§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
*MR. CHANNIG (Northamptonshire, K.)said he had no wish whatever to enter into any discussion at this stage of the Finance Bill. It would be extremely inappropriate to do so, as nearly all the issues had been fully and amply discussed on the Budget resolutions of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he wished to take this last opportunity of making in appeal in the strongest terms he was capable of for the consideration in the coming financial 1023 year of the claims of sugar to relief from taxation. If hon. Members would go into the actual incidence of the sugar tax, and the proportion that that tax bore to the incomes of the workers of this country, they would find that it was a very serious burden upon the working classes. He would not attempt to labour this point, because anyone who would take the trouble to examine the tables of the quantities and cost of articles of food in the expenditure of the working classes given in the Blue-books could satisfy themselves in the course of that examination that the incidence of this tax on the very poor was a far more serious and heavy burden upon the poor than upon the rich, and on a far higher proportion than was generally understood. This was a matter which deserved the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coming year. He ventured again also to appeal in the briefest manner on behalf of the important and growing industries which depended on the free access of sugar as a raw material. Those industries had urgent claims on the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to recognise fully and freely in the coming financial year. He had on previous occasions drawn attention to the serious losses that had been incurred by the sugar industries during the past few years. Owing to the changes in the markets, there had been a certain relief from some of the pressure upon those industries arising from the incidence of the sugar duty, aggravated as it had been by the Sugar Convention. At the same time he had been assured by the representatives of the trade recently that the position of many of the most important firms engaged in these industries was such that they deserved and should receive the fullest possible consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time. Having had an opportunity of consulting the leading representatives of those trades during the last few months, and having had their views very carefully laid before him, he wished to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to one point. Supposing the right hon. Gentle man was able to offer relief in the coming financial year, the feeling of the trade was that they should have complete relief from the duty, or that, if that 1024 were impossible, then that they should be relieved of half the duty. That relief given in any other form such as the relief given to tea in the present year would be unsatisfactory and would diminish the advantage which they should receive from any reduction of taxation. One other point he would press upon his right hon. friend on behalf and at the special request of these industries, namely, that any remission of duty on sugar should be given if possible at the beginning of the financial year. Though that might impose a certain loss at the moment there would be less disturbance in contracts and in the business arrangements generally if it was given then, than there would be if it was given under other conditions as, for instance, was being done in the case of coal in the present year. The Budget had his heartiest and warmest approval, and while pleading the cause of sugar and regretting that it had not met with some relief in the present year, he recognised to the full the difficulty in which his right hon. friend found himself in the financial position which had been bequeathed to him by the Party opposite. He recognised that his right hon. friend had done splendid work in trying to place our finances on a sound and honest and straight forward basis by the policy which he had adopted in regard to the redemption of debt. He only wished to place on record his regret that sugar had received no relief this year, and to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give it his earnest consideration in the coming financial year.
§ *MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire)said he had to express regret that his hon. friend the Member for Preston had sent him a telegram stating that he was ill and asking him to move the Motion which stood upon the Paper in his name†. He moved the Motion with diffidence, as he had no knowledge of the grounds or the arguments which would have been adduced by his hon. friend in favour of it. He was certain, how ever, that his hon. friend only desired
† The proposed Amendment was as follows: —"To leave out all words after 'that,' and to insert 'it is undesirable to proceed further with a measure imposing heavy burdens on His Majesty's subjects resident In the United Kingdom until steps have been taken to secure from His Majesty's subjects resident in the Colonies an adequate contribution to the cost of defending the Empire.'1025 that the Colonies should be invited to consider the partnership between the mother country and themselves in regard to the cost of the defence of the Empire. His hon. friend, he understood, also thought that the alliance so successfully cemented during the late war would be a good ground for inviting the Colonies to consider this matter. Pressure of any sort was, in his mind, entirely out of the question. All he urged was that some arrangement of this kind was one to be considered between friends. He did not know whether the Colonies would set much store on the old stock argument which was used against suggestions of this kind, namely, that as they had no representation the Colonies should not be approached on such a question. But in any case he understood that there was an Imperial Council in contemplation, and if it over came about he could not see that there would be any impropriety in suggesting to the Colonies that this question might be considered in the light of recent events. Surely the Imperial Government might take the Colonies into their confidence, particularly with regard to any measure they proposed to take for the defence of the outposts of the Empire. Let them contrast what was contributed by India for defence with the insignificant share borne by the self-governing Colonies of Australia and Canada. At the present time India, the poorest possession of the Empire, paid one-fourth of the total cost of the defence of the Empire. Her army had always been ready at hand, equipped for the defence of any part of the British Empire. It had actually taken part in the defence of the Empire in three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe; in China, in Abyssinia, in Egypt, in Arabia, in Afghanistan and in Thibet. In 1878 the presence of an Indian brigade at Malta went a long way to counteract Russian strategy in the near East. Under these circumstances it could hardly be said that our great dependency of India did not pay a great deal more than the portion due from it for the defence of the Empire of which it forms such an important part. There was one point with regard to the share taken by India of which we had cause to take notice. Great Britain had paid millions of money to acquire its possessions all over the world. It had acquired India without paying a farthing for it. India paid for its own acquisition. 1026 After 1834 when the East India Company was dissolved as a trading concern the dividends were paid out of the taxation levied on the people of India. In 1858, when the Crown took over the government of the country, the Indian stock of the company was incorporated as part of the National Debt of India, and interest on the stock was charged on the revenues of India—that was on the people. He begged the House to note that the acquisition of India had yielded a large profit to the Colonies as well as to the United Kingdom. It had not only paid for its own acquisition, but it was now paying in the shape of taxation the interest on the capital of the extinct company. India had not only accomplished this extraordinary financial feat, but was actually now paying a quarter of the total cost of the defensive forces of the Empire He adduced this argument as one which might fairly be laid before the Colonies at the coming Conference. If the Colonies were approached in a friendly spirit they might be induced to attempt in some measure to redress the disproportionate burden borne by India in connection with the defence of the Empire. He begged to move.
§ The proposed Amendment was not seconded.
