HC Deb 23 September 1909 vol 11 cc695-733

The duty of Customs payable on tea until the first day of July nineteen hundred and nine, under the Finance Act, 1908, shall be deemed to have been continued as from that date, and shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid until the first day of July nineteen hundred and ten, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say)—tea, the pound, fivepence.


I beg to move to leave out the words "until the first day of July nineteen hundred and nine, under the Finance Act, 1908, shall be deemed to have been continued as from that date, and shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid." This Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is really a drafting Amendment, the omission of these words being necessary in order to make it possible to move further down that the duty should be reduced from 5d. to 4d. the pound. I hope it will be open for us on this Amendment to discuss the proposal to make the alteration in the amount of the duty. No one agrees more fully than I do with the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that taxation should be levied upon luxuries, and not upon necessities. My complaint is that he has not applied his own principle, or not made the application of it sufficiently thorough. I cannot admit that tea under modern conditions of life is not a necessity in this country. Bread will remain until the end an article of necessity. I think tea comes next to bread. I believe there are people who use tea who cannot afford butter or even milk. I am perfectly certain that there are tens of thousands of people in this country and Ireland who never think of buying meat but who buy tea. I will not say it comes before sugar. It is a difficult question. At all events, I think that on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own principles there is the strongest possible case for a reduction of the duty upon tea. I recognise that the money has got to be got somehow, but I do not feel for a moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has exhausted the possibilities of taxes on those things which are called luxuries, but which nevertheless are articles of consumption. If it is a question between raising money by a tax on tea and one on mineral waters, they are certainly a legitimate article of taxation as far as I can see. There is not the least doubt about it that aerated waters are a luxury, and that a tax on them is a form of taxation which would hit every class without distinction, the man who drinks alcohol and the man who does not. Practically, I believe the reason why the revenue is raised so much from tea and tobacco is simply that the Customs Department continue upon the line of least resistance, and they continue adding duties where already there are duties imposed, and they will not break new ground. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to succeed in the project which he has put before him, he must look carefully around and discriminate between articles which are really luxuries and articles which really under modern conditions are articles of necessity. Speaking here as an Irish Member, we have always protested against the unduly heavy taxation levied on tea, which for people in Ireland, and particularly for poor people in Ireland, is a matter of necessity. I remember going into the house of a small farmer, such as are found in thousands all through the country, seeing him sit down at twelve o'clock in the day to drink strong tea, and saying to him what many of us think as to people spoiling their health by drinking tea. His answer was, "If you came in from a day's ditching or from ploughing in wet, heavy ground you would find the need of something," as he put it, "that would raise the heart." It is a stimulant, and the most necessary stimulant which those people have. By your heavy taxation you raise no doubt a considerable sum, but a sum which I hold could be raised without putting any extra tax on the necessaries of life.


I am opposed to this tax upon tea not merely from the Irish point of view, but also on general grounds. I regard it as a tax on food. I must say it is rather hard to have to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove or diminish a tax upon tea at a moment when the demands on the public purse are so gigantic as they are, but I have always felt in regard to the tax on tea that it has every single possible defect of a tax. In the first place, it is a tax upon food; in the second place, it is an indiscriminate tax in the sense that it is equally large on what I may call the tea of the luxurious and the tea of the poor. The tax presses perhaps rather more hardly on certain parts of Ireland than in England, but it does press hardly also in England. Take one of the most pitiful classes in the country—the unskilled women workers, the small seamstress, the dressmaker, and the charwoman. To her, of course, tea is not merely the stimulant that tea is, but it is also the substitute for meat and for other nutritious forms of food, and, of course, at 1s. or 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d. that she takes pays exactly the same tax as the tea at 3s., 4s., or 5s. a pound which is drunk by those in better circumstances. The reason why it affects Ireland perhaps a little more than England, though I do not want to put that part of the case too strongly, because I have such general sympathy with the English part of the case as well as the Irish—is that to a certain extent tea is drunk more universally in Ireland than in England. It must be granted, I admit, that the people of Ireland sometimes drink a great deal too much tea, and they drink the tea not properly infused as it should be, but very often boiled until it becomes really a noxious rather than a helpful or healthy beverage. But we must look at the circumstances of these people. Many of them cannot afford to eat meat except at rare intervals. Many of them are very hard worked. They live in a humid, and therefore somewhat depressing climate, and many of them live upon the sea shore, and the result is that tea has become in Ireland a drink so frequently and so universally used that it may be regarded as one of the primary necessities of life in Ireland. On one occasion I read to the House the famous, I might almost call it the historic, Budget of the family in the West of Ireland in what they call the congested districts, which was published in the schedules to a report by the Congested Districts Board. If I remember aright, one of the largest items in the Budget, which I believe amounted to something like £10, was tea. My objection to the Tea Duty, also, is that it is an indirect tax. Personally I have a leaning towards a recourse to direct taxation as against indirect taxation. I have never regarded it as a rational defence of indirect taxation to say that the taxpayer pays the indirect tax more unconsciously than he does a direct tax. It is absurd to say that you should use a tax as a means of duping the people. They ought to know what they are paying. There is no defence in saying that they are unconscious of what they are paying; I think it is rather an aggravation of the evil. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has left the tax as it stands, and in circumstances of such difficulty I am not surprised. At the same time, we hope that the day will come when he or some other Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to carry out the good old Liberal doctrine which was enunciated so far back, I think, as 30 years ago, by one of the greatest Liberals that ever lived in this country, namely, John Bright—the programme of "the free breakfast table." Another defence of the tax is that all classes of the community by being taxed should have an interest in keeping down the expenditure of the country. I must say that argument has never made any appeal to me; I regard it as an unreal argument. Does anybody suppose that the charwoman who pays a tax on tea has really any influence in either making or preventing a war, or any influence in great transactions of the State? The subsistence of human beings should be free from taxation in all countries, and, in my opinion, under all conditions. Therefore I join with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Galway (Mr. Gwynn) in protesting against this tax.


