§ (1) The power of the Treasury to create stock for the purpose of raising money required for the Irish Land Purchase Fund (including the Land Purchase Aid Fund) shall include power to create a new capital stock to be called Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock, and the Treasury may at any time create for that purpose either Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock or Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock as they think fit.
§ (2) The provisions of the Act of 1903, relating to stock shall apply to Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock created under this section as they apply to the Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock created under that Act, with the substitution of 3 per cent for 2¾ per cent, as the rate of dividend, and of 30 years from the passing of this Act for 30 years from the commencement of the Act of 1903, as the period after the expiration of which the stock is redeemable.
§ (3) The definition of Government stock in sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Savings Bank Act, 1893, shall be read as if stock issued under the Act of 1903 or this Act were included in the First Schedule to the said Savings Bank Act, 1893.
moved to leave out section (1). I wish to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this part of the Bill (Mr. Hob-house) as to the proposals for the issue of stock. We have had to-day a fairly protracted financial Debate, but we have not been able to ascertain from the Treasury what their real intentions are with regard to the creation of this stock. So far as I can make out, there is power under the Bui to create a new Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock, but they do not say how much or 794 when it is to be issued. I think it is very important for us to know in the early stages of our Debate how this 3 per cent. Stock will rank with regard to the other issues of 2¾ per cent. Stock, what the redemption date will be, and whether that redemption date will coincide with the old 2¾ per cent. Stock, or whether each issue will have its own fixed date of redemption. The old 2¾ per cent. Stock, which has 68½ years to run in order to be met out of the Sinking Fund with ½ per cent., has, so far as I am aware, had a fixed date for its redemption.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE dissented.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I am wrong, which means, I suppose, that each particular stock has its own particular redemption date. That is the point I wished to ascertain, and I would like to ask whether it would not be possible to make this 3 per cent. Stock all redeemable at one time. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that will upset the Sinking Fund, but I think it would be possible to get over that difficulty if he would strike an average. I do not want to interfere in any way with the length of time the tenants would have the power of becoming possessed of their holdings, but I want to strike an average date, so that this stock would fall due about the same year. If you are buying other stocks—West Australian, for instance—the price you pay for them depends a great deal on the date of redemption. A great many of the older stocks have not got the full market value to which they are entitled, because it is very difficult indeed for the ordinary investor to put his finger on the exact issue which he wishes to buy. The same thing is to be said in regard to the issue of municipal and county loans. Where there are issues of 1901, 1903, 1905, and 1908, which become due at different times, it is extremely difficult for the investor to tell whether the stock he is buying is redeemable in 10 years or 20 years. In the case of an issue of stock like this, when millions are floated on the market, it is a most important point that we should have one issue and only one redemption, so that the persons applying will know that they are getting the same stock which was issued before, until all the land purchase operations are concluded.
I would like, even at this late period, to ask whether it would not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that he does not intend to issue 795 this 3 per cent. Stock at all. In regard to this provision which gives them the option of creating either 2¾ or 3 per cent. Stock, I think he has heard from all quarters of the House how important it is not to duplicate the issue of these Loan Stocks. If he has to raise money, let him stick to the old 2¾, and I really think it is risky on his part to turn round now and complicate matters by issuing a 3 per cent. Stock. Supposing he had had to deal in this matter in 1903—I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman took part in those Debates. I did not, but I followed them very closely, and I was very much struck with the idea that the 112 millions, which at that time was supposed to be sufficient to cover the whole of the transactions in Irish land, was a worthy loan to be classed as a loan by itself, and if this option is exercised, as I presume it will be, or it would not be asked for, we have to break into the continuity of that system, and it is to be broken into without its being pointed out what advantages would accrue to the Treasury or to the seller or buyer. I think the financial system to be pursued under this Bill does require some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. If he confines himself to the 2¾ per cent. Stock for the necessary amount to carry out the Bill, then we shall have one stock for 160 millions, a large loan, which will bear one rate of interest all round. If instead of doing that he breaks the continuity and starts upon a 3 per cent. Loan, I venture to think that in a very few years some Chancellor of the Exchequer will be asking this House to consolidate all these loans that his absurd predecessors had agreed to for the settlement of the land question. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not deal with this in a piecemeal fashion and have four separate and distinct stocks—the 1891 Loan, the 1903 Loan, the 1909 Loan, and then our own National Debt—but will take the matter from its very widest aspect, deal with the problem as a whole, and let the country understand that there is only to be one class of Land Stock to deal with. Looking at the unanimity of the feeling of the House which was demonstrated by the Division a short time ago, I think it would be a great mistake to depreciate the security by issuing some millions of a different stock. I beg to move.