§ MR WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)said it seemed to him that the Budget was a most con temptible one. He applied that adjective to it for several well-considered reasons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself with a realised surplus of about £3,000,000, and he had devoted that surplus to the payment of debt.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fife, E.The law compelled me to devote that surplus to the payment of debt.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that might be so, but it was really trifling with the actual position, because the realised surplus of last year was practically equivalent to the estimated surplus of the year to come under fairly similar circumstances. It really therefore amounted to the same thing. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer found him self in a position to make a remission of 1027 taxation to the extent of £3,000,000, how did he deal with that sum? The surplus was not secured by the right hon. Gentleman and the Party with which he was associated. It was the direct result of the economy, care, and ability of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and he had deliberately set himself to getting rid of it without doing any good to anybody. Having come to that conclusion, it required considerable ingenuity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of it without giving the taxpayers of the country any benefit. He might have applied the £3,000,000 boldly to the reduction of the National Debt, but that would have given a direct benefit to the people. He might have done something to cover the loss on the savings bank deposits. That was a difficult subject, and it was time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tackled it, but anything of that kind would have been too simple. The penny which had been taken off the tea duty could not possibly be of any benefit to the poor people who bought an ounce or two ounces at a time. That was a successful way of dropping £1,000,000 of the surplus. Who got the benefit of it? The middlemen and the merchants, possibly to some extent the shopkeepers, and the co-operative societies to which an hon. Member opposite had referred. It was not many months since the general election, when some hon. Members on the Opposition side were taunted in regard to their attitude on the subject of free food. He was in favour of taking the duty off tea entirely. It was a most unjust and in equitable tax, the poorer classes of the community, who used the cheaper kinds of tea, having to pay 150 per cent, on the article, while the rich, who used the higher priced tea, only paid 20 per cent. The second million, in round numbers, was spent in taking off the export duty on coal. Here again it looked as if the Liberal Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had deliberately looked round for some form of taxation, the remission of which could by any chance benefit the foreign taxpayer, but give no relief to the British taxpayer. By this ingenious means the Chancellor of the Exchequer had frittered away another million of money, without giving any benefit to the taxpayers of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman had treated a British ship as part of Great 1028 Britain, as indeed it was, and had given, such a ship coaling, say, at Marseilles the benefit of the drawback, that would have been a sensible advantage to the British shipowners; but no, a simple expedient of that kind would have boon of too much benefit to the common people of this country. An idea of that sort would not satisfy the Liberal Government or the-present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must give this money away to the foreign taxpayer. If there was anything, that was more disappointing than another in connection with this Finance Bill it was the fact that sugar was not mentioned in it. Sugar was not only a food of the people, but the raw material of many industries. If the right hon. Gentleman had been living up to the professions he made on the hustings at the general election, he would have done something for the sugar industries of the country. There was another point in the Finance Bill that was very disappointing; nothing had been done in regard to the income-tax which pressed so onerously on those who laboured, whether by hand or brain. He did not think the income-tax was too much for those who drew their incomes from dividends. He was not one to support the idea of a graduated income-tax, but there was an intrinsic difference between incomes that came from investments and incomes derived from the sweat of the brow or the brain. He believed that the latter class should have had some remission. Incomes derived from rents or dividends which came in whether the owner was well or ill, or in this country or abroad, ought to pay more taxation than incomes derived from personal exertion. Let them take the case of a country doctor earning £1,000 a year; if he were laid aside for a month or two by illness his income stopped, and possibly he could never recover it. Such an income was on an entirely different footing from the income which came from investments. He believed that the late Mr. Gladstone said that it would pass the wit of man to draw a distinction between the two classes of income; but it had been done in other countries, and something might have been done in that direction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would have been more satisfactory and advantageous to the people of this country than the way in which the second million had been dealt with. The third million was 1029 to be applied in the endowment of "Birreligion."
§ MR. ASQUITHThe hon. Member is totally wrong. Not one halfpenny of the million will be devoted to that purpose.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD, who was received with loud Ministerial cries of "Withdraw," said he was not likely to withdraw what he believed was an absolute fact.
§ MR. ASQUITHIt is not a fact. The hon. Member has made a mistake, a mistake which is almost inexcusable. The million to which he refers is the million provided in the Education Bill, not one halfpenny of which can possible come as a charge in the present year. That million is expended for purposes totally different. [Renewed MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."]
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he did not for a moment call in question the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was convinced, and at all events the basis on which he made these observations was, that if it had not been for taking the £1,000,000 off tea and the, £1,000,000 off coal, and for the necessity for providing in the near future a £1,000,000 for education, it would have been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making up his estimates to have given £3,000,000 in remission of taxation. [Renewed MINISTERIAL Cries of "Withdraw."] He would not withdraw; his position was perfectly logical, and he should maintain it. He called this a mean and contemptible Budget, a Budget that had frittered away £3,000,000 sterling upon absolutely unnecessary and stupid items, and in such a way that the common people of this country had received no benefit from it. It was an exhibition, not only of incapacity, but of callous disregard for the poor and for the common taxpayers.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)said that the Budget was disappointing to many people. A great deal had been expected from it, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had inherited a more handsome surplus than had been enjoyed for many years. When 1030 they considered the unparalleled increase in the exports and imports, that the taxes were at a high rate, although the war was over, and that expenses were being cut down, there was justification for the high hopes that there would be a reduction of taxation, especially upon food. A great deal was said upon that point by Liberal candidates at the general election. In New Zealand they had taken off the whole duty on tea, and yet they were able to find money enough for old-age pensions. They could not have expected that this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to bring in such a bold scheme as that for old ago pensions and for taking the taxes off food, and yet that had been done in the country he had mentioned, whore they had taken the whole of the taxes off tea and found the money for old age pensions as well. He mentioned this fact, however, as showing that it was not only possible to take a penny but sixpence off the tax. There was another tax which was referred to very largely at the election. It was a small tax and produced very little. It was placed upon a number of articles which, if they did not form the staff of life, constituted the luxuries of the poor. He alluded to the tax on currants, raisins, figs, French plums, etc. Those were the articles which formed practically the pudding delicacies of the labouring classes of this country. It would re quire less than £500,000 to sweep away the whole of them. This tax pressed to a greater extent upon the working classes than upon anybody else, and nine-tenths of the yield came from the working classes. There was nobody in this country who did not consume some of these articles, and if the tax had been removed the action would have been very much appreciated, and, as he had said, it would have cost only £500,000. The remission of this taxation would in fact have boon more appreciated than the penny reduction upon tea. Under the arrangements of the Budget this year the coal tax would produce £1,000,000 instead of £2,000,000, and in his judgment that tax might just as well have boon allowed to have produced this year the larger figure, which would have enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off these obnoxious small taxes upon the luxuries of the poor. He was quite certain that these taxes 1031 would not exist much longer and that the first bold Chancellor of the Exchequer would sweep them away. He regretted that it was too late now to do anything more than make the suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he hoped that the proposal would be borne in mind next year. In place of the taxes which he had suggested should be abolished, he could point to one tax which might take their place, and which would have been popular with ninety-nine out of every 100 people in this country. That was a tax of 25 per cent on imported motor-cars. He had discussed this subject with dozens of working men who all asked why these motor cars which came into this country from abroad should not pay a reasonable tax. Motor cars were no doubt a luxury and they could be produced in this country. If the tax were imposed the output of cars in this country would increase, and that would afford a large amount of the best paid class of work to the people of this country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the boldness to impose this tax of 25 per cont. on motor cars, there was no doubt that the bulk of them used here would be produced here, and in addition to providing work for Englishmen, it would have afforded an outlet for the investment of capital. The tax would have produced a considerable revenue, and in spite of it, a good many foreign cars would come into the country, because many people would still buy their favourite foreign car which they considered superior to the English car. These foreign motor cars came in to the extent of £2,000,000 worth a year from France alone. He remembered the late President Loubet explaining how extremely profitable this industry was to France, congratulating the French people upon the fact that they had the English market open to them and that they practically had a monopoly in that market. The French motor cars could not go into any other country free of duty, with the result that the French manufacturers had to start branches in order to produce their cars. That of course benefited the industrial classes in those countries. When this question of taxing foreign motor cars was mooted two years ago, he knew as a fact that one of these French manufacturing companies went 1032 so far as to purchase land in England, with a view to the erection of a factory so that their cars manufactured here might escape the duty. They owned that land now, and it was only owing to the unfortunate want of boldness on the part of our Chancellors of the Exchequer that the development of this industry, to the benefit of English workmen of all classes, had been prevented.
