HC Deb 01 July 1907 vol 177 cc462-84

Postponed proceeding, resumed.

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[MR. CALDWELL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

Clause 2:—

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

moved to leave out the words ''Parliament otherwise determined," and insert ''the 1st day of July, 1908." He said that he moved this Amendment, first, because the pressure of the tax was unfair on one particular class, secondly, because the taxation now to be made permanent was promised to be temporary, and, thirdly, because by this clause there would be a partial withdrawal of these taxes from the consideration of Parliament in the annual Budget. It was as well that he should quote the amount of the taxes which would be affected by his Amendment: one shilling per barrel on beer, which yielded £1,672,000; 6d. per gallon on spirits, £1,000,015; and 4d. per pound on tobacco, and 6d. per pound on foreign cigars, £1,100,000. It was proposed to make these taxes permanent, and practically to withdraw them from debate in Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated early in May that his reason for making these taxes permanent, and partially withdrawing them from the consideration of the House, was that although they had been imposed as temporary war taxes, the war debt had not yet been fully discharged, and, in the second place, because the withdrawal of these taxes from debate in the House was a convenient course. No doubt it was highly convenient for any Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to withdraw from Parliament, wholly or partially, the right to review in the fullest and most complete manner any tax, or portion of a tax, was a very serious precedent; and the convenience of other people besides the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be taken into account. The question should be considered in a very serious way not only by the Opposition, but also by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, however strong the opinions they held, were sometimes on economical doctrines absolutely sound. If it were a sound principle that they should enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw from Parliament wholly or partially the right to review any tax, the principle must be stretched further and applied to the tea tax and the income-tax. The Bill was a serious departure in our system of finance. The powers given in regard to the raising of these additional Customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits were exceptional and quite apart from the general sources of income of this country. They affected not only the brewers, distillers, and licensed victuallers, and their dependents, but also the shareholders in a trade which was licensed by the country and on which certain heavy burdens were imposed. These people were entitled to be considered by both sides of the House. He ventured to say that this was a serious departure, because it merged these additional taxes into the general system of finance. He could prove that these taxes were never meant to be permanent, but were imposed for a specific purpose and at a specific time in order to meet a national emergency, and that they were intended to be repealed when the war was over. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, in answer to an inquiry from that side, that as these taxes were meant for war purposes they might fairly be left on until the whole of the war charges had been met. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer been present he would have asked him to consider the facts of the malt tax imposed during the Crimean War. The increase of the tax was impossd "until the fifth of July next after the ratification of peace and no longer." That was a concrete example of a war tax which was supposed to hold good during the duration of a war and very properly ought to have been repealed immediately after peace had been proclaimed. These taxes to which he called attention, however, remained imposed for war purposes on one class of the community with very little hope of their ever being taken off. Sir Michael Hicks Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, when these taxes were imposed, said that he looked upon them as a temporary addition to taxation, and proposed that they should last till 1st August, 1901, not that it might be necessary to leave them on so long, but that they might be dealt with in the Budget of the year. He was not expecting every Chancellor of the Exchequer to be bound by every word of his predecessor, but where it was so clearly laid down that the tax was a temporary war tax they expected that some deference should be paid to the statement, especially when no more formal expression of opinion could have been given to the House. With regard to the view that these taxes might be fairly kept on until all the war expenditure was paid, he would like to know why some of the taxes should be left on while others had been removed, and why exceptional treatment should have been dealt out to alcohol. He knew that there were many Members on both sides of the House who regarded alcohol with detestation. He admired their principles although he did not follow them or agree with them, but it seemed to him that although they had determined to support temperance reform they should not sacrifice everything in favour of it. He did not know whether all the occupants of the Treasury Bench were total abstainers, but he thought not, although he knew that they had temperance opinions. He thought, however, they should limit those opinions within the scope of justice. After all, if the House of Commons was to be set up as the mirror of the opinions of the country that mirror should reflect justice—that common justice which they did not deny to any felon. He asked that justice should be extended to this trade. However much it was disliked by certain Members of the House it should be treated with justice and equality. Hon. Members seemed to think it right, however, that a selected portion of the community, already heavily taxed, should be the bearers of a burden which, if inflicted at all, should be borne by the whole of the community—and this was to be done in perpetuity, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw no prospect of being able to relieve the trade of these taxes. The right hon. Gentleman said in reply to a deputation which he received from the licensed trade in March, 1906, praying for a remission of war taxation, that in regard to the main object of their visit he had listened impartially to what had been said, and would take into consideration the arguments brought forward. He would not like the deputation to go away with the impression that there was any probability of any immediate change in the taxation being made, but he would in the future, if it were possible, give effect to the views put forward. Anybody who heard the speech would be of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had fairly made up his mind that though he could not at the moment change this taxation it was his intention to make the change. But in 1907 not only did the tight hon. Gentleman seek to make the tax permanent, but when challenged said it would make no difference in fact. The change was a great one and inflicted on the trade a very heavy burden, and it was unfair to argue now that the continuance of these temporary taxes made no difference. The total yield derived from the liquor trade was 25 per cent. of the Exchequer receipts, and if the amounts given in aid of local taxation were included the liquor trade paid no less than 32 per cent. of the taxation of the United Kingdom, whilst the yield in Prance from the same source was 9 per was so small a matter that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it worth while to bring it every year before Parliament and had inserted in his Bill "till Parliament otherwise determine." Then there were the taxes on tobacco and cigars. The burden of taxation had been largely aggravated by the increased assessment of licensed property. Moreover, the liquor trade had to meet the various charges under the Compensation Act of 1904, which amounted to £1,200,000. Those charges, it was true, were not taxation, but they were compulsory, and when all these matters were considered the injustice of making these taxes permanent was clear. He considered the withdrawal by the Government from the consideration of the House of all these war charges really added insult to injury, and was a very considerable departure from the rules. The right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that he had endeavoured to make out a fair case for those who thought they were being badly treated, and he thought he was entitled to a better explanation than the two he had received, namely, that this taxation must be continued till the war charges were paid, and secondly, that it was a matter of convenience with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "Parliament otherwise determine," and insert the words' the first day of July, nineteen hundred and eight"—(Colonel Lockwood)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. ASQUITH