§ Mr. LONSDALE
This clause gives powers to the Treasury to create a new Land Stock, and it also authorises the 796 Treasury to issue at any time 3 per cent. Stock, or 2¾ per cent. Stock. It is assumed, although I do not find it expressly stated in the Bill, that all future purchase agreements will be financed by means of the new 3 per cent, or 2¾ Stock, and that the latter will only be created, so far as it is necessary, for the purpose of floating the pending agreements, and, of course, providing the cash for the bonus.
§ Mr. LONSDALE
If that is so, there will be 100 millions of 2¾ per cent. Stock, and an amount of the 3 per cent. Stock which the Chief Secretary estimates at about 90 millions, but which, of course, we place at a very much lower figure—but I do not intend on this occasion to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's calculation as to the size of the problem. The point which arises on this Amendment is that there would be two classes of Irish Land Stock, one bearing interest at 2¾ per cent, and the other at 3 per cent., and what we have to consider is the bearing that that fact will have upon the future of land purchase in Ireland. I look at the provisions of this Bill from the point of view of the farmer, who has agreed to purchase his farm, or desires to do so under the Act of 1903. In the Constituency which I have, the privilege of representing, the tenant farmers have for the most part agreed to enter into agreements for the purchase of their farms, but there are some who have not yet been able to do so. Those who have arrived at agreements with their landlords are waiting, with what patience they can command, for the Estates Commissioners to complete their agreements, and place them in possession, as owners of their holdings. The others who have not come to terms with their landlords are, of course, directly interested in these proposals to create a new 3 per cent. Stock for the purpose of financing future purchase transactions. It is a matter of very great importance to them. Is it desirable, from the point of view of those who desire land purchase to go forward, that there shall be two kinds of Irish Land Stock? I do not think it is desirable. It will introduce a new element of uncertainty which must make future agreements much more difficult, if not absolutely impossible. It is not as if the landlords and tenants who have not yet arrived at agreement have a clear field in front of them. 797 There is the block of land purchase to be taken into consideration — £50,000,000 worth of agreements which have yet to be completed. The length of time which will be required to clear off these arrears is, of course, a matter of speculation. Obviously it depends upon two considerations—first the extent to which landlords will avail themselves of the offer of the Government to take 2¾ per cent. Stock at 92 in part payment, and secondly the capacity of the Land Commissioners for dealing with the agreements.
As to the first of these conditions, unless the terms offered by the Government in Clause (3) are very materially improved landlords cannot reasonably be expected to incur the loss which would be entailed by the acceptance of the proposals of the Bill. That being the case, we are thrown back upon the cash proposals of the Act of 1903, and, as the Treasury have announced that they are not prepared to find more than £4,000,000 of cash in any one year for the completion of voluntary agreements, the process of clearing off agreements will extend over at least a dozen years. On the other hand, if the Government are prepared to modify Clause (3) so that landlords will be prepared to accept part of the purchase price in stock, we may see the arrears being disposed of up to the limit of the capacity of the Land Commissioners, which the Chief Secretary has told us may be calculated at about £8,000,000 of advances yearly. In that case the advances may be got rid of in about six or seven years, but not sooner. It is quite impossible to get rid of the present pending agreements under the most favourable conditions in less than six or seven years, and in the meantime we have a right to insist that those who have entered into agreements already should have priority of treatment over those entering into agreements under the new conditions. When we are considering the probability or otherwise of landlords and tenants finding a basis of agreement in the new proposals of the Government, we must take into account the fact that agreements cannot be completed for at least six years, and that payment will be made in the new 3 per cent. Stock, the value of which at that time cannot possibly be foreseen. Even supposing the new stock was at a premium, the Government have been careful to prevent the landlord from deriving any advantage from the stock being at a premium, because in those circumstances the Treasury would 798 undoubtedly exercise the option of paying him in stock. On the other hand, the landlord may have to suffer a serious loss if the stock should be below par and he should be compelled by necessity to realise that stock. The prospects of the new stock being at a premium in the near future are, to say the least of it, not very encouraging. It will not be contended, I suppose, that Land Stock, even at 3 per cent., will be as popular with the investing public as Local Loan Stock, for example, which stands at 97, or other Guaranteed Stock. The presumption is that at the present time the new Irish Land Stock at 3 per cent, would not produce more than 95 per cent., and there is no guarantee whatever that it would be worth more than that in six or seven years time, and it may come down to 90. It is unfair to ask the landlord to enter into this responsibility, or the tenant to increase the difficulty which he undoubtedly would have with his landlord in arriving at an agreement which cannot possibly be completed for at least six or seven years.