§ MR. SUMMERBELL (Sunderland)said a large number of Members regretted that there had not been a great reduction in the duty on such commodities as tea and sugar and other necessaries of life. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made reductions in regard to tea and coal, and they must all recognise the position he was in. Reference had been made to New Zealand's being able to give old age pensions, but New Zealand derived a large revenue in the shape of a land tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should devote his attention to taxing the land of this country, and to reducing the taxes on the food of the people. He agreed that it would be better to put a tax on motor cars, both British and foreign. He desired to state most emphatically that he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not pay any heed to talk about not taxing the incomes of unfortunate individuals with only £1,000 a year, but devote his attention to the land of the country in order that it might pay larger taxes than at present, so that the time might not be far distant when taxes on the food of the people would be entirely abolished and taxes on large incomes on land and on motor cars be substituted.
§ *CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)in moving as an Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading:—" That it is undesirable to proceed further with a measure imposing heavy burdens upon His Majesty's subjects resident in the United Kingdom until steps have been taken to secure from foreign nations a substantial contribution to our revenue by the taxation of imported foreign-manufactured articles which can be equally well supplied by home and colonial industries," said that in taking this course he felt strengthened by the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member below the gangway, because he himself felt, that hitherto the food of the people had been taxed unduly when other 1033 sources of revenue were in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The taxation of this country was confined to too narrow a basis, and the taxes which were imposed in the long run weighed most heavily upon the poorer and working classes. He brought forward his Amendment for the purpose of remedying the evils which had been alluded to by the last speaker. There were many Members like himself who had been returned to Parliament with a free and open mind. They might be laughed at by hon. Members opposite for their opinions on this subject, but they were prepared to wait until the people, as they assuredly would, came round to their way of thinking. It was their duty, meantime, to take every available occasion of laying before the country the remedies for the evils which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland. He had suggested the taxation of motor cars. He (Captain Craig) had advanced that proposal for some time. He would tax foreign-made motor cars at the port of debarkation here. There would be no need to tax motor cars made by British workmen if they taxed foreign-made cars, and by this means raised sufficient revenue to rid themselves of the taxation on tea and other articles of food. Year after year the Finance Bill had run on the old-fashioned lines of Cobdenism. He knew he differed from many hon. Members on both sides of the House in regard to this matter, but he was convinced that they had here an opportunity of placing taxation where it ought to fall—upon the manufacturer of foreign articles which came to this country and competed unfairly with the home and colonial producer. It was easier for France, Germany, or America, than for Great Britain, to supply cheap goods, because they had all the markets of Great Britain open to them, and we were excluded from the markets of these countries. In the north of Ireland foreigners had striven very hard to destroy industries by placing upon the markets goods which undersold those of Irish manufacture. That was attempted not long ago, and it was only by the pluck and determination of those who were at the head of the various concerns—by underbidding the foreigners—that they were able to keep the workpeople engaged, although it meant a trade loss to themselves. In the north of Ireland many a proprietor of a large concern sooner than 1034 turn out thousands of working men and women, continued to employ them, even at a trading loss. Here we had to hand a most valuable source of revenue, and before the House proceeded with the taxation laid down in the Finance Bill it was the duty of everyone who had the welfare of the trade of Great Britain at heart to study carefully how, without injuring any trade in this country, but, on the contrary, benefitting many of our industries!, we might place taxation on imported foreign manufactured articles which could be equally well supplied by our home and colonial industries. He coupled the colonies and this country together because he thought it was only fair to do so in order to compensate the colonies, in the event of the Resolution standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston being carried, for the extra burden they would have to bear. The issue was so clearly defined that he hoped the Labour Party would go into the lobby in support of his Motion, in which he had the support of a large number of Members of the Opposition. Those Members were not now present, but in a division they would be able to convince the country that there was a large section of the House earnest in their endeavours and continuous in their efforts to show that the constant harking back to the old lines of taxation had reached its limit, and that the problem before them was to substitute taxation capable of meeting the large deficit which would occur if they took this 4d. off tea and the duty off which at present burdened many other commodities of the breakfast-table of the working man. On this particular occasion he had been careful to suggest foreign manufactured articles, because he was sure that if we imposed taxation on foreign imports at all it would be more to the general satisfaction that they should be imposed upon articles upon which labour had already been employed. If they could get those particular articles which were necessary in order to keep our large industries going, then we need have no hesitation whatever in importing them, as far as possible, free of all taxation, as at present, thereby securing to the British workmen the maximum of employment in their particular trades. In manufactured articles on which we might raise a large amount of revenue 1035 he would include the tinned and preserved meats which came from foreign countries. It would be far better for the working classes that they should get their meat fresh and good as they might do from Ireland. Something like3,872,881 lbs. of tinned and preserved meats were brought into this country, much of it coming from America, and it would be better to curtail that importation by means of a tariff, giving a small preference to the Colonies. By that means the importation of live cattle would be promoted, and a fillip would be given both to the cattle industry in Ireland and also to the fattening industry in Norfolk and parts of Scotland. He was against taxing the necessaries of life while luxuries such as lace and diamonds were admitted free of duty, a tax on which would not injure the working classes. The working men were the backbone of the country, and although some of them wore hesitating on this question he believed that ultimately they would reject the short-sighted fiscal policy which was crippling British industry and fall back upon the course which he proposed. Small as the Tariff Reform Party might be at present, he was perfectly sure that their arguments would in time penetrate the Cobdenism of the benches opposite. The Budget presented to the House by the present Government was meagre and uninteresting, and while it might prove of some benefit to the people living in the large industrial centres it would confer no advantage whatever on the people who resided in the out-of-the way parts of Ireland, where the poor were compelled to buy at the price demanded the goods brought to their doors. The, Government proposals were not satisfactory to a large number of his constituents and he would continue to voice the sentiments of tariff reform. He begged to move.
§ MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)seconded. The wish had been expressed that in order to cheapen the cost of the food of the people additional taxes might be placed upon the land ; but it seemed to him an extraordinary thing to suggest that they were going to cheapen the food of the people by taxing more than at present the land which produced the food. At the present moment the land could not be made to pay, because of the very low price at 1036 which the produce had to be sold, and. if they further taxed the land, the tax upon which already was intolerable, the cost of production would be enhanced, and the people would be unable to obtain good fresh supplies of suitable food except at an increased price. He trusted that whatever proposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make for new taxation he would, at any rate, not propose to destroy the agricultural industry, which was the greatest and the oldest industry of this country. A source of disappointment in this Budget was the tea tax proposal. He very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way further to reduce the duty on tea, or, at any rate, to alter the method of charging the duty. The right hon. Gentleman might have so arranged it that it should have rested very lightly upon the working classes. The present duty might be well adapted for certain kinds of tea, but it was eminently unsuitable for every description. Therefore it was a disappointing Budget in that the incidence of the taxation was unreasonable. Surely in these days a method could be found of dealing with it in some way so that it" should not, as it was at present, be a grievous hardship upon the poor. He-was reminded that if an ad valorem duty was substituted for this rule of thumb we should have to have a service of experts who would have to decide, in a rough-and-ready way, the respective values of the different qualities of tea. Well, that ought not to be beyond the capacity and the industry of the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Exchequer. He could not agree with his hon. friend the Member for the West Derby Division1 of Liverpool, who desired for the purposes of taxation to differentiate-between incomes derived from professions and employments and incomes derived from investments. That was, he submitted, a very difficult thing to touch, because it might happen that men might concentrate their minds on something—a patent, for instance—which for years might not be successful, but which eventually brought in a considerable income. When that income was brought in it had to be invested, and he asked whether it was reasonable that that man's income should be taxed at a higher rate than that of a man who earned his-income from day to day. He did not 1037 agree with the idea of a graduated income-tax. He believed it would be very detrimental to the revenue of this country. He had referred to this subject earlier in the session, and had then pointed out two or three perfectly honest modes that could be adopted, and possibly would be adopted, by those who desired to evade the income-tax. He noticed that neither the newspapers nor the gentlemen responsible for the official reports of the debates of this House took down that particular sentence. He noticed it because it was that particular sentence that was dropped out of an otherwise excellent report. On consideration he thought they were wise to leave it out. But he could assure the House that there wore several methods which he believed to be perfectly honest, which could be made use of to evade the payment of a graduated income-tax, and no doubt other methods equally simple and equally honest might be discovered for the same purpose. He thought it was a matter of great regret that they had thrown away, by abolishing the coal tax, a source of considerable revenue. If part of the income derived from that source had been used to equalise the cost of putting coal on the Russian market, whore we were severely handicapped notwithstanding the most-favoured-nation clause, it would have been a far more reasonable thing than to have abolished this tax. In Russia one duty was charged on sea-borne coal and another, a much lower duty, on that borne by rail, and if a portion of the income derived from the coal duty had been utilised to equalise that disadvantage that might have justified the Government in fore-going the other portion of it. But seeing that the exports of coal were going steadily up, notwithstanding the imposition of this duty, it seemed to him an egregious thing on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw away this fine opportunity of retaining some such source of taxation. If instead of abolishing this duty he had used the revenue derived from it to reduce the cost of the food of the people, then he should have considered it a reasonable thing. Although this was a fairly sound Budget in most respects, he thought his hon. friend the Member for Yarmouth was fully justified in criticising it, as it was in many senses an extremely disappointing one.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'it is undesirable to proceed further with a measure imposing heavy burdens on His Majesty's subjects resident in the United Kingdom until steps have been taken to secure from foreign nations a substantial contribution to our revenue by the taxation of imported foreign manufactured articles which can be equally well supplied by home and Colonial industry'—(Captain Craig)—instead thereof
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. ASQUITHMr. Deputy-Speaker, the Amendment which you have just put from the Chair asks the House to reverse the decision given by the country at the last general election ; and if I had framed my Budget on the lines suggested in that Amendment, I should have been flying in the face of a Resolution of this House passed by a vast majority at the beginning of the present session. That is all I have to say.
§ *MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)said one was lost in amazement at the number of decisions the country was said by members of the Government and their supporters to have arrived at at the last general election. They had been told of half a dozen issues each of which in turn and as it suited right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were said to have constituted the voice of the country and overshadowed all others. He could not help recalling the scene in that House as recently as Friday last when a section of the Government supporters reinforced by the Labour Party were taunting the Government with the electoral advantage they received over Chinese slavery which they alleged was so largely responsible for the Government majority and the neglect they had shown of their election pledges ; but if it suited the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that this issue of free imports overshadowed all others he had no objection to his saying so. Assuming that this was the great issue before the country at that time, he ventured to think that that would not preclude the House from reconsidering the prudence of forming a Budget on the lines adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on this particular occasion. The merits of the Government having been preached far 1039 and wide from the pulpits of political Nonconformity as well as from the hedgerows, great expectations had been formed as to the amelioration of those taxes which bore more hardly on the poor than upon other classes of the community. He differed from some who sat upon that side of the House in that he believed in and supported a graduated income - tax and in graduated duties upon such articles as tea. From a Government of such promise they should have had the fulfilment of an election pledge made to the Anti-Tea Duty League. There would be a good ground for differentiating the duty on tea, but as that was not feasible at the present moment he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have boldly remitted 2d. of the duty even at the expense of the Sinking Fund. The consumers had a right, certainly, to expect a remission of 2d. It was only right that the tea duty should be brought back to 4d. as soon as possible. Certainly the tea duty had oppressed the poor very much, and it ought to have been the first duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give relief to those by whoso help his Party profited so largely at the general election. Another matter which had been disappointing was the remission of the coal tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been well advised if he had endeavoured to differentiate between qualities of coal. Whatever might be said as to the prudence of relieving the cheaper kinds of north country coal the tax should have been retained on coal exported from Wales, for we had a monopoly of that class of coal, and it was a commodity which foreign navies could not well afford to be without. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech had stated that in the opinion of experts the coal area of Wales was practically exhaustless, or, at all events, that it would last this generation, and probably the next, but the right hon. Gentleman knew from his experience outside this House and in a sphere where he had distinguished himself that of all persons expert witnesses were liable to err, and he would bear in mind the classification of the late Lord Bramwell with regard to that type of witness. The coal tax contributed materially to the revenue, and according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing, was paid by foreign buyers, since he refrained 1040 from giving relief until November, because, as he stated, he had ascertained that forward contracts provided that the foreign purchaser should get the advantage of any remission of duty. Another branch of the subject touched very nearly an industry in which his own constituency was interested—motor-car manufacture. The condition of things abroad was such as to prohibit the export of these manufactures, and in the United States there was a duty of 45 per cent., with a result that one of the firms was about to establish or had established works in Boston.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he must not go beyond the questions raised in the Bill or by the Amendment.
§ *MR. NIELDsaid he only wished to commend to the attention of the House this fact and the action of Messrs. Thorny croft, of Chiswick. It was a disappointing Budget, as opportunity was not availed of to raise taxes from available sources, and taxation had been taken off which with advantage might have been retained. The poorer classes had not been relieved as they might have been, and as they were led by the Government and its supporters to believe they would be.
§ LORD CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)said he felt it incumbent upon him to say a few words in praise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He ventured to differ from his colleagues on that side of the House, and to put forward the reasons why he could not consider the Budget a disappointing measure in every respect. Up to a certain point it had not reached the expectations they entertained, and especially the expectations caused by the lavish promises of the General Election; but it had one redeeming, feature, namely, the removal of the coal tax. He was very glad to see with what pleasure that sentiment was received in the House, and he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer very sincerely that he had seen fit to remove the whole of the tax upon exported coal. An export tax was upon an entirely wrong basis; besides, in this case the tax only struck at one portion of the coal trade. The tax imposed by the late Government was put on before the 1041 Commission reported that the supply of coal in this country was adequate to last for two hundred years. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to tax the coal trade the coalowners, who were most loyal and patriotic subjects, would not be in any way backward in meeting the stress of a national emergency. But there were other ways of taxing the coal trade without inflicting a penalty upon only one portion of it. He was very glad to have this opportunity of congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in this otherwise disappointing Budget he had at any rate taken one step which had given great and general satisfaction,
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)said he could not help feeling some disappointment at the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought right to treat this Amendment. It might be that the right hon. Gentleman despised criticism from the Opposition side of the House, and that he thought a single sentence disposed of their arguments. It would have been more courteous if he had concealed his contempt, seeing that the questions raised by the Finance Bill had not been discussed at undue length. There were unquestionably some questions of considerable importance raised by this Amendment.