said it was from no want of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman that he had not been present to hear the whole of his speech; still, he was sufficiently familiar with the point which it raised. As regarded the general question, the great bulk of our taxation was now permanently on the Statute-book and did not come within the review of the House year by year. There was no real constitutional question involved in the matter at all. The Amendment only dealt with the small surtaxes imposed at the time of the war. As regarded the particular surtaxes referred to, they were, if he remembered aright, 4d. on tobacco, and Is. on beer. Those surtaxes were imposed by Sir M. Hicks Beach, no doubt in his view for a temporary purpose, but conditions changed and intentions altered. He could not help remembering that the same Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed the corn tax as a permanent tax, yet it disappeared within a year. It was intended to be a permanent tax, and yet it had been the most transient of all our public taxes. He believed the same language was used with regard to the coal tax, which also had gone. The only one of the permanent taxes which Sir M. Hicks Beach imposed in respect of the war which still remained on the Statute-book without any necessity for annual review was the sugar-tax. He saw no reason why they should any longer go through the farce of annually re-enacting these particular taxes, when everybody knew that they had come to stay, and that there was not the slightest disposition at any rate on the part of the present majority to let them go. He could hold out no hope that the present Government would reduce the taxes on tobacco, beer, or spirits, and that being their fixed intention, they reduced the size of the Finance Bill, and got rid of unnecessary clauses by making these taxes part of the fixed taxation of the country.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said he sympathised with the natural feeling of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to shorten the proceedings wherever he could, and to take advantage of the opportunity afforded him to get rid of two clauses of the Finance Bill. He confessed that he had come to doubt whether he was right in the views which he had expressed on this subject, but the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just made instead of winning him over had had the effect of driving him away from him. As he had understood, the right hon. Gentleman's view had been that there was no immediate prospect of giving relief from these duties, but that the mere fact that they did not re-enact them did not prevent the House in future years from inserting new clauses for the special purpose of doing away with them, and, of course, to that extent limiting discussion, because a discussion on a Motion to insert a new clause would necessarily be more limited and narrow than a discussion in Committee on the clause itself. But that was not the view, or the whole view which the right hon. Gentleman had enunciated that night. For now the right hon. Gentleman said distinctly, and for the first time, as far as he knew, that in his opinion these taxes were not merely not to be repealed this year or next year, but that in regard to beer, spirits and tobacco all these taxes were to remain perman- ently at the figure now charged, and no reduction was to be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the House when his right hon. friend quoted from a speech which the right hon. Gentleman had made in reply to a deputation last year, in regard to the beer and spirit interests. He knew the difficulties of the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having had some experience of them, and, therefore, he did not want to lay too much stress on the right hon. Gentleman's words. Still let him remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what he had said, and ask him whether he thought it was quite a candid answer to give to the deputation, if he had made up his mind, not merely that in the circumstances of the year he could not give relief to these particular taxpayers, but that it was not in principle a desirable thing to afford them any relief. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not like the Deputation to go away with the impression that there was any probability of any immediate change in the taxation being made, but he would in the future, if it were possible, give effect to the views which had been put forward. That was the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, contemplating the possibility of at some time making a revision of these taxes, expressed himself. Surely, it was not quite fair to the trade to make a statement of that kind, when he had already made up his mind that in no circumstances whatever in future would he give them any remission of the duties. He had heard what his right hon. friend had said with regard to the remission of this war taxation. He thought that it was a strong case—to impartial people at any rate—a case, in regard to which, no one could blame those who brought it forward for putting it as strongly as they could. What were the facts? The Chancellor who imposed this taxation had to finance a great war, and he had to extend his outlook to expenditure that would continue when war ceased. Lord St. Aldwyn in carrying out his task distinguished between the duties he recommended for permanent existence in our revenue system and those he put on to meet a temporary emergency, and in asking the House and the representatives of the trades concerned to assent to being surcharged he expressed the hope that such taxes would only last for a year, and he clearly expressed his intention of not making them permanent. There were other taxes which he proposed should be made permanent. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer went out of his way to rejoice at the abolition of some of the new sources of revenue, but before many years the country would probably acknowledge that Lord St. Aldwyn was right, and they would regret the abolition. They had now very nearly gone back to the old narrow basis, not strong enough to bear the superstructure to be reared. The taxes concerned in the clause could not be removed under the present conditions of revenue, but he was not at all sure that the taxes on alcohol should permanently remain as high as at present. If they were retained at that rate it was for reasons wholly removed from revenue. The state of the trade, regarded as a revenue-producing machine, was not satisfactory. and needed to be carefully watched. However it might be with regard to maintaining the taxes on alcohol in the future, he was not prepared to vote for maintaining the tobacco taxes permanently at their present rate. He had no objection to the high duty on foreign cigars, or to its being raised if thought desirables, but the cheaper kinds of tobacco, such as the smoking mixtures, were too heavily taxed. Other taxes might have a prior claim; but he was not prepared to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the policy he had enunciated that night, that under no circumstances ought any of these taxes to be repealed.

MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)

regretted that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had somewhat changed his position in reference to the war taxes. When this subject was last before the House he believed that the right hon. Gentleman commended the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the course he had taken, or at any rate he did not dissociate himself from that action. The right hon. Member who moved this Amendment had not given them any good reason why hon. Members should support him in the lobby. It was said, in the first place, by those who supported the Amendment, that by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the surtaxes upon beer, spirits, and tobacco were being withdrawn from the purview of the House. That would be a serious matter if it were true—that the House would have no further opportunity of discussing these taxes. The right hon. Gentleman would see that he had rather destroyed his own case upon that head. The truth was that many other opportunities would be open to hon. Members to discuss these taxes. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that these taxes were intended to be temporary, that they were only put on for the purposes of the war, and that they ought to be taken off now that the war was over. He gave as an instance the case of the malt tax during the Crimean War, which only remained in operation until peace was proclaimed. If the whole of the war expenditure had been paid off, then there might be good reason for asking that the war taxation should be taken off. So long as there was £100,000,000 or more of the National Debt, which had been incurred by the war, it seemed to him that there was not much of a case for arguing that the war taxes should be taken off. The third reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was that the pressure on the liquor trade was unfair, and he had argued that instead of making the temporary taxes permanent they should be taken off soon. He did not know where the right hon. Gentleman got the figures which he quoted, but they did not agree with those given by the Financial Secretary earlier in the year in Answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Lincoln. The Financial Secretary stated that whereas in 1899, before the war taxes were put on, the taxation of the liquor trade amounted to 32 per cent. of the aggregate taxes raised for local and Imperial purposes, in the year 1906 it was only 25 per cent. That being so, the right hon. Gentleman's own argument was rather in favour of increasing than diminishing the taxation of the liquor trade at the present time. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted very fairly towards the trade. He was heartily glad that the right hon. Gentleman had announced that there was no prospect in the near future of that proportion being reduced.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman opposite had failed to understand the point raised by the Amendment. It was not a question whether it was more convenient that this surtax should be annual or permanent. The question raised by the Amendment was whether Parliament should not for once in a way keep faith with this trade. This particular surtax was put on as a temporary war tax, and the point was whether, the war being over, the tax ought to be continued. When in Opposition the present Foreign Minister said— These taxes (the war taxes) were imposed for the war and ought to be taken off now the war is over. The President of the Board of Trade when in Opposition said— The House of Commons had got to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the throat, in a Parliamentary sense, and tell him that they could not continue these war taxes year after year. He did not see how, in face of those statements, hon. Members opposite could now maintain that the war taxes ought to be continued until the whole of the debt incurred for the purposes of the war had been paid off.

MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)

supported the Amendment on the ground that it referred to a temporary tax put on for the purpose of the war, and that relief should now be given. It was absolutely wrong that the Government should act as they were doing at the present time in endeavouring to make this a permanent charge on brewers. He could not help thinking that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would read his own reply to the deputation that came to him from the licensed trade he would reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment.

*MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said he could not help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated this Amendment rather cursorily. The right hon. Gentleman sought to brush it away as a matter of extremely small importance. He took an entirely different view. According to the Budget the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise £31,740,000 by Customs duties in the current year If the clause had not been proposed, £24,000,000 of that amount would be raised by permanent enactment and £7,250,000 only would have been subject to the annual and inevitable review of the House. That was, surely, not too much. But the right hon. Gentleman here proposed to reduce that £7,250,000 by no less than £2,250,000; so that out of the whole range of our Customs duties amounting to £31,740,000 to be raised this year, the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to leave to the direct annual review of Parliament one head only, namely, the tea duty, amounting to was a very considerable and serious proposal, and deserved and required a great deal more justification than had been given. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the largest proportion of our revenue was raised by permanent enactment, and did not come within the purview of Parliament every year. That was true, and he wondered if that was fully realised by the people outside the House. In Answer to a Question he had put the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that out of a total revenue of £130,000,000 raised by taxation during 1906–7 no less than 68 per cent. was raised by permanent enactment, never came before the House in any direct way, and would continue to be taken from the people exactly as at present if no House of Commons ever met again. The proportion of revenue raised by permanent enactment was very great, but it had been steadily decreasing for some years. In 1873–74 the total taxation revenue thus withdrawn from discussion in the House of Commons was 88 per cent.; in 1883–4 it was 83 per cent.; in 1893–94 it was 81 per cent.; in 1902–3 it was 69½per cent.; and last year it was 68 per cent. Now for the first time for thirty years the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the great advocate of economy, came to the House and proposed to set back this wholesome tendency and withdraw no less than 72 per cent. of the revenue from the control of Parliament. No sufficient reason had been given for so great a change: and he held that, irrespective of Party considerations altogether, Parliament should resist any attempt to increase the amount of revenue withdrawn from its review, and so should support his hon. friend's Amendment.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

thought that the Committee had every right to complain. In his first Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not lay it down that these war taxes would be permanent, and on his second Budget after much interrogation they had not been able to extract from the right hon. Gentleman any explanation as to why that course should be taken.

MR. ASQUITH

said that he had stated that an explanation would be given on Report.