I have an Amendment on the Paper to reduce this tax, but as the general discussion is being taken on the Amendment before the Committee, I will proceed to make the few remarks I have to offer on the main question as to whether the Tea Duty should be reduced. Tea is at the present time a stationary article of consumption, notwithstanding the fact that the population of this country is growing rapidly. During the last three years the import of tea has been 321,000,000 lbs., 317,000,000 lbs., and 323,000,00 lbs., showing practically that this necessary of life is, to all intents and purposes, stationary. Therefore I should say, from that fact alone, that there is something slightly wrong, whether it is the tax upon it or whatever it may be. This article of universal consumption among rich and poor should increase proportionately with the population. The next point I wish to make is that when this duty used to be fixed at about 4d. it bore in those days a very small proportion to the value of the tea. The duty has gone up and the value of the tea has gone down, so that proportionately the amount which one now pays in duty to the Government is very much higher than it was in years gone by, when the duty was approximately 4d. At that figure it used to bring in about £3,500,000. The duty of 4d. continued down to the time of the Boer War, when money was urgently needed. It was put up to 6d., and then again to 8d., and directly the war was over it was reduced again to 6d. The present Prime Minister, about two years ago, reduced it by 1d., leaving it at 5d. So that we still continue, in the matter of tea, to pay 1d. per lb. war tax. Another reason why this duty might be reduced is that it is continuing to pay a far higher percentage of increased duty than other articles. The tax on beer was raised and continued to pay the war duty, but that duty is very much lower proportionately than is the Tea Duty. That is a further reason why I think this matter should be looked into, and considered whether it is a tax which should be kept, as I might describe it, permanently at this rate of 5d. Tea at the present time is only worth from 7d. to 9d. par pound, and 5d. on that, you will see, is a very heavy percentage, being 60 or 70 per cent. of the value of the tea, whilst in days gone by the tax amounted at from 33 to 50 per cent. at the outside on the value of the tea. It may be an unreasonable time to propose that the Government should reduce the duty, because every penny of the Tea Duty produces £1,200,000, and to ask the Government to give up £1,200,000 at the present time would be hardly reasonable. While agreeing that the Government, with its present views on orthodox taxation, cannot give up this sum, still we, sitting on these benches, think we are in duty bound to put forward an Amendment for its reduction, because we think we have other means by which this money could be found without taxing this article so highly as it is. The duties on champagnes and wines have not been touched by this Budget. They remain the same as they have done for years past. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not for working men."] Working men do not drink champagne, they drink tea, and I am advocating that the duty on champagnes and wines might have been increased to some exent—I do not say how much—instead of this duty upon what I call a prime necessary of life. As has been so ably put by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in Ireland, it is an absolute necessary of life; but I think equally in England it is a necessary of life, for it is consumed in the poorest cottage as well as in the richest palace. Yet the duty it bears as an article of food is altogether out of proportion to that imposed on any other article which we consume in this country. It is a stimulant, no doubt, but you cannot compare it in any way with intoxicating liquor. I only refer to that because it is the only thing that is taxed more than this. It is a far higher tax than on any other of the necessaries of life. I think that the Government, although they may not be able to try it this year, may be able to reduce this duty, and I think we should enter this protest and vote against it.


I wish to associate myself with the statement by the Irish Members as to this tax, owing to the great severity with which it presses on the poor people and owing to the deeper poverty of the people in Ireland. I do not know if the hon. Member who has just spoken has spoken in any representative capacity on behalf of his party, or if he is expressing only his own personal opinion; but if there be any very considerable volume of opinion on the Tory Benches in sympathy with what the hon. Member has said, may I remind them of the fact that if it had not been for the fact that when the Conservative party last had the control of the finances of the country they raised the tea duty, we should not to-night be discussing a proposal for its reduction from 5d. to 4d. I want to deal with this question first of all on general grounds, as in opposition to all forms of indirect taxation, and in the second place on the ground that the taxation paid by the working people of this country at the present time is undoubtedly severe and altogether out of proportion to their means. A statement was made this afternoon in the course of the Debate upon the Stamp Duty by an hon. Member who sits opposite, that by the proposals of this Budget all classes of the community were being called upon to pay a fair contribution to the expenditure of the State. I want to join issue upon that statement. It is now nearly five months since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement to this House. During the greater part of that tame we have been discussing these proposals, and now, after some months of the Committee stage, we have reached for the first time, to-night, the consideration of a tax which may strictly be called a working-class tax. Several months of time have been devoted to the discussion of the taxes which bear more directly upon the richer classes of the community. Now, therefore, those persons who claim in a special sense to represent the working people of this country are entitled to some part of the time of the Committee in order to bring forward their statements.