§ MR. ASQUITHsaid they were merely discussing the Amendment to substitute taxation on foreign manufactured goods, and as it appeared to him the House had already pronounced a decision upon this, he did not think it respectful to the House to occupy time with the subject.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid he personally could not support the Amendment, for the reason that a portion of it seemed to indicate a desire, which was clearly conveyed in the speech of the mover, for protection. But another portion of the Amendment suggested that a larger proportion of revenue should be raised by indirect taxation, and manufactured goods were selected as the subject. This was an important question, not having necessarily anything to do with free trade and protection.
§ MR. ASQUITHForeign manufactured goods.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid this had not necessarily anything to do with free trade and protection. It was evident that confusion of thought existed in some minds on the subject, and perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words upon direct and indirect taxation. It had nothing to do with protection, to which he was thoroughly opposed, a fact that was fairly well known. Direct taxation was unpopular undoubtedly. It seemed to him that there was a good deal to be said for what was called indirect taxation if it was levied on the proper subjects. Direct taxation had many advantages. They were certain of what they were doing; but it had the still greater advantage of economy. Every penny raised by direct taxation went straight to the Exchequer; no portion of it went into the hands of manufacturers or their friends. It had a further curious advantage which ought to have been put forward by the great masters of finance, that was its unpopularity. It would encourage economy, and discourage extravagance. He could not himself think that these advantages were unmixed. In the first place, he could conceive of a case where if we were tied solely to direct taxation there might be considerable difficulty in a Government pursuing a definite policy, because of its unpopularity. But a much more serious effect was that if we had only direct taxation to fall back upon, it would encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to rely on loans, and not on taxation. That was a matter which must be seriously considered. In the old day's when the whole source of power in this country lay on the middle and monied classes, that was a very serious consideration, because it was the electors who paid the taxation. That was no longer the case now; the taxation did not fall wholly on the electors of the country. The income-tax, for example, did not fall directly on the working man. The taxation which did fall directly on him was such as the tea-duty, and the duties on those articles compendiously referred to as the breakfast table. The real truth was that direct taxation in the shape of income-tax fell on the rich and the few, whereas, indirect taxation at present fell on the poor and the many.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that the noble Lord's remarks were directed to an abstract discussion of the principles of direct and indirect taxation and did not seem to be sufficiently directed either to the Bill or to the Amendment, which were the only questions now before the House.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid he thought that his remarks were directed to the Amendment, which appeared to him to advocate indirect taxation. He apprehended that he should be in order in making two observations about the income-tax. It was commonly said that the income-tax was direct taxation, but when looked at properly he did not think that the income-tax was a direct tax at all. In his view all taxes ultimately fell upon those who were the least able to bear them. Wherever a tax was imposed, the person who had to pay it tried to recover it from someone else; he shifted the burden on, and it was shifted on again, until at last it fell upon someone who could not shift it further; that was, that it fell upon the poor man, who was the person least able to bear it. It did not really matter to the poor man where the tax was imposed, for in the result he had to pay it. It was the poor who paid indirectly all taxation He had no doubt that every Member of this House desired to impose taxation so that the rich man should pay, not only his arithmetical proportion, but something more. Some approach might be made to increase the taxation of the rich—he discussed this question quite independently of party politics—and that was by taxing luxuries. That could be done at any rate in theory. It was undoubtedly the case that if it was desired to tax the luxuries of the rich, there was a great deal to be said for taxing them by means of import duties. He did not deny that there were objections to that, but he thought it was a very just and convenient form of taxation, and except for one circumstance it would be a very favourable method of raising money. The real objection to it was that it was tainted with all the opprobrium which attached to the idea of protection. That objection would inevitably be made by certain Members on the Ministerial benches, who had got the subject on their brains, and who did not look at the matter fairly. He quite admitted that an import duty of any kind, how- 1044 ever carefully guarded, was a very dangerous instrument, because it might very easily lead to protection and to the evils associated with protection. What he meant was that import duties on the luxuries of the rich, if imposed by those who were protectionists at heart, would produce all the evils of protection, including political evils which were associated with protection. He urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government generally to consider very carefully the question of raising revenue from import duties quite apart from the bogey of protection. That course was not open to the party to which he belonged. If they were to propose anything in the nature of a revenue duty on imports, many people would consider that it was a veiled form of protection, and that it would be a very great evil. But that danger did not attach to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—at least he hoped not—and he ventured, therefore, to urge him carefully to consider, before he presented another Budget to the House, whether it was quite certain that direct taxation was necessarily the best form of raising revenue, and whether a really genuine broadening of the basis of taxation by imposing it upon subjects and upon people who did to some extent escape their fair share of taxation was not desirable. He said strongly that in the observations he had been making he was not in any way, either directly or indirectly, proposing to return to protection, to which he was as strongly opposed as anyone in this House.
§ MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington)said he thought that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a very short answer to the Amendment, and he believed the House would be much interested if the right hon. Gentleman were to say something more in that direction. Of course he knew that a Resolution had been passed this session in regard to the question of free trade and protection, and that therefore they were barred to some extent from dealing with it. He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman had given hon. Members a homily on expenditure when they discussed old-age pensions, the Taff Vale dispute, and Chinese labour, with its great moral issues. With reference to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, it was very difficult to say what protection 1045 was or whether this Amendment meant protection. He was not at all a bigoted protectionist, but if a man put up a factory in Germany at the present time he had a market for his goods in that country of 60,000,000 people, while he could send his goods to this country free. But if he erected his works in this country, then he had to pay a toll on these goods if they were sent to Germany. It had been suggested that it would be wise to take off the taxation from the poorest of the poor, and he quite agreed, but it was, in his judgment, quite impossible to prevent the poor man having to pay a tax upon such an article as a glass of beer. What he wanted to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that next year he should find some means of widening the basis of taxation by putting a tax upon manufactured goods.
§ *MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)said that several Members on the Opposition side of the House had disclaimed the title of protectionist, but for himself he was pleased to be so described. He was a declared tariff reformer, and he was not ashamed of it. They had had an interesting discussion, and not the least interesting part of it had been the light and airy way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the Government had a special mandate in regard to protection. In his comparative inexperience as a new Member of the House, nothing had been more entertaining to him personally than the way in which different members of the front Government Bench had told them of the various mandates received during the general election. He had no doubt that the election showed that the country was not yet ripe for fiscal reform, so eloquently advocated by the leaders on the Opposition side of the House. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Which?"] He was happy to think that hon. Members on that side had two leaders of outstanding eminence and brilliancy. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Name."] Those who described themselves as tariff reformers were not ashamed to say that they had boon cheered and encouraged by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had advocated tariff reform ; and if the leader of the Party, of whom they were so proud, had had a free hand to deal with the question prior to the election, he did not at all doubt that there 1046 would not have boon the slightest misunderstanding as to the position of the two right hon. Gentlemen. Speaking for himself, he had the utmost pleasure in serving under either of them.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid these domestic questions did not seem to be in order.