The fact has also to be realised that many landlords will be forced to realise their stock as soon as they have received it in order to redeem charges upon their estates, and the effect of throwing a large quantity of stock on the market must be to depress the price. All these points have to be considered when we are asked to issue 2¾ per cent. Stock. The landlord is face to face with the double uncertainty as to when he will be paid for his land and what he will get for it. Delay appears to be, under any circumstances, absolutely inevitable, and the risk of loss, of course, cannot be disregarded. The landlord, I am afraid, will be bound to ask for his land an amount which will cover both the delay and the risk. Owing to that fact the tenant will be asked to pay an increased price for his farm, and under Clause (1) of the Bill he will be required to pay an increased annuity upon an increased price. Surely the Chief Secretary must see that under these circumstances to expect land purchase to continue on voluntary lines is to look for an impossibility. You cannot expect land purchase to continue on voluntary lines unless you offer some inducement to the landlord and also to the tenant.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)
The question which the hon. Member is discussing does not arise on this section. It simply deals with the power to raise new Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member was going outside of that, and discussing whether land purchase would succeed under the proposed arrangement. That is dealt with in a later clause.
§ Mr. MOORE
I have not made my point clear. This section deals with the proposal to raise the money required for land purchase, and, therefore, the money required for land purchase is the subject matter of the clause. My hon. Friend was just now explaining that under certain conditions there would be less money required, and, therefore, I submit that consideration is fair subject for Debate.
§ Mr. LONSDALE
What I was going to point out was that the question arises whether it is worth while to give the Treasury power to create a new 3 per cent. Stock, seeing that the issue will do nothing to facilitate land purchase. I may have transgressed the rules of strict order, but I submit that it will not be denied by anyone acquainted with the money market that if the investing public have to choose between a 3 per cent, at par and a 2¾ per cent. Stock at 92 or 88, they would prefer stock at the lower rate of interest. The Government are taking power under Clause 4 to issue short dated loans If that power is used with discretion, and the Government are able to make more satisfactory arrangements than under Clause 3, there seems to me to be no necessity for issuing a 3 per cent. Stock. In the proposal now before the Committee we are brought once more against the stone wall of the Treasury. It is the interest of the Treasury and their interest alone that this proposal is intended to safeguard. The question whether or not it. will promote land purchase seems to be the last consideration with the Government, in spite of the Chief Secretary's declaration a short time ago that to obstruct land purchase would be a blunder of the first magnitude. That was what the right hon. Gentleman said in introducing the Bill to the House, and he has led 800 us to understand that he has played the part of a sort of importunate widow with the Treasury on behalf of Ireland. The treatment Which the right hon. Gentleman receives from the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Treasury, seems to be somewhat of the same nature as the Prime Minister extends to certain suffragettes standing on his doorstep. They do not get much consideration. The Treasury make a great show of generosity in assuming responsibility for the loss on the stock for advances, and for thus relieving the Irish taxpayers of a burden which no one ever contemplated they should be called upon to bear. By insisting en the issue of a 3 per cent. Stock, with an increased annuity to be paid by the purchaser, the Treasury are destroying any grounds for our feeling in the least degree grateful to them. The Secretary to the Treasury has not done much to justify his proposal to issue a 3 per cent. Stock by the exagge-tated estimate he presented the other day to the Committee of the capitalised value of the burden to be undertaken by the State. In arriving at the figure of £30,000,000, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have estimated for an all-round loss of 15 per cent, on the issue of the 2¾ per cent. Stock, but, as a matter of fact, the Chief Secretary, in the course of his remarks, told us in the same Debate that the average loss on the Stock issued up to the present time is only 12 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have made no allowance whatever for the fact that, as land purchase progresses, after a certain number of years the cost of administration will be very materially reduced, and that the cost of the Land Commission will also be very largely reduced. Why do they always try to shelter themselves behind the Treasury in this matter? The Chief Secretary is always saying, "I wish I could move the Treasury. You must attribute all the blame to the Treasury. You have got all my heart with you in every demand I make for Ireland, but I have to look to the Treasury." We look to this Government to make good their professions that in the interest of Ireland land purchase must go on, Time after time the right hon. Gentleman has said that the whole object of the Government of Ireland was that land purchase should not be interrupted. I hope we shall not look in vain for the fulfilment of that policy. In the meantime, when a proposal is made which will not do anything to facilitate land purchase, I offer to the Government my strongest opposition.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I listened very attentively to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment (Captain Craig), and I confess that I was not quite sure whether he moved the deletion of this section for the purpose of obtaining information as to what were the proposals under the clause as to the issue of stock, or whether he did so because he wished the Treasury not to issue 3 per cent. Stock at all. I should like to point out that if the latter was his intention, there would be certain results which perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not altogether contemplated. The first result of such a course would be that it would absolutely preclude any issue of 3 per cent. Stock for land purchase. The issue of 3 per cent. Stock is because we believe that you can obtain a better price for 3 per cent. Stock, no matter for what it is employed, than if you issue a 2¾ per cent. Stock. I confess, from all I have been able to ascertain on this point in various quarters, that there is pretty general unanimity of opinion that you can always get a better price for a 3 per cent. Stock than one of the denomination of 2¾ per cent.