Sir GILBERT PARKER

said that he did not dearly understand that, although he had been present when the right hon. Gentleman spoke, nor did he think that it was understood in the country. The right hon. Gentleman said, with an air of triumph and satisfaction which was intended to gain the cheers of his supporters, that these taxes were to be made permanent because they were imposed on the liquor trade; but he had slid them from a temporary into a permanent position without giving an opportunity for adequate discussion. If these taxes were made permanent they would press most unjustly on the licensing trade. That trade had been taxed out of all proportion when the imposts laid upon it were com pared with those put upon other industries. He was not entering into the merits of the licensing trade, but if the House put it in a position of legitimacy by their legislative action they ought to deal with the trade with a sense of justice. Hon. Members on the other side of the House had a clear intention of pressing on the licensing trade and of getting out of it all they could. If they were going to check the liquor traffic one could understand that.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that the question before the House was not one of the; quantum of the taxation of the trade, but whether or not this taxation should be continued and made permanent.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

apologised for being carried away further than he had intended, and said he was led to advance the argument by the temptation of the moment. On the question before the Committee he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake, and that this taxation which he had made permanent would not commend itself to the House or to the country when it came to be analysed at the proper time and in the proper place.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the hon. Member for Westmoreland had at tempted to defend these taxes by saying that so long as £120,000,000 of war tax remained they should not be taken off. That contention could not be sound if it was considered that some £70,000,000 was taken off the present generation and put upon posterity, as it was thought that if that was not done the present generation would bear more than a fair share of the burden of the war. Therefore he did not think it was fair to keep these taxes on until all the war taxes were taken off. There was no instance in history of such a thing having been done, and if the hon. Gentleman really held these views he would ask him why he was in favour of the coal duty and the tea duty being taken off. They also were in the nature of war taxes, and if the hon. Member was consistent he should be in favour of the taxes they were now discussing being taken off. Then the hon. Gentleman said that it amounted to only £2,500,000, but unless the Amendment was accepted that £2,500,000 would become merged in the £70,000,000 of debt, and would be indistinguishable as coming from taxes which had been subscribed for a temporary purpose. He would make one last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter. What was it that his right hon. friend asked? He did not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up a single shilling. All he said was that he should allow these taxes to be earmarked. Moreover, the provisions of the Bill would not assist the right hon. Gentleman in preventing a discussion on the Budget next year. If the Government did not remove these taxes from the permanent taxes and make them temporary by ear-marking them, although no doubt many people would forget that they were put on as temporary taxes, yet it would not prevent many of them who knew what was going on from moving a new clause and raising a discussion on every Budget over and over again.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said he knew that those who w ere engaged in the liquor trade were not popular in that House, but they were nevertheless entitled to have their case considered. What was the case of the trade now? They were asked by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear a certain heavy portion of the war expenses. He did not think that the trade in question showed any unwillingness to bear their share of the burden. On the contrary, he thought it could fairly be said on behalf of them that they faced the burden put upon them in a very patriotic spirit. What was their position now? After having been called upon to undertake a very heavy burden they thought they could rely upon the promises put forward by those who were then responsible, that those extra taxes should be considered as war taxes, and that they should be relieved as soon as other taxpayers who had received similar promises were relieved from their burdens. The promises they received were quite definite, not only from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer but from his then colleagues, that this relief should be given as soon as possible. They had therefore every right to think that they would be considered equally with other taxpayers who contributed towards the war. That had been their position up to this session of Parliament, but now they found the Chancellor of the Exchequer roundly asserting that these taxes were not to be temporary but permanent, and he seemed rather to rejoice in the fact. He thought that was very hard upon the trade, and a very poor return for the way in which they had faced the burden which had been put upon them. What was the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman? He said that until the whole of the cost of the war was paid they could not be released from this taxation. He would invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at the question in this way. Supposing the total war tax was regarded as a certain amount of capital, and this particular trade was asked to and had under- written a certain amount of the capital and were to be responsible for the payment if it was allocated to them. If that had been the course of events it would have been possible for them to borrow the money, to pay interest upon it, and to arrange a sinking fund which would provide for its repayment without any hardship upon them. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were a member of this trade, how would he like to pay these extra demands? It had been said that this trade would have to pay something extra next year. If that was so, they might fairly ask the right hon. Gentleman not to make the surtax permanent, because if they were to come under a further extra burden there was every reason why this tax should not be made permanent now. He hoped he had put before the right hon. Gentleman a point worthy of his consideration.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham)

moved to report progress. It was now past Eleven o'clock, and having regard to the fact that the Government had made good progress, he thought the Committee might well adjourn.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not wish this to be discussed until the question now before the Committee was disposed of. He could not take the Motion to report progress just now.