9.0 P.M.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has more than once, I think, made the statement that this Budget is an attempt to apportion taxation justly between different sections of the community. I shall deal with that contention or statement from two points of view. First of all, I want to see whether the pre-existing taxation was a fair distribution. In the course of the discussion a few days ago on the Income Tax, a statement was made by an hon. Member who sits on the Tory Benches, and represents one of the Divisions of Sheffield, that the proportion of indirect taxation to the total revenue of the country was about 42 per cent., and that about 58 per cent. was direct, I interjected an inquiry at the time as to whether he included stamps under the heading of direct taxation, and he replied that he had. It appears to me that the Stamp Duty lies between the heaven of direct taxation and the hell of indirect taxation. But I dispute the hon. Gentleman's figures altogether. Even including stamps under the heading of direct taxation, what are the actual facts? Under the present Finance Bill, in the proposals of taxation, the Chancellor proposes to raise for the current financial year a sum of £129,000,000. I exclude the revenue from the Post Office, and only include what would be legitimately called taxation, and which would amount to £129,000,000. The amount raised by Customs and Excise is £67,000,000, or, to be precise. £66,800,000. The amount to be raised by direct taxation totals £62,000,000 excluding stamps. Now, £67,000,000 represents something like 53 per cent. of the revenue of the country derived from indirect taxation by Customs and Excise, leaving somewhere about 47 per cent. to be raised by direct taxation from the class who are best able to pay it. I do not think I would be in error if I were to assume that, of the Customs and Excise revenues, four-fifths is paid by what we may call the working classes of the country. Therefore, that means that £53,408,000 will be contributed during the financial year by four-fifths of the population, that is, the working classes. That works out at £7 12s. 6d. per family. I have in my possession a leaflet that I treasure very highly, a leaflet issued as an election leaflet by the Liberal party, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy is President of the Association. That leaflet did duty on behalf of the Liberal party at the last General Election. It is headed, "How the Working Man is Taxed." The leaflet goes on to state during that financial year the sum of £65,000,000 was raised in Customs and Excise. That is a lower sum by nearly £3,000,000 than will be raised during the current financial year. It goes on to point out that that represents £7 5s. per head, or rather per family. The figure I give, £7 12s. 6d., is of course for the current financial year with a larger revenue from Customs and Excise. The leaflet goes on to make a calculation as to the amount of taxation contributed by the working classes of the community. It takes Sir Robert Giffen's figure of £70 a year as the average income of a working-class family, and then saying that, perhaps, the average income may be a little higher, it works out a calculation on the basis of £90 a year as the average income. It makes out, therefore, that at that time the amount of taxation contributed by the strictly working classes of the community worked out at 1s. 7d. in the £ of income. I want to make a calculation of my own. I will not grant that the average income of a working class family is £90 a year. As a matter of fact, it is indisputable that there are more than two million families in this country whose income does not amount to £1 a week. Therefore, in the cases of those families, representing a population of something like ten millions, the amount of taxation they are going to be called upon to contribute under this Budget works out at more than 2s. 6d. in the £ of income. That is the taxation which is going to be levied under a Budget which claims—and this is the distinct claim by which it is recommended to the approval of the democracy of the country—that it spreads taxation fairly, justly, equitably, and equally between the different sections of the community. I have also a leaflet which is doing duty at the present time, issued by the Liberal Publications Department headed in large type, "The Biggest Burden for the Broadest Back," a very good piece of alliteration. It says: "All classes of the community ought, to be called upon to bear their share, the biggest burden falling on the broadest back." Yes, but which is the broadest back? It seems to me that in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got the backs of all the working people of the country into one back, and is regarding that as the broadest back. What is the amount of new taxation being levied this year which will be paid by the working people? The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to put £1,900,000 on tobacco, £1,600,000 on spirits, and, although it may be disputed that this is a tax which will be paid by the working people, £2,600,000 on extra Licence Duties. We had a discussion on the Licence Duties a week or so ago, when the Prime Minister made a frank confession that the increased Beer Duty, at any rate, would be paid by the working people. If the brewers are-able to recoup themselves for the extra duty they will have to pay for the privilege of brewing, it is perfectly certain that they will be able to recoup themselves also for the extra duty they will have to pay for the privilege of carrying on the retail trade. These three increased duties amount to £6,100,000 out of a total increase of duties amounting to just over £13,000,000. Therefore, according to the original Budget statement, which, of course, was made before any of the concessions which have since been granted were given, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put over £6,000,000 extra upon three articles which are largely used and consumed by the working people, and to take only an additional £7,000,000 from taxes, which would in the main be contributed to by the richer members of the community. The right hon. Gentleman calls that a fair, just, equal, and equitable distribution of the burden.


The extra Licence Duties are not paid by the working people.


If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speech he would have heard me say that some objection might be taken to my statement that licences were a form of taxation paid by the working classes.


Is it the view of the hon. Member that the increased duty on licences will be put on the backs of the working people?


It is my view, certainly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself stated that the trade were not only going to recoup themselves for the £2,000,000 they were to be directly charged, but were taking an extra £20,000,000.


If the hon. Member is going to do me the honour of quoting me, he might as well quote me accurately. I said that if they put ½d. on beer, which I stated they were not justified in doing, they would be taking not merely the two millions, but 20 millions.


An increase in price was made immediately after the Budget statement, and that is being paid by the community. On these considerations I submit that the proposals of the Government are not a fair, just, equal, and equitable distribution of the burden. Another point is the classification. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Memorandum explanatory of the Budget statement, pointed out that during the last 12 months there had been an increase of £50,000,000 in the total incomes assessed to Income Tax. It is evident, therefore, that there is one part of the community which is growing richer, and consequently the capacity of that class to pay increased taxation is undoubted and indisputable. But what about the capacity of the working people of the country to pay increased taxation? A few days ago the monthly "Labour Gazette" of the Board of Trade was issued, and under the heading, "Changes in the Rates of Wages," it was stated that during the month of August there was a net decline in the amount of wages of £69,081. For every month of the last 16 months the Board of Trade have been reporting decreases in wages. Upon the basis of the decline of last month there has been this year a decline in wages of £3,607,000. Up to the beginning of the current year there has been a decline in wages, as compared with the beginning of 1901, of just under £2,000,000. Hence, wages to-day are lower by £5,532,000 than they were at the beginning of 1901. Therefore, in the matter of income, the capacity of the working people to pay taxation is considerably lower than it was eight years ago. The value of wages, of course, must be judged by their purchasing power. What is the purchasing power of these reduced wages to-day as compared with that of the higher wages eight or ten years ago? A few months ago a co-operative society issued a circular giving a list of prices at the present time as compared with ten years ago. They give a typical working-class Budget, which includes expenditure upon bacon, butter, flour, lard, beans, sugar, and tea. Upon these necessary articles there have in ten years' time been an increase in wholesale prices of no less than 9.9 per cent. Therefore, the cost of living to-day is increased. Those are, of course, articles of consumption. Other articles had increased in similar or larger proportion—in one case 33 per cent. In view of this reduced capacity on the part of working people, it is not just to impose upon them a burden of taxation almost equal to the increased burden which is going to be placed upon the wealthy classes. I referred to the increase in the amount of income returned to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Let us go a little further back. We are sometimes charged with making statements in regard to the condition of the people that are not correct. We sometimes, for instance, make the statement that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. I am prepared to make that statement anywhere, and to stand by it. The rich are getting richer, rapidly richer and dangerously richer. Last year these classes admitted—and the return does not represent by any means the total income they received—to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that they had taken £1,040,000,000. In 1395—only 14 years ago—the corresponding amount was only £657,000,000. So that there has been an increase of something like £400,000,000 in 14 years. And we find that this increase has not been by arithmetical, but almost by geometrical, progression. I submit therefore that these facts justify us in protesting against the amount of taxation which this Finance Bill is going to put upon the working people of this country.


Can the hon. Member give us the number of taxpayers in 1895 and last year?