The next result of deleting this clause would be that the 3½ per cent. Annuity of future agreements would have to be worked on a 2¾ per cent. Stock. I think it must be clear at once to the Committee that such a method of finance would be perfectly unworkable. Another result would be that the Treasury option of giving for future agreements 3 per cent. Stock equal in nominal amount to the sum to be advanced would disappear, and to that we attribute great importance. Under Clause 1 (2) it has already been agreed in respect of advances for future agreements that the rate of interest to be paid by the Land Commission to the National Debt Commissioners shall be 3 per cent., and that has an important bearing on the power of the Treasury to issue a 3 per cent. Stock. The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Mr. Lonsdale) seemed to think that it was in the interests of the Treasury alone that the power to create a 3 per cent. Stock was being taken. The interest of the Treasury is the interest of the person who has to find any deficiency which may occur upon the issue of stock. The liability for that deficiency has been shifted, by the agreement of the House, from the Irish ratepayer to the general taxpayer of the country; therefore the person concerned in the power of raising money in the cheapest possible way is no 802 longer the Irish ratepayer, but the taxpayer generally. The only other question put to me was as to the date of redemption. It is clear that in the case of stock which is raised not all at one time or all for one purpose, the date of redemption is the date at which the accumulations of Sinking Fund enable the stock to be purchased in the market. It may be 64 or 65 years, but it is a great mistake to suppose that there is any fixed time for the redemption of either 2¾ per cent, or 3 per cent. Stock. It entirely depends on the rate at which the Sinking Fund accumulates, either for the purchase of stock of £100 denomination in the market or to accumulate the sum of £100.
§ Sir E. CARSON
Is it proposed to issue 3 per cent. Stock for the purpose of raising money? I gather that one of the objects of giving the power to create a 3 per cent. Stock is with a view to future purchases. A subsequent part of the Bill enables you to compel future purchasers to take 3 per cent. Stock at its face value instead of cash. Is it intended to keep that stock for that purpose, or is it also intended to raise money for the purpose of feeding the agreements already entered into?
§ Sir E. CARSON
I thought on first reading the Bill the stock was to be created only for the purpose of future agreements, particularly having regard to the provisions of sub-section (1), to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We ought to have it made clear whether the Treasury intend immediately on the passing of this Bill, when they want money, to create a 3 per cent. Stock and put it on the market.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Clause 6 (2) will show the intention of the Government. The intention, no doubt, is that future agreements should be financed by a 3 per cent. Stock, and pending agreements by 2¾ per cent. Stock. But sub-section (2) shows that the 3 per cent. Stock can be used for the purpose of financing the 2¾ per cent. Annuities, which are practically for pending agreements, and that sub-section will enable us to make good the difference between the 3 per cent, and the 2¾ per cent. Stock.
§ Sir E. CARSON
The Treasury contemplate that they may raise money for pending agreements by the creation of a 3 per cent. Stock.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I believe that the proposed issue of a 3 per cent. Stock is a mistake financially, and it is entirely on financial grounds that I shall support the Amendment. Under this section the Treasury propose to take power to create in addition to the 2¾ per cent. Stock a 3 per cent. Stock. Earlier in the Debate the Secretary to the Treasury pointed out that there was already in existence an Irish Land Stock, created in 1891, in addition to the present 2¾ per cent. Stock, and he seemed to think that because there were already two different Irish Land Stocks there would be no harm in making a third. I seriously differ from him on that point. The fewer the number of stocks the larger the market. That is a fact which the right hon. Gentleman's unknown financial authorities will not contradict. It is well known that the larger the market, the bigger the amount of stock, the better the market, the easier it is to float stock, and the easier it is to deal in it when the stock is floated. It is proposed to fly in the teeth of what is a maxim accepted by everybody who has ever had any experience in the issue of stocks. I myself have issued the first Corporation Stock in the English market, and therefore I am not speaking of something of which I have no experience. The right hon. Gentleman flies in the teeth of what is an accepted maxim as to the issue of stock, and creates a third class of stock. In my opinion that is a wrong thing to do both from the point of view of the Treasury and from the point of view of those who are going to receive the stock. The right hon. Gentleman says, "My financial advisers advise me that a 3 per cent. Stock can be issued at a better price than a 2¾ per cent. Stock." I presume that when he says that that the right hon. Gentleman means at a relatively better price. If so, I venture to tell him that his financial authorities are absolutely wrong. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I may give two or three concrete instances to prove that I am right. Take the case of the Japanese Government, which at present, owing to financial exigencies, has three different classes of stock—5 per cent., 4½ per cent., and 4 per cent. I am sorry to talk about myself, but I am afraid that I cannot illustrate my argument unless I do. I happen to be a holder of Japanese 5 per cent. Stock. Holding my view that a 2¾ per cent. Stock relatively to a 3 per cent. Stock is more popular, when the 5 per cent. Stock went to par, I changed to 4½ per cent. Stock, and 804 the 4½ per cent. Stock rose in very much greater degree than the per 5 cent., and I made a profit. I did exactly the same thing when the 4½ per cent. Stock went up. I changed to 4, and again made a profit. I did exactly the same thing with Russian 5 per cent. Stock. I changed to 4½ per cent., which is now relatively higher than the 5 per cent. I venture to say that there is not a single man of experience in Stock Exchange matters who would deny what I say. In these instances I acted on what I believed to be the desire of the public to have a lower priced stock, that is a. stock under par rather than a stock at par, and in each case I have been right; and as a matter of fact the public will take a less return for its money in interest on a lower priced stock. I commend that fact to any gentlemen of the Treasury who may be in the gallery. The public will take a less amount of interest if the stock is under par than they will do if it is at par, and the reason is very obvious, that they hope they will get unearned increment. If they buy a stock at 92 which will eventually be redeemed at par, though they may suffer a little in interest they will eventually get the unearned increment. Whether or not the Government, in its hatred of unearned increments, intends to deal a blow at unearned increment in stocks I do not know. For that reason I say that the Government is absolutely wrong in the course which it is pursuing. I sum up my arguments by saying, first of all, one stock is better than two, and I challenge any one of financial experience to deny that; and, in the second place, that the relative price of a stock under par is higher, and that the stock is more run after by the investing public than a stock at par. For those reasons I strongly support the Amendment.
§ Mr. MOORE
As this Amendment raises exactly the same subject that was discussed in the financial Resolution earlier, I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments addressed to the House on that occasion; but as the Government only retained its position when the matter was discussed earlier in the afternoon by a majority of eight votes, I do think it rather fortunate, from their point of view, that, whether by accident or design, they should have this opportunity of reconsidering their position, so that they may not have every Irish vote against them and their majority reduced to eight. There is one matter which should be cleared up, though it may be merely a matter of drafting. As the clause stands, I am not sure that we 805 are not going to have four Land Purchase Funds. The House has expressed the opinion by a majority of eight that there should be three, but I do not think that the House ever went so far as to say that their should be four. The last words of the sub-clause, after dealing with the creation of capital stock at 3 per cent., proceed: "And the Treasury may at any time create for that purpose either Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock or Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock, as they think fit." The only meaning of that, as I understand it, is that it is a power to the Treasury to create 2¾ per cent. Stock. That power already exists under section 27 of the Act of 1903. If that is still the law, is it a question of drafting or is it intended to enable the National Debt Commissioners to issue a new 2¾ per cent.? If not, why is it put in? They have the powers in terms under the Act of 1903. The only difference is that under the Act of 1903 it is to be called the Land Purchase Fund, and in this Act there is no provision as to name.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in his statement as to the meaning of section (27) of the Act of 1903. Look at these words: "The Treasury may create for that purpose either Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock or Guaranteed 3 per cent Stock." It is only to show that the power to create 3 per cent. Stock has not done away with the power of section (27) of the original Act to create 2¾ per cent. Stock.
§ Mr. MOORE
I do not think that that argument itself will hold water, because the powers in the clause are included in the new power. It is not taking away existing powers or altering them in any way; it is a new additional power. First, under that additional power, is the creation of new 3 per cent. Stock, and, in a very extraordinary way it seems to me, there is the power to create the new 2¾ per cent. Stock. I think that the matter ought to be cleared up, and the persons to do it are the Government. I have no doubt that the draftsman will look into the point, for it appears to me that there is redundancy which is likely to cause confusion. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the general proposition that under all these Land Purchase Acts the extent of the period during which the amount of the Sinking Fund would be affected would vary every year, because that would depend on the price at which the stock could be repurchased. 806 Surely that is not the case. Under the Act of 1903, the Treasury have made rules by which all these annuities are calculated on the basis that it takes 63 years to pay off principal and interest. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it will be only 54 or 56 years.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I really did not say 54 or 56 years; I said 64 or 65 years. I can assure him that his belief that 2¾ per cent. annuities are extinguishable in 63 years is a misapprehension. The period will be 68 years, but inasmuch as the price of stock varies from day to day, the result is that 68 years is only a sort of index figure that may vary up or down the scale.
