kept the rivers pure. This tax bore very heavily on those who worked certain coal seams in Scotland, a large proportion of the coal from which could not be put on the market without first undergoing the process of washing and screening. The coal from a good many of these Scotch seams would be put out of the market altogether unless it could be treated differently. A great proportion of the Scotch coal was about the value of 6s. or 7s. per ton. As soon as the value rose above 6s. they found themselves under the tax, and therefore he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the effect of this tax upon cheap Scotch coal. The tax hit the particular process adopted in Scotland very heavily, and he trusted that when the right hon. Gentleman had considered the matter he would be able to give them a rebate another year.

* MR. FINDLAY (Lanarkshire, N.E.)

said he was very pleased to hear the sympathetic remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they would like him to go a little further. He wished to say a few words about a district in Lanarkshire with which he was associated and which was affected by this tax. As hon. Members were aware, there had been a great increase of late in the use of bye-products, and the utilisation of what hitherto had been waste material had proved a valuable asset in many industries and had had much to do with the prosperity of trade in a great many parts of the country, and this ought to be encouraged. In Lanarkshire there was a great depression in the coal trade and many miners were idle. There had been a number of installations of this washing process, and this helped considerably in the production of these bye-products. He would not go into detail because the process had been so well explained by the hon. Member for Partick, but he knew the heavy cost of these installations, and how they brought into the market what might otherwise be wasted, and in any case it made the result more useful as a commercial asset. In the district he referred to they required something to stimulate the trade, and by allowing a rebate upon these nuts produced by screening and washing the trade would be greatly helped, and they would be assisted in getting a market for this class of coal. He wished to emphasise very strongly what had been said as to the proposal contained in the Motion under discussion being helpful to districts in Scotland which were now suffering very seriously from depression and he hoped the Motion would be agreed to.


said the first observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that this phase of the subject had only been presented to him upon the present occasion, but he had apparently forgotten that when the coal tax was under discussion up on a previous occasion he told them that the question was still sub judice, because it was being considered by a Commission. The Report of that Commission was now available, and the evidence showed the great advantage derived from this process, and that much small coal was brought up and sold to advantage after washing. That fact was brought out last year, and therefore he did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entitled to give as a reason for not accepting this clause the fact that he had not had this case brought before his notice. He thought it was a little unfair to give that as a reason why this simple measure of justice should not be extended to those persons who were engaged in this process of washing coal. The fact that this operation of washing took place after the coal had reached the pit's mouth was no argument against granting this exemption.


said he understood the proposal brought forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite was that he should consider the condition in which the coal came out of the pit, and not the condition in which it was put on board ship. The hon. Member wanted him to go back to the value when the coal came out of the pit, instead of taking the valne after it had been screened.


still thought that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen the objection which was being taken to his argument in this case. It was to the condition after the first screening and before it was washed that he asked the right hon. Gentleman's attention. The right hon. Gentleman should take into account that this refuse was not worth 6s. per ton. When the coal was first brought out from the pit's mouth they could not distinguish what was above and what was below the value at which the tax operated. It was only after screening that that could be done. The dross was subsequently washed and it was only the process of washing that gave it any value. Was it reasonable for the purpose of taxation to take the value after it had been washed? This dross, which was absolutely worthless when it came out of the pit's mouth, was subjected to the expensive process of washing, with the result that a material was produced which was worth 7s. per ton. This material could be sold at home or abroad. If it was sent abroad it came into competition with foreign products. Only 7s. per ton was asked for it if sold at home, but if it was sent abroad the foreigner would not pay 8s. per ton for it in order to recoup the seller for the shilling duty on the export. The consequence was that if it had to be sold abroad it had to be offered at 6s. per ton. The exporters, therefore, would he selling at less than cost price. The only thing that could induce them to do that was that production on a large scale reduced the cost of washing the nuts, and they were able to sell so much at 7s. per ton and so repay themselves for selling abroad at less than cost price. The result was that we supplied our foreign competitors with an article necessary to carry on their manufactures at less than cost price while charging the home manufacturers a higher price for coal without which they could not carry on their business. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept the clause proposed he would enable our foreign competitors to get these nuts at a lower price than the British manufacturers. Was it reasonable that a product like coal should go out of the country at less than cost price, while our own manufacturers were charged a higher price in consequence? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pleaded for the better employment of the working classes, and he would appeal to him to take off a tax which produced an insignificant amount of revenue, but which might be the means of preventing the full employment of the expensive machinery which had been put up for the carrying on of this trade and of the workers who were engaged in it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take these matters into consideration, forgetting for the moment the objection which had been raised to the coal tax as a whole.