The number of taxpayers is not known. Sir Henry Primrose, in his evidence before the Income Tax Commission, stated that the estimate of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as to the number of taxpayers was just over 1,000,000. The figures are not actually known. May I point out this: That income was included in the total in other years that is not now included. Before Sir William Harcourt's Budget incomes of £150 were included. He raised the amount to £160. Now I am glad to be able to say that there are right hon. Gentlemen sitting upon the Treasury Bench who support our position. The First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking at Newport, said:— He did not exactly know why it was that dukes lamented so much. They were not to be hurt. Of the money which was to be raised, no less than £12,000,000 were to be paid by the great mass of the people, and not specially by rich people. The bulk of the millions was to come from the working classes and the poorer members of the community. It was in only one or two of the taxes that the dukes and those associated with them were particularly concerned. So much for what I described as my objection on general grounds to this new duty. Just a few words as to my objection to it as a tax. I do not suppose there is any Member of this House who will rise to defend the tax upon any other ground than that the revenue derived from it is necessary. I have often—and I confess I do not like it—heard the Prime Minister defend certain taxes on the ground that they brought in a large amount. That is an argument which might be used to defend the most diabolical tax that human ingenuity ever imposed. Surely we cannot in financial matters altogether neglect moral and social factors. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say when he rises that he cannot dispense with the million revenue which he would have to forego if the Amendment were accepted. It is a million a year, although I should say this, that I have an Amendment upon the Paper, and my colleagues also have similar Amendments upon the Paper, in favour of reducing the duty not by a penny, but by twopence. I do not believe that if the Tea Duty were reduced by one penny only that the benefit would go to the consumer. I think I have the authority or, at any rate, the experience of the Prime Minister to support that contention, because last year—or was it the year before?—[An HON. MEMBER: "1907"]—when a Motion was before the House in favour of the reduction of the Tea Duty. He opposed it on the ground that the time was not opportune, nor would a penny be of any considerable benefit to those for whom it was taken off. Now what is the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer'! Every Member of the House who heard the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made upon the Supplementary Vote for old age pensions in the early part of this year will, I am quite sure, remember that the pathos of it touched the heart of everyone. He described in the most eloquent and touching manner the woes of the British working people. He gave the case of an old woman of between 70 and SO years of age who, in her pride in claiming the old age pension, had returned her income at a larger amount than it was subsequently discovered to be. It was-only 6s. 6d. per week. The right hon. Gentleman said that the old lady practically subsisted upon bread and tea. I suppose if a woman subsists upon bread and tea she will consume about half a pound of tea per week. That poor old woman pays in duty no less than 3d. per week. She is getting an old age pension of 5s. a week, and upon that old age pension she is being charged, by way of Tea Duty, an Income Tax of 1s. in the £. Nobody can justify that.

What are the pledges of Ministers in regard to this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself spoke in this House during the tenure of office of the last Government in opposition to the increase of the Tea Duty. What did he say? He said in language quite as picturesque as any the right hon. Gentleman has ever used:— The additional duty on tea would mean that the working classes would have to drink an inferior quality of tea, and in order to get the most out of it they would allow it to stew. The Budget, therefore, was a Budget to encourage the stewing or tea. In another Debate on the Tea Duty during the tenure of office of the last Government Sir Henry Fowler, as he then was, speaking on 27th April, 1904, on behalf of the Official Opposition, said, alluding to the Tea Duty, it was liable to all the objections used against any indirect taxation; that in time of peace it had been reduced to 4d., and then raised to 6d. in time of war, and that the first thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to do was to bring it back to 4d. Now we have had three or four Budgets since this Government came into office, but the Tea Duty has not yet been reduced to four-pence. What did the present Prime Minister himself say just before the last General Election? He said:— It was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set to work at once to effect, as I believe he might easily effect, such reductions in the expenditure of the country as would enable him to withdraw with the shortest possible delay, one-third of the Tea Duty, which was always intended to be of a temporary character. There is all the difference in the world between being in office and out of office. It reminds me of the story of the two farm labourers who were working together for a great many years, and who developed quite a strong affection for each other. In an unusual outburst of feeling one day one of them said to the other, "If I had two cows, I would give you one of them." As the years went by he prospered and became the possessor of a good many cows, and then his friend reminded him of the promise; and the prosperous man replied, "When I made that promise I had the will but I had not the power; now I have the power but the will is gone." This Tea Duty is, as both of the speakers who preceded me have said, a tax on one of the necessities of life. Tea is an article which is consumed largely by the poorer class of the population, and the Tea Duty is altogether disproportionate. When speaking on this question last year, I made what I thought was a comparison of the proportion of the duty to the retail price, and I said in some cases it amounted to 80 per cent. Some hon. Member who claims to know a great deal about it said in a great many cases it amounted to 120 per cent. Another objection we have to it is that it lets the rich off rather lightly and taxes the poor very heavily. The tea which is largely consumed by the working classes pays as much duty as the expensive tea which is consumed by the wealthy people, and no tax ought to be levied at a high figure which is liable to such injustice in its incidence.

We are the only country in the world that imposes a heavy tax upon tea. The United States of America, which raises the greatest part of its revenue by import duty, lets tea in free. It is quite evident from the schedule of the new Tariff Bill that the United States Government realised its importance and the necessity of their people drinking good tea; the Customs authorities have power to refuse to admit tea or an inferior quality. The result is that taking that in connection with the heavy Tea Duty which is imposed in this country that inferior tea, which the United States will not have is brought to the London market and a duty of 5d. in the pound is put upon it, which makes the retail price in this country very heavy, and therefore the poor people are only able to drink a very inferior tea. Something like 90 per cent. of the tea brought into this country comes from places in our own Empire, and therefore as a matter of Imperial preference the Tea Duty ought to be removed.

A remark was made by one of my colleagues when I was reading extracts from the speeches of Members of the Government when they were in Opposition which seemed to cause enjoyment to hon. Gentlemen now in Opposition. My colleague remarked, "Cheers and speeches come home to roost." I hope hon. Members who are now in Opposition when they come into power will retain the will. I want to say just a few words about our objection to indirect taxation. We object to indirect taxation, and we cannot assent to the suggestions put forward by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment in favour of a tax upon mineral water for the abolition of the Tea Duty. I think one of the most iniquitous taxes would be a tax upon water. We object to indirect taxation because it compels the people to pay taxes without being able to realise what it is that is imposed upon them. In the Debates 100 years or nearly so ago William Pitt used words which clearly expressed the objection in regard to indirect taxation. He said that direct taxes imposed on the people generally might cause a bloody revolution, but he said there is a much better way than that. There is a way which you can tax the last rag from the back, and the last bite from the mouth without those who are taxed being aware of the heavy burdens which are imposed upon them, and that is by imposing taxes upon articles of necessity. The tax will then enter into the price of the article, the people will grumble at the hard times, but they will never know that the hard times are imposed by indirect taxation. That is a conclusive and crushing indictment of indirect taxation. This Tea Duty does not tax according to the ability of the consumer to pay, but according to consumption of a necessity, and it takes a great deal more out of the pockets of the taxpayers than it brings into the Exchequer.