§ Mr. MOORE
I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I consider my, self at liberty to raise this point again. I have never heard it suggested that there was a different term for calculating the repayment, and I always understood that it was determined under the rules framed by the Commissioners. I should be glad to refer the right hon. Gentleman to those rules, because they form the universal basis of repayment in Ireland. That may be taken as the ABC and the groundwork of the matter in connection with land purchase in Ireland. If the calculation is regulated by the price of Consols then every transaction would be complicated and varying in cases where the tenant had to refund.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
There is no necessity for the tenant purchaser to refund. The tenant purchaser repays at the rate of ½ per cent, on such an amount of capital as would enable a £100 bond to be purchased in the open market. If the price of that bond is 86, then he has to make a corresponding amount of payment to realise the £86 cash. If he purchased at 94 he would have to make a corresponding amount of payments in order to purchase at 94. If he purchased at 100 he would have to pay the amount of annuities which make the accumulation of £100, but beyond that he spends nothing further. He only makes such payments as enables the National Debt Commissioners to purchase with every £100 advanced stock representing that amount of cash at par.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Each of these payments is paid in stock, and it is impossible to say exactly the period at which it will be extinguished.
§ Mr. MOORE
I understood him to say that if stock had gone down from 100 to 86, and if the tenant's annuity had been repaid by the time it did reach 86, the stock could then be repurchased, and the transaction would be complete. If that is so, it would not be a period of 63 years' purchase, which is the universal basis of
§ land purchase in Ireland. I am only saying what everybody knows is the fact.
§ Question put, "That the words of section (1) proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 53.809
|Division No. 363.]||AYES.||[4.14 p.m.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Nussey, Sir Willans|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Gulland, John W.||Plckersgill, Edward Hare|
|Astbury, John Meir||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Radford, G. H.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Rainy, A. Holland|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Rees, J. D.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hart-Davies, T.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Haworth, Arthur A.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Hedges, A. Paget||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Beale, W. P.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Henry, Charles S.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Rowlands, J.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Higham, John Sharp||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.|
|Bertram, Julius||Hodge, John||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Horniman, Emslie John||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Seddon, J.|
|Branch, James||Illingworth, Percy H.||Seely, Colonel|
|Brooke, Stopford||Isaacs, Rutus Daniel||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Snowden, P.|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Kekewich, Sir George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Lamont, Norman||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Cameron, Robert||Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Lewis, John Herbert||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Clough, William||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Lynch, H. B.||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Toulmin, George|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Maddison, Frederick||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Cross, Alexander||Mallet, Charles E.||Wardle, George J.|
|Crossley, William J.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Marnham, F. J.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Menzies, Sir Walter||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Molteno, Percy Alport||Whltbread, S. Howard|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Elibank, Master of||Morrell, Philip||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Myer, Horatio||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Napier, T. B.|
|Gill, A. H.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Nicholls, George|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Du Cros, Arthur||Oddy, John James|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fell, Arthur||Percy, Earl|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Forster, Henry William||Randies, Sir John Scurrah|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Renton, Leslie|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hamilton, Marquess of||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Kerry, Earl of||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kimber, Sir Henry||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Valentia, Viscount|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||M'Arthur, Charles||Younger, George|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Moore, William|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peterslield)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Nield, Herbert||Charles Craig and Mr. Lonsdale.|
moved, in section (1), to omit the word "either" ["and the Treasury may at any time create for that purpose either guaranteed two-and-three-quarters per cent. Stock or"].
I wish to prevent the Treasury by this Amendment creating a 3 per cent. Stock. I ask them to stick to the old 2¾ Stock which has proved so satisfactory in the past, and which has effected more than, the most sanguine supporters of the Act of 1903 ever contemplated. At that time the most sanguine anticipations did not put the operations under the Act at more than £5,000,000 a year, whereas we are faced with something like £50,000,000 remaining over, which must be worked off. The arguments used all this afternoon proved that the operations of the Land Act could best be carried out by sticking to the stock which proved so successful in the past. I hope the Government will meet us in this matter and keep to the 2¾ per cent. Stock.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The purpose of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to limit the power of the Treasury to the issue of what they have already power to issue, namely, 2f per cent. Stock. I do not think it would be fair to the Committee that I should trouble them with the arguments I have already advanced earlier in the afternoon in favour of a 3 per cent. Stock as against a 2¾ per cent. I need only say further that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Captain CRAIG moved to omit section (2).