MR. RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

said that these taxes were avowedly put on for a temporary purpose and the. action of the Government in making them permanent was a distinct breach of faith. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to have a permanent tax he should invent one for himself. When he took a tax imposed by a predecessor, accepted by the House of Commons of the day, and passed into law on the distinct understanding that it should be of a temporary character, it was obvious that in proposing or attempting to make that tax permanent the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of a distinct breach of faith.

MR. MOORE (Armagh, N.)

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the way the proposal to make this tax permanent had been accepted by hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland below the gangway. He was in the House when the tax was originally imposed. Every tax proposed as a war tax and then thought to be of a temporary character was bitterly opposed by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the ground that the war was an unjust war and one which they did not support or agree with. Now, when it was proposed that those taxes, which year after year had been characterised by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway as being unjust to Ireland, should be made permanent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he congratulated him upon it, was able to bring in his proposal amid a complete conspiracy of silence on the part of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

That is not true.

MR. MOORE

said that when these taxes were temporary taxes they were objected to by hon. Members below the gangway year after year as a matter of principle. Now that it was proposed to make this yoke round the neck of Ireland interminable there had not been one word of opposition save by way of interjection.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

Yes, there has; you are wrong.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

May I call attention to the grossly disorderly remark referring to the observation of my hon. friend as untrue.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The remark did not reach my ear.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said the noble Lord had referred to him very pointedly, and perhaps he would be allowed to say this, by way of explanation. The hon. Gentleman had repeatedly stated that no protest had been made from the benches below the gangway against the permanence of these taxes, except by way of interruption. The hon. Gentleman was not present that afternoon, or he would have heard him protesting very strongly on this point. [Cries of "No; tea."] If the hon. Gentleman looked at the Bill, he would find that tea did not come under the provision at all. He thought that the hon. Gentleman under the circumstances should withdraw.

MR. MOORE

I await your ruling, Sir, on the point of order.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

No; it is not a point of order; it is a point of manners.

MR. MOORE

said that he was about to say that there was a curious silence on the part of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, except by way of interruption. That led him to wonder what case could be made out, why principles should be in abeyance, and why there should be such extraordinary silence except on the part of the hon. Member for Clare.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member had better apply himself to the Amendment.

MR. MOORE

said that, as he understood the proposal, it was that a temporary tax should be made permanent. Surely when they had not heard a protest against a proposal to make a temporary tax permanent—

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman has been addressing himself almost entirely to hon. Members below the gangway instead of to the merits of the Amendment. I consider that he is out of order.

MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

emphasised the fact that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had persistently resisted the taxes when they were temporary and they were now content that they should be made permanent sub silentio. That was a very remarkable thing, and the only objection they had heard, as his hon. friend had said, was by way of interruption. But be that as it might, the public would be able to judge of the proceedings, which he believed would be far better reported in the public Press than the earlier proceedings in Committee of the House.

*THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Gentleman has risen to speak to the Amendment I he must address himself to it..

MR. CLAUDE HAY

Am I not in order in referring to the proceedings on this Amendment as likely to be better reported than the other proceedings of the Committee?

*THE CHAIRMAN

No: the hon. Member is not in order in continuing this.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he would respectfully bow to the ruling of the Chair. He presumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make these taxes permanent in order that he might in the shortest possible time extinguish the war taxes. But had it occurred to him that in the efforts that he was making he had been borrowing money at a far higher rate during the last twelve months than the rate which was paid for the service of the war? The facts as soon as they were explained showed that the maintaining of common sense and sound finance was the very last thing that entered the heads of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he is out of order.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he desired to follow the ruling of the Chair, but it was rendered difficult by reason of the interruptions of hon. Members. The point he wished to make was this. Was it good finance to borrow money at a high rate of interest to extinguish the debt when the right hon. Gentleman could, by leaving things as they were, pay a far less rate of interest?