§ MR. BARRIEapologised. Speaking on the question before the House, he desired to say that he thought that if Members of the House would, as occasion offered, take a walk round the large, important sea-ports, and see the vast quantity of manufactured goods which were being brought into the country without the slightest taxation, if they would also carefully consider the number of our manufactures that had been crushed out of existence by these imports, there would be no trouble whatever in their rapidly coming to the conclusion that the lines of the Amendment were correct, and that if they were not accepted now they must be accepted in the near future. He submitted that a moderate import duty on the vast quantity of imported goods which came into this country would tend greatly to increase employment in this country, and that the burden of the increased duty would fall on the classes which were well able to bear it. The working classes would receive a benefit which at present they did not seem to desire to possess. He was sure that the more the question was discussed the more quickly the time would come when this country would find it desirable to impose a duty upon manufactured goods.
§ *MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)said he wished to challenge the statement made by the noble Lord that it was possible to put on an import duty without its being protective. This matter affected their Lancashire trade very seriously and the noble Lords statement ought not to pass unchallenged. It was a serious matter for the Lancashire cotton trade, because they had 99.2 per cent, of the whole of the Indian import trade, and there was on their goods now an import duty of 5 per cent., but, as all Governments ever since that question was first raised had agreed, if they placed a 5 per cent, duty on cotton without a countervailing duty it would be a protective duty.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid he did not challenge the hon. Member's statement as applied to cotton. Undoubtedly an import duty must have a protective effect. What he wanted to indicate was that by carefully selecting these imports they could put on a duty which would not amount to protection as ordinarily understood.
§ *MR. SHACKLETONagreed. With regard to what the hon. Member for North Londonderry had said he hoped to go to a division on the Amendment, to prove that trade unionists had not altered the opinion they had expressed on this subject earlier in the session. Trade unionists had not changed their opinions as to the effect this policy would have on the workers. All sections of labour were going to vote against the Amendment, and it would require better arguments than they had heard that night to induce them to alter their opinion on this subject.
§ *MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)said he was not afraid to be called a protectionist by anyone in the House. He did not advocate a return to the "Hungry forties," but he was a tariff reformer and was quite ready to face the word protectionist. It seemed to him that everyone of them, whatever they might be, wished to protect their own particular interests, and that being so why should they lie selfish and refuse a measure of protection to the interests of others. It was for that reason he advocated what was wrongly called by hon. Members opposite protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his very short remarks to-night, had again referred to the mandate the Government had received. They had heard enough about the mandates of this election. The word "mandate" had been applied to everything that the Government had done, and he thought the hon. Member for Dulwich had summed up the matter pretty accurately when he said a few evenings ago that the only reason for the result of the election was the fact that the country was tired of the Tory Party and wanted a change. As to the tax on tea, it was quite true that the Tory Party increased it. The reason for that was that they were bound to an absurdly narrow basis of taxation. When money was required they had to put on un- 1048 warrantable taxes within that basis, and hence the increase in the tea duty. The Resolution now before the House proposed to extend that basis of taxation, and for that reason it had his most hearty support. The means they proposed was that there should be an import duty imposed en foreign manufactured goods coming to this country. No one could deny that the result of our present system had been that manufactures which used to flourish in this country had now gone abroad; that they employed foreign labour where they used to employ British labour, that they went abroad in order to obtain two markets instead of one, because, as was well known, the larger the production, the cheaper the cost of production. As an example of foreign manufactures, let them take the case of the motor industry. French motor cars came to this country in very large quantities, yet it was a well-known fact that cars of the same build could be produced in this country at the same price as in France, the costs of production being so close as to differ to the extent of only a few shillings. Whilst all these French ears were allowed to come into this country we could not send British cars into France without paying a duty. He wanted to show hon. Gentlemen opposite how an import duty on foreign motor cars must necessarily fall not upon the English purchaser, but upon the foreign producer. Let them take, for example, two exactly similar motor-cars, one made in England and one in France, the cost of production of each being £500. If 10 per cent, duty were put upon the French motor car coming into this country what would happen? The French manufacturer would say to himself, "Can I charge that duty on the English market?" Of course he could not. If he charged £550 for the car in the English market nobody would be foolish enough to buy it. The similar car made in England and offered at £500 would be bought. The French manufacturer, therefore, had to do one of two things ; he would either have to pay the duty himself and continue to sell his car in London at the old price of £500, in which case the British revenue would benefit to the extent of £50, or else he would conclude that it was not worth his while to send the car to England. In the latter case the result would be that an extra car would be made by 1049 British labour. In either case the British purchaser would not have to pay a single penny more than he did at present. What was true of the motor ear was true of hundreds of other articles. There was an industry which once thrived in the Southern counties and was now dead, but which would revive again in this country if a small duty were imposed on the foreign manufactured article. He referred to the industry of coopers' hoops. They might not appeal to hon. Gentlemen, but they appealed very much in Kent and Sussex, where employment used to be found in the industry during winter months for thousands of labourers who had other employment in summer. He would like to point out to supporters of the Government who talked a great deal about sending the labourer back to the laud that it was no use sending him back there unless by some such means as this they found employment for him in the winter. He should be strongly opposed to an import duty on anything coming under the head of raw material. The duties which he hoped to see imposed—and some day they would be imposed—should be confined strictly to manufactured articles and produce, which could be made or produced at home. At present this country levied duties upon man imported necessaries of life which we could not produce ourselves, and it was an admitted fact that in such cases the British consumer necessarily paid the bulk of the duty. Whatever was the incidence of taxation on foreign manufactured articles which might be produced in this country, and whosever shoulders it fell upon, it could not be worse than at the present time. Surely it was worth a trial. By taxing luxuries which came from abroad, the incidence of indirect taxation might be diverted so as to fall on the shoulders of the very rich, But what he hoped still more to see was the foreigner taxed. The foreigner made us contribute a good deal to his revenue, and he should like to make him pay a certain amount to ours. They were justified in urging the House to try this change. It could not make matters worse. Let them tax the rich if they liked, and the foreigner if they could, but for Heaven's sake let them adopt some system by which they might leave oft' taxing the poor.
§ Question put.
1050§ The sense of the House having been taken by Mr. SPEAKER in the usual way by the responses "Aye" and "No," a division was challenged. When Members were proceeding to the division lobbies,
§ Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDI wish to ask a question on a point of order. My point of order is this. Is it competent for a number of the Members of this House to force a division by calling "No" when they intend to vote "Aye"? When the proposer and the seconder of an Amendment, and those who have supported them, have no desire to take a division and: have not called "No," is it competent to create an artificial division by other parties calling "No" and then voting "Aye"? [Cries of "Name."]
§ *MR. SPEAKERWhen an hon. Member says "No" I presume he mean, to vote "No"; and if I had any power to compel him to vote "No" I should do so. But I have no power to compel an hon. Member to vote in the way for which he lifts his voice.
§ MR. R. DUNCAN (Lanarkshire, Govan)May I ask whether Members who do not desire to vote are privileged to sit still?
§ *Mr. SPEAKERNo hon. Member is compelled to vote if he does not want to.