§ The reason I move this Amendment is to try and get some opinion from the Treasury as to the reasons which have prompted them to include this section in the Bill. There is no necessity for this sub-section at all. If the Government 810 would only carry out their object in a legitimate way and use the same machinery as that which has hitherto existed, there would be no necessity for this Bill. As I have tried to point out before, the great danger about these loans is their varying time of expiration, and the right hon. Gentleman has not given to the Committee any explanation at all why it is necessary to have £200 or £300 of stock this year redeemable in 30 years and then the same class of stock issued next year redeemable the year after. For the sake of the simplicity of these flotations, it would be more advantageous to arrange a definite date for redemption, so that the whole would be considered as one stock. The right hon. Gentleman has not given the slightest explanation of this important matter which tends to keep the stock depressed. Six years have now passed under the 1903 Act, and even now it is felt that if you are purchasing stock you have to be most cautious as to the actual year you are purchasing, in order to watch the date of redemption. Half-way through the term it would be absurd to pay the same price for the stock as for a stock which would not be redeemed for 30 years. The right hon. Gentleman thinks in the case of every pottering little issue that it should be redeemed at a different date. Treasury Bills ought to make up the difference between now and the date when it is necessary for the stock to be completed. Short loans have been granted in similar instances in other departments, and there is no reason why, in such a gigantic operation as this, the same method should not be applied. It is quite true that the 2¾ per cent. Stock has that form, but there is no reason why, in introducing a new Bill, be should not correct the faults found in practice under the old Act. No one will deny that the trouble which the investor 811 is put to in order to find out whether he is being properly treated by his broker or banker who performs the purchasing operation is most onerous and difficult. Purchasers will have to instruct their brokers very carefully to be sure and buy that part which will allow the term of years they desire. I think it will be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation of the attempt which is made in this particular section to rectify a fault which was unforeseen. I do not say there is such importance attaching to this matter that it will be necessary to go to a Division, but it is one of those points which the right hon. Gentleman might explain to the Committee.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Gentleman intimated in his closing words that he did not intend to trouble the Committee with a Division upon this section.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I therefore imagine he does not attach so much importance either to his Amendment or to my explanation as he did to some previous parts of the Bill. The justification of this section is that, unless it was in existence, it would be impossible to pay the dividends on the stock by means of which land purchase is in the future to be financed. One would think that was sufficient to attract even the approval of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the success which attended the finance of the 1903 Act. It is simply because the finance of that Act, has not been a success that this Bill has been brought into being. If it had been the financial success which was anticipated at the time, there would have been no necessity to create a 3 per cent. Stock for the purpose of getting better terms for the investing public. As to the provisions for redemption contained in the second section, if the hon. Gentleman would turn to the Act of 1903 and look at the 28th section he would see we merely reproduced the provisions which are made there for redemption. I imagine that the authors of that Act consider the power of redemption has made this stock attractive
§ to the public. We have followed, and I think wisely followed, the exact provisions they thought necessary, and the considerations which guided them guided us.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I think there is very little harm in this particular section. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the Act of 1903 had been unsuccessful from the financial point of view, and then he proceeded to say that they were going to apply the provisions of that Act to this section. The provisions are only a machinery, and I do not think they will do any harm; in fact, I think it is almost necessary they should be passed. The right hon. Gentleman has quite misunderstood the point of the redemption. He tells us he supposes the people who passed the Act of 1903 put in the redemption because it would make the stock attractive to the public. He evidently does not know what the powers of redemption under the Act of 1903 are. They are optional to the Government, and they make the stock less, and not more, attractive. They are not absolute powers of redemption. If the Government were obliged to redeem at the end of 30 years, and the stock was issued at par, it would be attractive to the public; but the power of redemption will only be exercised if the stock is high. If it remains low, the Government will not exercise their option. I do not say the Government are not right to put the option in, but the right hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the object of the provision, and his statement as to the effect was quite erroneous.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The Government cannot exercise their power until after the period of 30 years has elapsed.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
All that does is to postpone the period at which the Government have the power of redemption. It does not give an absolute power of redemption. It is optional, and it is perfectly clear, if it is not to the advantage of the Government, they will not exercise their option.