appealed to the Committee to second his efforts to bring the discussion on the Bill to a conclusion at a reasonable hour. The discussions on the Bill, it would be admitted, had been very full.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid,)

said Scotland was more hardly hit by this tax than England, and Mid-Lanark was more hardly hit than any of the other constituencies of Scotland. He wished to point out the fallacy of taking general statistics to support this tax as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done. Taking Great Britain as a whole there had been an increase in 1904 of 3 per cent. over 1903, but if the case of Scotland alone were taken the state of matters was somewhat different. In Scotland in 1880 the exports were under 2,000,000 tons; in 1890 they were upwards of 4,000,000 tons; in 1900 they were upwards of 7,000,000 tons. While for Great Britain as a whole, according to the statistics, between 1880 and 1900 the exports had increased two and a-half times, those of Scotland had increased four times. There had, therefore, been an enormous increase in Scotland before the imposition of the coal tax. Since the coal tax had been in operation there had been an increase in the exports for the whole of Great Britain of about 3 per cent. in 1904, but during that period in Scotland there had been a decrease of 150,000 tons. That showed the fallacy of taking the statistics of the whole country in dealing with this question.

The exports from Scotland had decreased because the coal produced there was inferior in quality to that produced in England. In Scotland itself there were varieties of quality. Fifeshire coal was of a superior class, and the collieries there were nearer the points of embarkation, the rates ranging from 6d. to 1s. per ton. The general statistics of Scotland would not meet the case of Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, and Midlothian, where what was called the "main" coal was worked out, and they were working a lower seam of inferior quality from which the nuts were manufactured to be sent aboad. It would be seen, therefore, that certain localities in Scotland suffered heavily from the method in which this tax was levied. In Lanarkshire the average price of coal was 6s. 2d. per ton, and the dross which came out of the lower workings was only worth about 9d. per ton at the pit. This was the material from which the nuts were separated and sold at about 6s. per ton. It was by setting up machinery and the employment of labour that material which was not worth 1s. per ton when it came out of the pit was manufactured into a material which was sold at about 6s. per ton. Lanarkshire was badly situated in regard to carriage. For example, he carriage from Lesmahagow to Glasgow was 2s. per ton, from Larkhall 1s. 4d., and from Hamilton 1s. If the coal was sent to Grangemouth the rate, was 2s. per ton, so that the Committee could see that certain districts were particularly struck at by the tax. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of coal coming out of the pit, and the necessity for separating the good coal from the dross and selling one at a cheaper and the other at a dearer price. That was not the case here. If the price of coal free on board was 6s. 6d. it would be an advantage to sell it at 5s. 9d., and so avoid the payment of the shilling duty, but it could not be said that that would be for the advantage of the revenue.

What was the practical effect of the tax in the case of Mid-Lanark? In the Larkhall district Messrs. Hamilton, McCulloch & Co. had closed the Bog and Holm Farm Collieries in Larkhall, and the Barncheth and Silvertown Hill in the Hamilton district. Several others in the same dis-district had been closed. The Bardykes Colliery, near Cambuslang, where about 700 persons were employed above and below ground, had also been closed. The closing of the latter was owing to the refusal of the landlord to reduce the mining royalty 2d. per ton. The 2d. perton mining royalty was the determining factor in that case, but then it should be remembered that the royalty was on the whole output of coal for home consumption as well as for export. Great hardships resulted from the closing of collieries. Landlords who had dwelling-houses to let could not find tenants, and shopkeepers did not find business profitable. The people in these districts would not object if this state of things were caused by the natural law of supply and demand, but when they found that it was caused by the Government putting on this tax they felt they had a grievance. Although the nominal wage of a miner was 5s. 6d. a day, in reality he only made about 23s. per week. No one would say it was not of great importance that in a district of that kind there should be as much labour provided as possible in the way of sifting and washing the dross and making nuts. It was not pleasant to find that they had to pay a tax of a shilling per ton on the product of their labour.

It might be asked—Why did Lanarkshire still go on exporting coal in these depressed circumstances?

The answer was very plain. In the first place profits had disappeared so far as the coalowners were concerned, and as to the miners, their wages had been reduced 67 per cent. since 1900. It was only in the hope that matters might take a turn that they had been struggling on in these depressed circumstances. In Westphalia coal was sold at a high price near the pit, at a less price where there was greater railway carriage, and at a still less price where the coal came into competition with that from this country. Therefore it was the cheaper quality of coal, such as that sent from, Lanarkshire, which had to bear the heaviest competition. When the details were looked into the Committee would see that the hardships of the shilling, duty were very great in the districts which produced the cheaper qualities of coal. It had the injurious effect of putting people out of work, and of lessening the opportunity of getting help on account of the general state of poverty in the districts. He was surprised that the Government had not seen their way to give a sympathetic ear to the appeals which had been made to them in connection with this tax.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 127;. Noes, 164. (Division List No. 188.)