The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a very interesting speech, marked, if I may say so, by a good deal of bitterness and acrimony. I think that is a mistake which the hon. Member has committed, and it is grossly unfair. One might imagine from his speech that this Budget imposed a most heavy burden upon the working classes, and that in comparison with the burdens imposed upon the rich the burdens imposed upon the working classes were very heavy. The hon. Gentleman has been quoted more than once in this House as having said that this was a Budget which he himself rather sketched out a year or two ago, and that we are simply plagiarists. I think he said that I was an apt pupil of his. Now it seems to be rather the other way, because on the platform this is his Budget and here in this House it is ours. What I complain of is this—the hon. Gentleman has been quoted both ways, and has been quoted against us both ways. He has been quoted against us as approving of the Budget, and he will be quoted against us as condemning the Budget. I do not know which condemnation is the most injurious, but I am perfectly certain that a great many of his statements will fill Tariff Reform leaflets in the course of the coming campaign, and, perhaps, that will be some satisfaction to him. I see opposite two Tariff Reformers who appreciate the value of those statements.

I would not mind at all if the hon. Member had really approached fairness in his criticism. It is quite new, coming from him as a Socialist, to say that the £2,000,000 charged in respect of licences would be passed on to the working classes. Certainly that is not the view which we take. Our view is that the tax upon these great brewery concerns, with the exception of London and a few other places, will not be passed on, and I know that in some places where attempts have been made to pass it on to the consumers the brewers have been beaten. Therefore that tax is certainly not a charge upon the working classes of the country. Let me point out another fact which has been very conveniently overlooked by the hon. Member. He has quoted simply the figures for this year. There is one important fact which I think he has overlooked, and that is that the indirect taxation is now practically at its highest, whereas direct taxation is increasing. The taxes which he has quoted are only direct taxes for this year, and he has not quoted what they will produce in the second year. Take for example the Death Duties. Next year and the year after they will produce something between twice and three times as much as this year. Probably the hon. Member never knew that, because he never mentioned it. The hon. Member was actually showing the proportion of direct to indirect taxation in this Budget, and he never referred to the most essential part of the duties which come into operation next year.

The same thing applies to the Land Tax, which is estimated at £500,000. The hon. Gentleman chooses to ignore the fact that these Land Taxes in the future will swell to considerable proportions. He never quoted that, and if he goes through the whole category he will find that he is ignoring the fact that most of these taxes will increase very largely as far as direct taxation goes, whereas indirect taxation is substantially the same. I think that ought to be borne in mind. This Budget alters substantially the proportion between direct and indirect taxation in favour of the working and the poorer classes of the community. Did the hon. Member for Blackburn say that? He assents to it now, but would it not have been worth his while to have mentioned it incidentally?


My plea was this: I have always said to the credit of this Budget that it differs from former Budgets in not increasing the proportion of indirect taxation. The tendency of this Budget is rather to increase the return from direct taxation and leave indirect taxation stationary. What my colleagues protest against, and what I protest against, is the continuance of the aggregate amount of indirect taxation at £60,000,000 or £70,000,000.


What I complain of is that the hon. Gentleman, when he is making his case, ignores every fact that is favourable to the Budget and only dwells on those facts which are unfavourable. He never pointed to the fact that as far as indirect taxation is concerned the proportion is gradually diminishing, whereas as far as direct taxation is concerned it is increasing. In the course of the next three or four years the percentage of direct taxation will enormously increase, whereas indirect taxation will decrease. I hope in the future the hon. Gentleman will be more candid in explaining this Budget to working-class audiences than he has been to the Committee. All we want is that the facts should be presented, and I think we are entitled to ask that. I have given the hon. Member the figures. This year we have about £3,500,000 of indirect taxes and about £8,000,000 of direct taxes. Put the £2,000,000 I have mentioned on and that will be £5,000,000, as against £6,000,000 this year, even assuming that this will be all put on the working classes. What happens next year and the following years? The sum of £12,000,000 is added to the direct taxpayer, and what will be added to the indirect taxpayer? Practically nothing. That completely transforms the proportion.


You have no right to assume what is going to take place next year. The right hon. Gentleman is basing his case upon the assumptions contained in his own estimates, and he is ignoring the fact that he has given away practically the whole of his Land Taxes.


Really the hon. Gentleman might take some trouble to ascertain the elementary facts. He says I have no right to assume what may happen next year, but this is a Bill which raises revenue for next year. The Death Duties, the Succession and the Legacy Duties are all duties for next year. I cannot assume that somebody else will not come in and get rid of them, but then I shall not be responsible, my colleagues will not be responsible, and the Liberal party, for which he has such an affection, will not be responsible. It will be his friends who quote his speeches, and the speeches they quote will help them to do it. I think it is only fair, when these things are being put to the House of Commons and to the country, that the facts should be given. There is another fact which, I think, should be remembered. We really have reduced the Tea Duty from 6d. to 5d. What is the reason we have not reduced it this year? It is because we find ourselves with a deficiency of £16,000,000, of which £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 are for old age pensions. That might incidentally be mentioned, I think, when a case is being made out against the Liberal party of oppression of the working classes. You cannot get rid of all these grievances in a single year. We get nearer year by year. We have got rid of a penny on the Tea Duty, and £3,500,000 on the Sugar Duty, even when we are facing great liabilities, and I venture to say the surprise most people felt was not that we had not taken any of the tax off tea and sugar, but that we had not put them back. That was the real feeling expressed by the vast majority of people; it was a feeling of relief amongst the working classes. That is the position as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned. I only appeal to him that he should not altogether ignore the facts which represent the case a little more fairly.

Now I come to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and the Seconder, and I must say they showed a very different spirit. They quite recognised the financial difficulties of the year. They protested against the Tea Duty. I have joined with them in that protest for about fifteen years. The very first night I came to the House of Commons, and, by the way, it was a Budget night, I voted for the reduction of the Tea Duty. I do not regret it, and nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to take a penny, twopence, or even threepence off the Tea Duty. I do not recede a single inch from anything I have said about the hardship of these duties, so far as the poorest of the poor are concerned, and I take some pride in the fact that I have not increased them even when the necessities of the country demand £16,000,000 of money. I do not believe anyone standing in my place, not even the hon. Gentleman, would this year propose to decrease the Tea Duty. Taking a full survey of the whole position, and bearing in mind the new duties we have to impose, not merely for this year, but also for next year, I think he would have come to the conclusion, very reluctantly, exactly as I have, that at any rate this is not the year to take a penny or two pence off the Tea Duty.