*THE CHAIRMAN

called the attention of the Committee to the continued irrelevance on the part of Mr. Claude Hay the Member for the Hoxton Division, and

directed the hon. Member to discontinue his speech.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said the hon. Gentleman for North Armagh, in the course of his speech, said no protest had been made by hon. Members below the gang-way in reference to the permanency of these taxes. If the hon. Gentleman had been present earlier in the evening he would have heard the speech delivered by himself in which the strongest possible protest was made, and he thought that being so the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw his observation. No matter how Members might differ on various questions, they generally recognised that if they made a mis-statement, the moment attention was called to it the mis-statement was withdrawn. He did not know whether the hon. Member would be willing to withdraw his statement.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I hope the hon. Member will not make a speech of a similar kind to that which I have just ruled out of order. If he does I shall have to deal with him in the same way if I am to be fair to all parties alike.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he refused to submit to having a mis-statement with reference to himself made without protest. He protested most strongly against the mis-statement made by the hon. Member for Armagh, and if under the circumstances he did not see his way to withdraw it, he would leave his action to the opinion of hon. Members.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 259).

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Beauchamp, E. Brunner, J. F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Beck, A. Cecil Bryce, J. Annan
Agnew, George William Bellairs, Carlyon Buckmaster, Stanley 0.
Alden, Percy Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch) Bennett, E. N. Button, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles
Asquith,Rt. HonHerbertHenry Berridge, T. H. D. Byles, William Pollard
Astbury, John Meir Bertram, Julius Carr-Gomm. H. W.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Cawley, Sir Frederick
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Brace, William Chance, Frederick William
Barker, John Bramsdon, T. A. Cheetham, John Frederick
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Brigg, John Clough, William
Barnes, G. N. Brocklehurst, W. B. Coats,SirT.Glen-Renfrew,W.)
Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.) Brodie, H. C. Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Beale, W. P. Brooke, Stopford Collins.SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.
Cooper, G. J. Lambert, George Rogers, F. E. Newman
Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd) Lamont, Norman Rose, Charles Day
Cory, Clifford John Layland-Barratt, Francis Rowlands, J.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Lehmann, R. C. Runciman, Walter
Cremer, Sir William Randal Lever,A.Levy (Essex.Harwich) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Levy, Sir Maurice Sanmuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lewis, John Herbert Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lowe, Thomas Schwann,SirC. E.(Manchester)
Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N. Lupton, Arnold Seaverns, J. H
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Seely, Major J. B.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lyell, Charles Henry Shackleton, David James
Dunne,MajorE.Martin (Walsall Lynch, H. B. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) M'Callum, John M. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) M'Crae, George Shipman, Dr. John G.
Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Silcock, Thomas Ball
Elibank, Master of M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Esslemont, George Birnie Mallet, Charles E. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Everett, R. Lacey Manfield, Harry (Northants) Spicer, Sir Albert
Fenwick, Charles Markham, Arthur Basil Stanger, H. Y.
Ferens, T. R. Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)
Findlay, Alexander Marnham, F. J. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Fuller, John Michael F. Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Strachey, Sir Edward
Fullerton, Hugh Massie, J. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Gill, A. H. Menzies, Walter Sutherland, J. E.
Gladstone.Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn Micklem, Nathaniel Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Glendinning, R. G. Montagu, E. S. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Glover, Thomas Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Thomas.SirA. (Glamorgan, E.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen) Thomasson, Franklin