The division was then taken, but before the figures were announced,
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDI find on page 343 of Erskine May's "Law and Usage of Parliament" that when Members who call "No" vote in the "Aye" division lobby, the proper course is to have their names struck out of the list of "Ayes" and recorded the other way. Those who called "No" include practically the whole of the hon. Members below the gangway, and in this division they voted "Aye." I very respectfully submit that the point I took when this unparliamentary and exceedingly inconvenient course was taken is perfectly in order, and that the remedy now lies with you, Sir, to have these votes recorded the other way.
§ *MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member will name any Member of this House who 1051 said "No" and yet went into the "Aye" lobby his name shall be struck out of the division list.
§ Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDI can name two, Sir.
§ The Tellers reported the numbers, Ayes, 258; Noes, 2.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDThe way in which this position ought to be dealt with—[Cries of "Order, order!"]
§ *MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member will name any hon. Member of this House : who said "No" and yet went into the "Aye" lobby his name shall be struck out of the division List.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDI am only able to name two, the hon. Member for the Clitheroe Division and the hon. Member for Halifax.
§ *MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member for Clitheroe accept the statement of the hon. Member?
§ *MR. SHACKLETONYes. Have I the right to give an explanation?
§ *MR. SPEAKERYes, certainly.
§ *MR. SHACKLETONIt is not the first time this has occurred in this House. In my opinion, of the two hours we have spent on this Motion, an hour and a half has been deliberately wasted. I and my friends sitting beside me are anxious to get certain important measures
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt | Caldwell, James |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bennett, E. N. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bertram, Julius | Cheetham, John Frederick |
| Armitage, R. | Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Billson, Alfred | Clarke, C. Goddard |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) | Clough, W. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Cogan, Denis J. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Brace, William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight | Brigg, John | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. |
| Barker, John | Brodie, H. C. | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Cooper, G. J. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Barnes, G. N. | Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Cremer, William Randal |
| Bell, Richard | Byles, William Pollard | Cross, Alexander |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Cairns, Thomas | Dalziel, James Henry |
§ affecting labour, and every minute wasted means less chance for us.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDThen why waste time on a division?
*MR. SHACKETONI have clone this as a protest against Motions being moved, speeches made and time wasted, and then Members refusing to take the opinion of the House of Commons upon Motions.
§ *MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member for Halifax accept the statement of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division?
§ MR. PARKER (Halifax)No. I was so much amused and was laughing so much at the time when Members were shouting that I never shouted at all.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe name of the hon. Member for Clitheroe will be struck out of the division list and his name will be added to the "Noes."
§ MR. PARKERI think I have a right to claim that the hon. Member for the West Derby Division should withdraw the statement he made with reference to me.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will I am sure at once accept the statement of the hon. Member for Halifax.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDAt once, Sir.
§ Mr. SPEAKER directed Mr. SHACKLETON's Vote to be recorded with the Noes:— Ayes, 257 ; Noes, 3. (Division List No. 121.)
1053| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt | Caldwell, James |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bennett, E. N. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bertram, Julius | Cheetham, John Frederick |
| Armitage, R. | Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Billson, Alfred | Clarke, C. Goddard |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) | Clough, W. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Cogan, Denis J. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Brace, William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight | Brigg, John | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. |
| Barker, John | Brodie, H. C. | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Cooper, G. J. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Barnes, G. N. | Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Cremer, William Randal |
| Bell, Richard | Byles, William Pollard | Cross, Alexander |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Cairns, Thomas | Dalziel, James Henry |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifton) | Lambert, George | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lamont, Norman | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Davies, W. Howell, (Bristol S.) | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Rees, J. D. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Levy, Maurice | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Dillon, John | Lewis, John Herbert | Renton, Major Leslie |
| Dolan, Charles Joseph | Lloyd, George, Rt. Hon. David | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n. |
| Duckworth, James | Lough, Thomas | Richardson, A. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lupton, Arnold | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lynch, H. B. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Elibank, Master of | Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk Bg'hs | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Macpherson, J. T. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Erskine, David C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Robinson, S. |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | M'Callum, John M. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Farrell, James Patrick | M'Crae, George | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Kenna, Reginald | Runciman, Walter |
| Ferens, T. R. | M'Killop, W. | Russell, T. W. |
| Ferguson, B. C. Munro | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Micking, Major W. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Maddison, Frederick | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Mallet, Charles E. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Seddon, J. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Gill, A. H. | Marnham, F. J. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Ginnell, L. | Massie, J. | Shipman, Dr. John G, |
| Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Meagher, Michael | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Glover, Thomas | Menzies, Walter | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Micklem, Nathaniel | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. |
| Grant, Corrie | Mond, A. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Gulland, John W. | Montagu, E. S. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. (Brampton) | Montgomery, H. H. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hall, Frederick | Mooney, J. J. | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Hammond, John | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morrell, Philip | Summerbell, T. |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Murphy, John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Hazleton, Richard | Myer, Horatio | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nicholls, George | Torrance, A. M. |
| Herbert. Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster | Toulmin, George |
| Higham, John Sharp | Norman, Henry | Ure, Alexander |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Hogan, Michael | Nuttall, Harry | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Hooper, A. G. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Doherty, Philip | Weir, James Galloway |
| Hyde, Clarendon | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Jackson, R. S. | O'Dowd, John | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Hare, Patrick | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | O'Mara, James | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Joyce, Michael | Paul, Herbert | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Kelley, George D. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Winfrey, R. |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd |
| Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Pirie, Duncan V. | |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Radford, G. H. | |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Rainy, A. Rolland | |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Raphael, Herbert. H | |
| NOES. | ||
| Courthope, G. Loyd | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— | |
| Hills. J. W. | Captain Craig and Mr. Carlile. | |
| Shackleton, David James |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ SIR WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith)said he wanted to call the attention of the House to what he considered a serious subject in connection with the Bill, and to make an appeal on behalf of the unfortunate taxpayers. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone had said the income-tax only affected a few. He denied that; it affected a very large class. The smaller class of income-tax-payers were hardly hit in the present circumstances. They had not only to pay income-tax, but indirect taxation on such articles as tea and sugar. He therefore hoped to draw from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some expression of sympathy for that class. He thought that the exemption should be increased from £160 to £240. He complained that the officials of the Income-Tax Department, although sometimes sympathetic, were in other cases too inquisitorial. There ought to be further reductions in regard to particular trades. He had had a large correspondence on that subject, and he found that in many cases the income-tax authorities did not make proper allowances. In all the West-end drapery establishments the ladies who served had to wear black silk dresses. That was a very serious matter. They wore out two of these dresses in- the course of the year, and they cost from £12 to £15, and were of no use for any other purpose. He contended that that was one of the examples where the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to make some allowance.
§ MR. ASQUITHconfessed that for himself he could not listen to the speech of the hon. Gentleman without considerable emotion. The hon. Member had invited him to enter on a voyage of adventure, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness that the incidence and collection of income-tax were points to which he was giving earnest consideration. He was by no means satisfied that the present system was an ideal one. It was his sincere desire to put the tax on a more equitable foundation, and to make its collection more simple and easy to the tax-payers as well as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be content with that assurance and that the House would now agree to the Third Reading.
§ MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Staffordshire, Handsworth)said it was with great regret that he criticised the Budget, and on the last occasion when he rose to do so, although he endeavoured to be polite to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman immediately moved the closure. When, however, he did have an opportunity of speaking he had stated that in his opinion the Budget was a very bad one and was objectionable in every way. He stated that he admired the excellent speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman certainly did make an excellent beginning although he fell off towards the end. At one time he thought the Budget was better than he had considered it to be at first, but, having heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he was now of opinion that it was a worse Budget than he originally thought. When the Government came in they claimed that they were going to be a very efficient Government and save a large amount of expenditure. They made very excellent proposals, all of which were very difficult to carry out. What was the result? They had abandoned several sources of revenue ; they had taken away burdens from the foreigner and put further burdens upon the people of this country. There was the question of tobacco. The Financial Secretary recently made a most eloquent and able speech on the subject, in which he absolutely proved that the Opposition were in the right and made out an excellent case against himself. The serious question in regard to the tobacco duty was that under the tax as it originally existed there was a growing industry in the treatment of the leaf in this country. Not only had that growing industry been lost, but the right hon. Gentleman had decreased our revenue. In this way he had thrown upon the country a large number of people who would have to be supported out of the rates. The alteration of the duty on tobacco did not, as far as he could see, benefit the consumer in the least. If it benefitted anybody it was the wholesale tobacco manufacturer. The alteration in the duty on tea also did not benefit the consumer, but only the wholesale tea dealer, while the abolition of the coal duty would result in the loss of a large source of revenue and 1057 would benefit not the consumers but the coal proprietors. He thought that he had established his claim that this was a thoroughly bad Budget.
§ MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)said that he also very much disliked this Budget and he did not wish to see the Third Reading of the Bill which embodied it passed without some protest from himself as a business man. He found nothing in the Budget of which he could approve, except the proposal to apply £500,000 to the reduction of debt. But even in that case the sum was insignificant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a large surplus, and in his judgment, speaking as a man of business, the right hon. Gentleman had thrown that surplus away. Lot them take, for instance, the penny reduction on tea. Everybody knew that this reduction would never benefit the consumer although it might benefit the wholesale dealer. In regard to the coal duty the right hon. Gentleman had thrown away a valuable source of revenue in response to political clamour. He would say, however, that he should have been sorry to see the coal duty maintained in the form in which it stood, though he was still more sorry to see it swept away entirely. He was speaking of a subject of which he knew something, because he spoke not only as a shipowner but as the representative of a great railway company. If it were true that the coal duty was injuring the trade of South Wales the fact would in some way have come home to himself and other directors of the great railway company with which he was connected. It had not come home in any way to him as a railway director, nor had it come home to those with whom he was associated. It had not come home to him at all except in its political aspect. The South Wales coal industry was a monopoly, and nobody bought the class of coal which came from South Wales unless they were obliged to. Therefore, in the case of the South Wales coal the duty was paid by the foreigner and not by the people of this country. The coal duty was put on by one free trade Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and maintained and argued in favour of by another free trade Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Mr. Ritchie. In his judgment the duty should have been confined to South Wales coal, which was a speciality of this 1058 country. A tax upon South Wales coal did not matter, but he had always objected to the duty being imposed upon Scottish and other coal of a cheaper quality, where it did matter. His objection to the tax was that it was applied in entire disregard of the quality of the coal. Therefore, in regard to the coal in the sale of which we came into competition with the foreigner, the coal producer of this country suffered. The result was also that the shipowners suffered. Moreover the British shipowner if he bought coal abroad had to pay this shilling a ton, and he thought that in his case the duty should have been returned to him. In stead of putting the coal duty upon reasonable lines the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yielded to the clamour to which he had alluded and had swept it away altogether, thus robbing the country of a valuable source of revenue. Coming to the question of the income-tax, it was not in the power of a private Member to move an increase of that tax. Had it been he should have moved a proposal of that sort. It was open to him, however, to argue that there should be an increase in the tax upon income derived from foreign investments in industries which competed with the industries of this country. The sum collected upon income from foreign investments had doubled in the last ten years. The investments had increased from £32,000,000 to £60,000,000. What did that point to? He looked across the House and he recalled to mind three conspicuous ornaments of the Liberal Party. There was one hon. Member in particular, who was a great advocate of the graduation of the income-tax. He himself was in favour of the graduation of the income-tax, if it could be done, but there were forms of graduation and the best form had to be considered. The hon. Gentleman he was alluding to was a worthy and excellent man in every way. He liked him and had not the smallest objection to him in any way except in regard to his politics and his views on certain subjects relating to taxation. That hon. Gentleman had one manufactory in this country, but he was interested in nine manufactories abroad which were engaged in competing with the industries of this country. Therefore it appeared that the hon. Gentleman was a strong free trader in this country but a strong protectionist in other countries. Why? Because 1059 under a system of protection his competitors in trade could not send their soap into other countries. Therefore protection suited him down to the ground abroad, and he supposed free trade suited him here. Another hon. Member to whom he alluded was the hon. Member for Northwich, who was very much in the same position. Everybody liked him, and he was a worthy and excellent man. He also was a great free trader in this country, but a great protectionist abroad. Another hon. Member whom he had in his mind was the hon. Member for Paisley, whose name was a household word. Everybody who knew anything about the hon. Member liked him. There was nothing to be said against him. He also enjoyed protection in other countries while he was a strong free trader here. [MINISTERIAL cries of "question."] He was talking to the question, although he was aware that Ministerialists did not like what he said. It was true, however. He did not wish to do these hon. Gentlemen any injustice, but he should like to see the income-tax so graduated that they would have to pay an increased sum upon the profits which they made on their investments abroad. He thought those who made profits abroad ought to pay a larger share of the income-tax than those who made profits at home. There were a great many large manufacturers of furniture and other articles abroad, whoso products came into competition with the products of our manufacturers and who made large profits. These firms paid income-tax probably only in respect to the salary of an agent in London, while the British manufacturer had to pay income-tax upon every profit that he made. In this way the foreigner escaped income-tax which his English rival had to pay. It had come to his knowledge that there was a good deal of money invested by foreigners in English railways. Every English investor in any industrial concern which was fortunate enough to make a profit had his income-tax collected at the source unless he could show that it was an overcharge, when he could get it back, but if he was a gentleman residing in Paris, the income-tax authorities did not take into account the fact as to whether he was a rich or a poor man. No matter how rich that man might be, he got his 1060 income free of income-tax. That put the British subject in a very unfair position as against the foreigner. This was only one of the matters which showed the unfair incidence of the income-tax. The income-tax was not only a burden upon the taxpayer, but it was a burden upon all industries in this country which were fortunate enough to pay. It was a tax which did mischief all round. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on1 the Budget which he had brought in, and would only say, in conclusion, that in each of the five Parliaments in which he had sat he had always urged the view that an income-tax should be differently charged in respect of the income of a man who earned his daily bread from his own labour and the man whoso income was-derived from investments. It was a cruel thing that the doctor, the barrister, or the schoolmaster should have a tax put upon his means of livelihood, and that when he died and left money behind him his family should be robbed for the payment of income-tax.
§ Question put and agreed to. Bill read, the third time, and passed.