I was told by those in the trade and by those who knew that it would not answer the purpose to take a further penny off the Tea Duty. If you take off anything at all you must take off 2d. Otherwise you would not at this stage bring it home to the people whom you seek to benefit. Would anyone with any sense of responsibility advise me this year, when I want £16,000,000, when next year I shall want over £20,000,000, and when I want that money partly for the purpose of raising old age pensions, to throw away £2,250,000 by reducing the Tea Duty? I do not think I should be justified in doing that. I think I should be subjected to legitimate criticism. I quite understand that hon. Members who have protested year after year against the Tea Duty cannot very well allow a single year to pass without making their protest. I am not criticising; it is a protest which I hope will eventually be effective. I say that with all sincerity. There is nothing which has been said against the Tea Duty with which I do not agree heart and soul. It is a tax upon the poorest of the poor, upon people who can least afford it, and I still say that anyone who reads the Report of the pensions officers as to the conditions of the poor will agree there is no tax which hits the poor harder than this Tea Duty. I think it will be incumbent upon some future Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he is able to put the finances of the country in a better position than they are at the present time, to consider the question of reducing the Tea Duty amongst the very first, but at the present moment I do not (think anyone would consider me justified in my position in facing the problem of taking 2d. at least off the duty. Under these conditions, I hope the House of Commons will really think that we are justified, at any rate in the present year, in standing by the Tea Duty as it is.


The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that it would not make the remotest difference to the poor in this country if he took a 1d. in the pound off the Tea Duty. I think I may remind the House that at the last General Election it was frequently put forward all over the country on every possible occasion, and on the walls of all our towns, that a quarter of a farthing on a 4lb. loaf was going to starve the people of this country. Those are the facts. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer get up and say they are not. Yet on tea, a prime necessity of life, according to the Prime Minister, and according I think to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a penny in the pound does not make any difference, because it does not suit the Radical party that it should make any difference. I really think that is a fair criticism, and that I have not exaggerated. The odd thing about it all is that since the Government, came in there has been nothing extra big about the loaf except the price. An hon. Member made a very good speech, I think. He gave us a Labour-Socialist view of the Tea Duty, which I think was very good for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have far more respect for the policy of the Member for Blackburn than for that of anybody sitting on the Front Government Bench. After all, the hon. Member for Blackburn and his friends have got what they believe is a remedy, whereas the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have no remedy for the misery and want of employment in this country. What did the President of the Board of Trade say the other day? He did not say much about the Tea Duty, I admit, but he did say "that there were millions of people in this country more miserable than the people of any other country in the world," and not only that, but he added "that they lived under conditions worse than barbarism." He forgot to explain that that was after 60 years of all the so-called benefits of Free Trade. After all the Tea Duty is a part of that show. What is the reason why that Tea Duty is so high? It is because the Liberal Free Traders will not let an import tax be put either on competing manufactured goods or even on the luxuries of the rich. I am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know his way about on this Tariff question. He is in a dreadful hole, although in reality he is a Tariff Reformer, as shown by his Patents Bill; he is tied down by this Free Trade system, and cannot help himelf. He will be bound to put from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. on tea.

10.0 P.M.

The Prime Minister said you may tax anything—for instance, tea—as much as you like so long as you cannot produce it in this country. That is the essence of Free Trade. It comes to this: you can tax anything, no matter whether it is ever so much a necessary or raw material—you may tax whatever you like so long as it cannot do any single man or woman in this country a blooming halfpenny worth of good—so long as it cannot do anybody one little bit of good at all. That is what it comes to. If I am wrong perhaps somebody on the Treasury Bench will get up and correct me. That is why your tea, beer, and tobacco are so heavily taxed; that is why the working classes of this country are more heavily taxed by means of import duties on their food, drink, and tobacco than any other country in the world.


Put a bit more on the land then.


Land is the raw material of the food, drink and clothing of the people. I should like to point this out to the House now that I am on my legs. Reference has been made of the taxes in America. I want to point out the difference between import taxation in this country and in America. In America they raise £45,000,000 every year by the taxation of the imported luxuries of the rich, but in this country the whole of our import taxation is put upon the food, drink, and tobacco of the people of this country, and it is very well known that the working classes pay very nearly the whole of it. This system, which professes to confer such an enormous benefit on the working classes of this country, is really impossible for Free Traders to defend. The working classes, when they find out the meaning of this Budget, will no doubt have something to say in regard to it There is a very heavy taxation on tea, and nothing is taken off under this Budget, and the extra taxation on beer, whisky, and tobacco is between £6,000,000 and £8,000,000, if not a great deal more. This taxation also will be chiefly paid by the working classes of this country, and they will not be helped in the least by this Budget. A large extra taxation is put upon tobacco used by the poor, but the tobacco of the rich is not taxed in the same proportion, and this is what this democratic Government has done. The wealthy are not hit anything like so hardly as the working man. Then the Government tax the working man's beer, and now tell us that the producer will pay the tax, although I always thought that hon. Members opposite said that the consumers paid the taxes. Meantime foreign beer is allowed to come in, and here again the working man's beer is taxed much more heavily than the alcoholic drinks of the rich, and this is the democratic Budget of a democratic Government. One of the Government Whips recently said:— Tea was a necessary article for the working classes, and the tax pressed unduly on them, and it was a great burden on the agricultural labourers. The hon. Member (Mr. Soares) in 1905 moved to reduce the Tea Duty to what my hon. Friend wants to reduce it to now, and this is what he said—I have no doubt he will come into the Lobby with us:— If there was one tax he objected to more than any other it was the Tea Duty. They had long been anxious for a free breakfast table. He was driven to the conclusion that the Tea Tax was not defensible and that it affected the rich even less than the poor, and in his own constituency a large number of people lived very largely on tea and bread and butter. The Tea Tax was a very heavy burden. The Postmaster-General said very much the same thing. I remember, as a boy of 12 years old, seeing on all the walls and houses placards with "Vote for the Liberals and a free breakfast table" in large letters. I do not think we are very much nearer to it than we were then. One hundred and sixty Members opposite voted for this very Resolution in 1905, and if they have any real conscience outside their political conscience they will vote for it now.