§ Question put, "That section (2) stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 49.815
|Division No. 364.]||AYES.||[4.40 p.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Beaumont, Hon. Hubert|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Beck, A. Cecil|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.|
|Alden, Percy||Barnes, G. N.||Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Barran, Rowland Hirst||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine|
|Ambrose, Robert||Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Boland, John|
|Astbury, John Meir||Beale, W. P.||Bowerman, C. W.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Beauchamp, E.||Branch, James|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hobart, Sir Robert||O'Grady, J.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hodge, John||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hogan, Michael||O'Malley, William|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Horniman, Emslie John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cameron, Robert||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Phllipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Philips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Kekewich, Sir George||Pollard, Dr. G. H.|
|Clough, William||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Kilbride, Denis||Radford, G. H.|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Ladlaw, Robert||Reddy, M.|
|Cooper, G. J.||Lamont, Norman||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Rees, J. D.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Crean, Eugene||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Lundon, T.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Cross, Alexander||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Crossley, William J.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Cullinan, J.||Lynch, H. B.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rowlands, J.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Delany, William||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Devlin, Joseph||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||M'Kean, John||Seddon, J.|
|Dillon, John||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Seely, Colonel|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Maddison, Frederick||Sheehy, David|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Mallet, Charles E.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Elibank, Master of||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Marnham, F. J.||Snowden, P.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Ffrench, Peter||Masterman, C. F. G.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Field, William||Meagher, Michael||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Menzies, Sir Walter||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Gilhooly, James||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Gill, A. H.||Morrell, Philip||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Ginnell, L.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Toulmin, George|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Murnaghan, George||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Myer, Horatio||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Gulland, John W.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Napier, T. B.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Nicholls, George||Whitbread, S. Howard|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Nolan, Joseph||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Norman, Sir Henry||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nussey, Sir Willans||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Hazleton, Richard||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Hedges, A. Paget||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Henry, Charles S.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||O'Dowd, John|
|Higham, John Sharp|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Clive, Percy Archer||Forster, Henry William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Clyde, J. Avon||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hamilton, Marquess of|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-||Kerry, Earl of|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Du Cros, Arthur||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Fell, Arthur||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|M'Arthur, Charles||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Oddy, John James||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Younger, George|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Percy, Earl||Valentia, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain|
|Randies, Sir John Scurrah||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)||Craig and Mr. W. Moore.|
§ Question proposed, "That Clause (2) stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG
I wish to explain why we propose to vote against this clause. In spite of the first Division in which the Government only obtained a majority of eight, they have refused to meet the wishes of Irish Members on every point connected with the clause. If we are to have a number of options with regard to the stocks which the Government may raise for the purpose of financing this Bill the most important option of all that we ought to have is the option of Consols. That having been refused, the position we take up is that the Committee should have confined the power of the Government to 2¾ per cent. Stock only. We have maintained all through that the multiplication of these various options is bound to have a bad effect upon each class of stock included in them, and if we must have them we ought to have Consols because the issue of a comparatively small slice from time to time would have no visible effect on them,
§ whereas if you have these 2¾ per cent, and 3 per cent, and other Stocks it is obvious that the effect on the market is that they re-act one upon the other, and each is cutting, so to speak, the other's throat. It would have been better if the Government had not introduced this provision for the raising of 3 per cent. Stock, but had confined themselves, as in the Act of 1903, to 2¾ per cent. I very much regret that the Government have not seen their way to meet our wishes in the matter of Consols. We have proved to them in a manner which cannot be particularly pleasant that it would have been better if they had done so. How they can continue to carry through a long Bill with the guillotine, when they only get a majority of eight, or, as happened the other week, 32 or 33, I really cannot see. I shall certainly vote against Clause 2 being retained in the Bill.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 54.817
|Division No. 365.]||AYES.||[4.53 p.m.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Crossley, William J.||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Alden, Percy||Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Hyde, Clarendon G.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Dobson, Thomas W.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Barnes, G. N.||Elibank, Master of||Lament, Norman|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Evans, Sir S. T.||Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Everett, R. Lacey||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Beale, W. P.||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Beauchamp, E||Fuller, John Michael F.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Gill, A. H.||Lynch, H. B.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Branch, James||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||M'Laren. H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Gulland, John W.||Maddison, Frederick|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Cameron, Robert||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Hart-Davies, T.||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Haworth, Arthur A.||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Clough, William||Hedges, A. Paget||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hemmerde, Edward George||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Henry, Charles S.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Higham, John Sharp||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hobart, Sir Robert||Myer, Horatio|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Napier, T. B.|
|Cross, Alexander||Hodge, John||Newnes, F. (Netts, Bassetlaw)|
|Nicholls, George||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Nussey, Sir Willans||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Seddon, J.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Perks, Sir Robert William||Seely, Colonel||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Simon, John Allsebrook||Watt, Henry A.|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Pollard, Dr. G. H.||Snowden, P.||Whitbread, Sir Howard|
|Radford, G. H.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Rainy, A. Rolland||Steadman, W. C.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Rees, J. D.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wiles, Thomas|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Rowlands, J.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Toulmin, George|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Faber, George Denison (York)||Percy, Earl|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Fell, Arthur||Randies, Sir John Scurrah|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Forster, Henry William||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Renton, Leslie|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hamilton, Marquess of||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kerry, Earl of||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kimber, Sir Henry||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||M'Arthur, Charles||Younger, George|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-||Moore, William|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Lonsdale.|
|Du Cros, Arthur||Oddy, John James|
§ And, it being Five of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.