Gooch, George Peabody Morrell, Philip Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
Glant, Corrie Morse, L. L. Toulmin, George
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Verney, F. W.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Murray, James Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Griffith, Ellis J. Napier, T. B. Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Gurdon.RtHn.SirW. Brampton Nicholls, George Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Harmsworth,Cecil B.(Worc'r) Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doneast'r Waring, Walter
Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan
Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E. O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Waterlow, D. S.
Haworth, Arthur A. O'Grady, J, Watt, Henry A.
Hedges, A. Paget Partington, Oswald White, George (Norfolk)
Henderson,J.M, (Aberdeen,W.) Paulton, James Mellor White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Henry, Charles S. Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Herbert,Col.SirIvor(Mon.,S.) Pollard, Dr. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Hobart, Sir Robert Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Hodge, John Radford, G. H. Wiles. Thomas
Holland, Sir William Henry Rainy, A. Rolland Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Horniman, Emslie John Raphael, Herbert H. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro') Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Renton, Major Leslie Wodehouse, Lord
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Ridsdale, E. A. Wood, T. M'Kinnon.
Jones, Willium(Carnarvonshire) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Kekewich, Sir George Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Kincaid-Smith, Captain Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Lamb,Edmund G. (Leominster) Roe, Sir Thomas
NOES.
Abraham.William (Cork.N.E.) Carlile, E. Hildred Forster, Henry William
Acland-Hood,RtHn. SirAlex.F. Cave, George Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East]
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cavendish,Rt. Hon.VictorC.W. Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt.Hon.SirH. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gordon, J.
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Gretton, John
Banner, John S. Harmood- Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Haddock, George R.
Beach, Hn,Michael Hugh Hicks Craig.CharlesCurtis (Antrim,S.) Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Craik, Sir Henry Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bignold, Sir Arthur Dalrymple, Viscount Hazleton, Richard
Boland, John Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Helmsley, Viscount
Bowles, G. Stewart Faber, George Denison (York) Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds
Boyle, Sir Edward Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Bridgeman, W. Give Fell, Arthur Hogan, Michael
Brotherton, Edward Allen Ffrench, Peter Hunt, Rowland
Burke, E. Haviland- Flavin, Michael Joseph Kennaway.Rt. Hon.SirJohnH.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Fletcher, J. S. Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm O'Doherty, Philip Starkey, John R.
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) O'Malley, William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thornton, Percy M.
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Parker,SirGilbert(Gravesend) Turnour, Viscount
Lundon, W. Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington) Walker,CoLW.H.(Lancashire)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Rawlinson, JohnFrederickPeel Walrond, Hon. Lionel
MacVeigh.Charles (Donegal,E.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid>
M'Calmont, Colonel James Redmond, William (Clare) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
M'Killop, W. Remnant, James Farquharson Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Marks, H. H. (Kent) Roberts, S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall) Wilson,A.Stanley(York,E.R.)
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Ronaldshay, Earl of Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Meagher, Michael Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Mooney, J. J. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Moore, William Scott,Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Colonel Lockwood and
Murnaghan, George Sheffield, Sir BerkeleyGeorge D. Sir Frederick Banbury.
Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Nolan, Joseph Smyth,Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