There is at least one aspect of the case which deserves a little comment. I do not propose to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the argument as to whether he or the hon. Gentleman near me possesses the copyright of this Budget. I cannot say truthfully that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been remarkable during the existence of this Parliament for the consistency which they have displayed in their political opinions. In a few moments we are going to divide, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are going into the Lobby to vote for a tax upon an article of food which is of universal consumption, and of which the whole available supply is to be taxed, and in a few weeks, on a thousand platforms up and down the country, hon. Gentlemen are going to stand and cast their eyes up to heaven, and thank heaven, that they are not as the food taxers. After all, even the wildest food taxer who ever existed in the wildest flight of fancy of any hon. Member on the Government Bench never proposed that a weight of taxation of this size should be placed upon the whole available supply for consumption of an article of food in this country. The position of hon. Gentlemen opposite is not remarkable either for the logic or for its consistency, but when you go into the actual figures on which it is based its mathematics are certainly not less remarkable than its logic. Hon. Gentlemen say they are going to vote for a tax on tea, and if any of us propose to reduce the tax on tea and substitute a tax on foreign corn we shall be placing an intolerable burden upon the people of this country. I do not say they intend wilfully to misrepresent the tax, but I think they are labouring under an essential error in regard to matters of fact in relation to this question. Let us consider the Tea Tax as a food tax, and let us suppose that there is a tax of 2s. per quarter on corn. See which tax presses most hardly. I have gone through the Board of Trade returns for past years in order to find out the consumption per head of corn and wheat, and also of tea. I find the consumption of wheat per head of the population was 6 bushels, of which 2.7 were British and 3.3 were foreign. It is not quite so easy to find out what the consumption per head was in the case of tea. There ought to have been a report in regard to tea and coffee published this year. It has been in preparation for some time, and it is most unfortunate that it is not available for use at the present moment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make representation with the view of having the report made available before the Report stage of the Bill. If you make the calculation on the basis of previous Returns, you find that the consumption of tea per head of the population was 6.2 pounds, which is very nearly what it was when the last return was made in 1904. It was then 6.3. Of the 6.2 pounds 5.6 were British, and only 6 were foreign. How do we stand with regard to the duties? For the sake of my argument I shall suppose that the duty on wheat is 2s. per quarter. Supposing that duty fell on all corn, and not merely on foreign corn, the duty payable on the consumption per head is 1s. 6d., while in the case of the 6.2 pounds of tea the duty payable is 2s. 7d. It may be said that it is not fair to take total quantities in that way. I agree that, if anything, by reckoning in that way it is harder on the working classes, for I think tea is more largely consumed by the working classes than by other classes. There is a further side to the question. There was a report specially dealing with working class Budgets, and the means of sustenance of the working classes published last year. I have referred to that Report for further light on this subject. It is Paper 3,864 of 1908, and at page 25 of that Paper you will find the figures I am going to quote. A family is taken for the purpose of these statistics as 5.6 persons—father, mother, and 3.6 children, which is the average number of children in the calculation. The expenditure of that family on tea is 58s. 6d. a year for 31.2lb. of tea, and for bread and flour they spend 186s. 4d. The quantity of bread and flour, it is estimated, may be represented fairly by about 30 bushels. Thirty bushels are not the actual figures in this report; the figures are 520lb. of flour and 1,144lb. of bread. I am assuming in favour of the right hon. Gentleman that all the flour is the best wheaten flour, and that all the bread is made from home wheat. Assume that all the duty of 2s. falls on the wheat, the family pay on their consumption of bread and flour a duty of 7s. 6d. a year. For 34 bushels they would pay in duty 8s. 6d., while they pay on, their consumption of tea a duty of 13s. a year. The duty on flour is 4 per cent. on the amount spent, and the duty on tea is no less than 22 per cent. And this is the poor man's Budget! We used to-be told when you make tea the proper thing was to put in a spoonful for each person and one spoonful for the pot. Now we are asked to put in five spoonfuls for the pot and two for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Consider, then, the position of the British working man. Having taxed the land on which his house is built, the bricks of which it is built, and the slates on the roof, but not the window sashes—you do not tax those: they come from Norway—having taxed the coal on the hearth, the sugar on the table, and the tobacco in the jar, you now propose to tax the tea in the pot. And this Budget is gentle to the poor! The Chancellor says, "Why cannot we get the duty off?" I will tell him: It is because he insists on refraining from taxing the foreigner as he ought to be taxed.


The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a doubt, which I do not share, whether the approval or the disapproval of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) would be more fatal to his Budget, and when I heard some hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway expressing agreement with the hon. Member for Blackburn, I could not help thinking that opposition, like misery, acquaints a man with strange bedfellows. The hon. Member for Blackburn throughout his speech urged in an absolutely unreserved fashion that no tax that affected those whom he pretends specially to represent should be imposed. For my part I have no doubt whatever that the approval of the hon. Gentleman would be far more fatal to these proposals than his disapproval, and in that respect, at any rate, I differ entirely from the opinion expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt there is an extremely strong case for removing the tax upon tea on the ground set forth with such force, that it is almost a necessity of the poorest classes, and I maintain that it is just as much a necessity of the poorer classes in this country as in Ireland. I cannot understand in the least the distinction hon. Gentlemen endeavour to draw in that respect; I believe tea to be a necessity also of the poor in this country. But that does not cover the ground. The question is that when a certain amount of revenue is to be got is the Chancellor of the Exchequer to effect a reduction of this tax? I turn again to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn, a speech which seemed to be crammed full of every possible fallacy. He of all hon. Members in this House objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal in this behalf. Why, if there is any hon. Member in this House who rushes to the Treasury Bench to urge that old age pensions should be given to the wives of foreigners and to every possible disqualified person, regardless of expenditure, it is the hon. Member for Blackburn; but the moment the question arises of paying for old age pensions it is he who comes here and makes a speech which no doubt will go down in certain quarters, but which seems to me, coming from the hon. Member, to be absolutely the most inexcusable thing that possibly could be presented to this House. The hon. Member has a talent for laying before the House, as if it were some great fiscal discovery, some absolute commonplace of taxation. He said this tax affects working men. So it does. I deeply regret it. Then he went on to compare the working man with a duke—the bogey-man, of course, came in.

