HC Deb 12 May 1909 vol 4 cc1810-1
Mr. MacNEILL

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the proposed increase of taxation on whisky and tobacco will be opposed by every Member representing an Irish constituency, with the exception of Gentlemen who belong to the Administration, and is regarded as unjust and oppressive by the Irish people; and whether, having regard to the consequences likely to result in Ireland from the discontent produced by the imposition of taxation enforced on that country against the votes of her representatives, he will reconsider the expediency of persisting in placing these additional burdens on a reluctant people already admittedly taxed beyond the measure of their rateable ability?

Mr. T. M. HEALY

Before that question is answered, I see that it states that "the proposed increase of taxation on whisky and tobacco will be opposed by every Member representing an Irish constituency, with the exception of Gentlemen who belong to the Administration." Is it in order to suggest that the hon. Member for North Tyrone is the only Irish Member connected with the Administration who will vote against the wishes of his constituents?

Mr. SPEAKER

The House is not bound to assume that every statement appearing in a question is correct.

Mr. MacNEILL

in putting the question said: The statement is made on my authority, and I confess that I meant that it should apply to the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

If the hon. Member will be so good as to refer to the speech which I delivered in this House on the 4th instant, he will see how small a part of the new taxation falls upon Ireland, and he will also find very fully stated my reasons for thinking that Ireland might fairly be expected to bear this share of the burden. I regret that I cannot see my way to modify the views which I then expressed.

Mr. MacNEILL

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Irish representatives are opposed on all sides to the imposition of this taxation as representing the Irish people? If so, will he distinguish this taxation from Robbery-under-Arms?