On Clause 4:—

MR. RUNCIMAN

moved to leave out the words, "for any purpose."

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

asked an explanation as to what the clause was about.

MR. RUNCIMAN

said that it provided for an alteration in the method of ascertaining the strength of spirits. At present the statute provided that it should be ascertained by means of a hydrometer, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to know more about that instrument he could only recommend him to look up an encyclopædia. There were two objections to the use of the hydrometer. One was that a certain amount of spirit must be used to float it, and in that way a tenth of a gallon was wasted when it was used. The second objection was that there were some kinds of spirits for which it could not be used. The method now proposed was desired not only by the Revenue authorities, but by the owners of alcohol.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 19, to leave out the words ' for any purpose.' "—(Mr. Runciman.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 20, after the word 'ascertaining,' to insert the words ' for any purpose.' " —(Mr. Runciman.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to. |

Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said the manufacturers of spirits should have some assurance that they would not be put to inconvenience by the change. If manufacturers of spirits had already ascertained the strength by using Sykes's hydrometer, they might find that the new method would operate very unfairly in the event of its being suddenly sprung upon them. He wished to know when the new regulations would come into force, and whether they would be of general application.

MR. ASQUITH

said the clause was conceived, in the interest not only of the Revenue, but of merchants. The present system was found to involve a certain amount of loss and inconvenience to merchants, and the change was proposed in order that the work of finding the strength of spirits might be more conveniently accomplished. The regulations would be advertised in the Gazette, they would be uniform, and they would add to the general convenience of the trade.

Question put, and a greed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

And, it being after half-past Eleven o the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five minutes before Twelve o'clock