Abraham,William (Cork, N. E.) Ellice, Capt E C (S Andrw's Bghs Joyce, Michael
Allen, Charles P. Emmott, Alfred Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Kilbride, Denis
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Eve, Harry Trelawney Kitson, Sir James
Bell, Richard Fenwick, Charles Lambert, George
Benn, John Williams Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Lamont, Norman
Boland, John Field, William Langley, Batty
Brigg, John Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)
Bright, Allan Heywood Flavin, Michael Joseph Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Layland-Barratt, Francis
Burt, Thomas Gilhooly, James Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington
Caldwell, James Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Leigh, Sir Joseph
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Goddard, Daniel Ford Levy, Maurice
Causton, Richard Knight Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Lough, Thomas
Cawley, Frederick Hammond, John Lundon, W.
Channing, Francis Allston Harwood, George MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Cheetham, John Frederick Hayden, John Patrick MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Cremer, William Randal Helme, Norval Watson M'Crae, George
Crombie, John William Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. M'Kean, John
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) M'Kenna, Reginald
Dalziel, James Henry Higham, John Sharp Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Delany, William Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Markham, Arthur Basil
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Holland, Sir William Henry Mooney, John J.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Johnson, John Murphy, John
Doogan, P. C. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Edwards, Frank Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Norman, Henry Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Toulmin, George
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Roche, John Ure, Alexander
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Runciman, Walter Villiers, Ernest Amherst
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Shackleton, David James Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
O'Dowd, John Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) White, George (Norfolk)
O'Malley, William Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
O'Mara, James Shipman, Dr. John G. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Partington, Oswald Slack, John Bamford Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Pirie, Duncan V. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Power, Patrick Joseph Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Young, Samuel
Rea, Russell Sullivan, Donal
Reddy, M. Tennant, Harold John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Charles Douglas and Mr.
Rickett, J. Compton Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr John Wilson (Durham)
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Tomkinson, James
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward Lyttelton Rt. Hon. Alfred
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Allhussen, Augustus Henry Eden Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Maconochie, A. W.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O. Fisher, William Hayes Majendie, James A. H.
Arrol, Sir William Fison, Frederick William Malcolm, Ian
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Forster, Henry William Martin, Richard Biddulph
Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt Hon.Sir H. Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W. Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n
Bailey, James (Walworth) Galloway, William Johnson Maxwell, W J. H (Dumfriesshire
Balcarres, Lord Gardner, Ernest Melville, Beresford Valentine
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) Milvain, Thomas
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Balfour, Kennoth R. (Christch. Gordon Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Banner, John S. Harmood. Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Morrell, George Herbert
Bignold, Sir Arthur Green, Walford D (Weduesbury Morrison, James Archibald
Bigwood, James Grenfell, William Henry Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Bond, Edward Gretton, John Mount, William Arthur
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Groves, James Grimble O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H F (Middlesex Hall, Edward Marshall Palmer, Sir Walter (salisbury
Brassey, Albert Hambro, Charles Eric Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry Percy, Earl
Brymer, William Ernest Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Pierpoint, Robert
Bull, William James Hare, Thomas Leigh Pretyman, Ernest George
Butcher, John George Hay, Hon. Claude George Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Campbell, J H. M. (Dublin Univ. Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Purvis, Robert
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W) Pym, C. Guy
Cautley, Henry Strother Holder, Augustus Rankin, Sir James
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hickman, Sir Alfred Rasch, Sir Frederic carne
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside Ratcliff, R. F.
Chatnberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. Hoult, Joseph Reid, James (Greenock)
Chapman, Edward Hudson, George Bickersteth Remnant, James Farquharson
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hunt, Rowland Rerishaw, Sir Charles Bine
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Jameson, Major J. Eustace Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson
Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R. Jebb, Sir Richard-Claverhouse Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Kenyon, Hn. Geo.T. (Denbigh) Robertson, Herbert (Harkney)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S Laurie, Lieut.-General Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cripps, Charles Alfred Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Dalkeith,Earl of Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Davenport, William Bromley Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Deny, Colonel Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thus. Myles
Dickson, Charles Scott Llewellyn, Evan Henry Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Long, Rt Hn., Walter (Bristol, S) Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Doughty, Sir George Lowe, Francis William Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart Loyd, Archie Kirkman Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Smith, Aber H (Hertford, East) Tollemache, Henry James Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne
Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Stanley, Rt Hon. Lord (Lancs.) Tuff, Charles Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Stock, James Henry Tuke, Sir John Batty Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Stroyan, John Walker, Col. William Hall
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir
Thorburn, Sir Walter Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E. (Taunton Alexander Acland-Hood and
Thornton, Percy M. Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.) Viscount Valentia.

Question put, and agreed to.


said he wished to move the insertion of the following clause—"The offspring of a marriage with a deceased wife's sister, heretofore or hereafter contracted within the realm or without, shall be deemed to be legitimate for the purpose of the payment of legacy and succession duty."


said that the proposed clause was outside the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, was out of order, as it sought to create a new class of persons, unknown to English law.


said that on a point of order he wished to call attention to the fact that he did not propose to alter the legal status of the children of marriage with a deceased wife's sister; they would still remain illegitimate. All that he proposed was to amend the Inland Revenue Acts, which could be done by Resolution of the House.


said that the hon. Member was not entitled to make a speech on a point of order. He had carefully considered this question, and ruled that the Amendment was outside the scope of the Bill.


said that he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman; and he would not proceed with the new clause in regard to sugar which was on the Notice Paper.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

Forward to