Then the hon. Member objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that the tax was placed on the broadest back. Does the hon. Member deny that the aggregate of the small men of this country is far greater than the aggregate of the few richer men? It is the broadest back; and I believe that the real working man who is a worker and not a shirker will not thank the hon. Member for this kind of advocacy. The working man is ready, I believe, to pay his share of taxation, to pay for social reform. I decline to accept the hon. Member's estimate of the working man, who, I believe, is certainly willing to pay for old age pensions, and I think willing and proud to pay his share for "Dreadnoughts" and the proper defence of his native country. There is another ground on which I believe that tea, more than most other things, is entitled to the most favourable consideration of this House, namely, that it is for the most part the product of British labour, coming from British Colonies and possessions, and grown with British capital. It cornea from India and Ceylon, and there are no more estimable men than the planters who produce this particular article of food. The hon. Member for Yarmouth suggested that we should tax champagnes.


I said champagnes and foreign wines.


Take them altogether, what would they produce in the way of revenue? Something really trifling.


May I respectfully interrupt the hon. Member?


Yes, Sir.


I think the hon. Gentleman-says he would not put any more taxation on foreign wines. I would only ask him whether he supposes that if more taxation were imposed on foreign wines people would not drink it in this country? Oh, no.


I do not know what tax would be sufficient to deprive the hon. Gentleman of his glass of wine. I for one would not vote for taxation to that extent. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Yarmouth was not a practical one, because no amount of taxation that could be imposed on wines could produce anything that would represent the amount that is gathered by the sums collected from almost everybody in the country, as they all drink tea. I think that criticism falls to the ground. The hon. Member for Blackburn, said that wages were on the decrease. So far as a certain number of recent returns go that would appear to be so, but if you take the wages for a period of years, which is the only manner in which a serious politician would take them, they do not bear out the statement that wages have been on the decrease, while prices have been on the increase, and that, therefore, the condition of the masses was on the decline.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer made another statement to which I wish to subscribe. It really is the fact, and I think it is admitted by all who are in contact with the tea industry, that a penny off does not produce much relief to the drinkers, that the amount is so small that it disappears among the middlemen, or they do not think it worth while to pass it on. I do hope that the Chancellor, who has not been able to take a penny off this year, will take twopence off next year, and that he will have that well under his consideration, and endeavour to so frame his Budget that he will be able to make an appreciable reduction on what I freely admit is a heavily taxed industry. I cannot, however, say that I am strongly in favour of pressing for the reduction of the tax this year for many reasons I do not trouble the House with. Amongst those interested in tea there will be no disappointment this year at no reduction, though that they would have earnestly desired a reduction I do not dispute. Everybody in this country who cares anything about this country knows that in the last three or four years our naval preparations have been allowed to fall badly behind those of foreign countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I believe on that account quite as much as on account of what is included in very comprehensive social reform that there will be a willingness on the part of all classes in this country, including the real true working man,

who, I think sometimes is not very favourably represented in this House, to pay his share. I say we are all representatives of the working men. I think they will be able to bear their share of this taxation to-day. The hon. Member spoke of the high level of taxation. The tax on tea is excessive. I am sure I think so. It is not fair to talk of it as if it was a new tax Taxation upon tea has for many years, through the lives of many Ministries, been exceedingly high. I do not say it is a good thing. I wish it was lowered, but it is absurd to come in now and say it is so, as if there was an urgent necessity in this year, of all others, to effect a reduction. For those reasons, though I most earnestly hope the Chancellor will take not a penny but twopence off next year I will not, even though I was vice-president of the Anti Tea Duty League, support the Amendment for the reduction this year.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 91.

Division No. 717.] AYES. [10.40 p.m.
Agnew, George William Crosfield, A. H. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Alden, Percy Cross, Alexander Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Dalziel, Sir James Henry Henry, Charles S.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon, S.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Higham, John Sharp
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) Hodge, John
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Dobson, Thomas W. Holt, Richard Durning
Barker, Sir John Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Hooper, A. G.
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Horniman, Emslie John
Barnard, E. B. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Barnes, G. N. Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Jenkins, J.
Barran, Sir John Nicholson Elibank, Master of Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Erskine, David C. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Bell, Richard Essex, R. W. Kelley, George D.
Bennett, E. N. Evans, Sir S. T. King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Berridge, T. H. D. Everett, R. Lacey Laidlaw, Robert
Boulton, A. C. F. Falconer, J. Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Bowerman, C. W. Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Brigg, John Findlay, Alexander Lamont, Norman
Bright, J. A. Fuller, John Michael F. Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Fullerton, Hugh Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gibb, James (Harrow) Levy, Sir Maurice
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles Gibson, J. P. Lewis, John Herbert
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Gill, A. H. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight Glendinning, R. G. Lupton, Arnold
Chance, Frederick William Glover, Thomas Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Mackarness, Frederic C.
Clough, William Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Maclean, Donald
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Gulland, John W. M'Callum, John M.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Cooper, G. J. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) M'Micking, Major G.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Mallet, Charles E.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) Harwood, George Markham, Arthur Basil
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Haworth, Arthur A. Marnham, F. J.
Cory, Sir Clifford John Hedges, A. Paget Massie, J.
Cowan, W. H. Helme, Norval Watson Masterman, C. F. G.
Menzies, Sir Walter Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Tomkinson, James
Middlebrook, William Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Toulmin, George
Molteno, Percy Alport Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Robinson, S. Verney, F. W.
Worrell, Philip Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wadsworth, J.
Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)
Myer, Horatio Roe, Sir Thomas Walsh, Stephen
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Rogers, F. E. Newman Waring, Waiter
Norman, Sir Henry Rose, Sir Charles Day Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Norton, Captain Cecil William Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Nussey, Sir Willans Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Nuttall, Harry Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Watt, Henry A.
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Parker, James (Halifax) Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Partington, Oswald Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Paulton, James Mellor Seely, Colonel Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) Wilkie, Alexander
Pirie, Duncan V. Sherwell, Arthur James Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Pointer, J. Snowden, P. Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Pollard, Dr. G. H. Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) Williamson, Sir A.
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Summerbell, T. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rainy, A. Rolland Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Rees, J. D. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.
Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Forster, Henry William Newdegate, F. A.
Balcarres, Lord Foster, P. S. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gardner, Ernest Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Goulding, Edward Alfred Peel, Hon. W. R. W.
Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) Gretton, John Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Haddock, George B. Renton, Leslie
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hamilton, Marquess of Renwick, George
Bull, Sir William James Harris, Frederick Leverton Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Ronaldshay, Earl of
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hill, Sir Clement Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Carlile, E. Hildred Hills, J. W. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hunt, Rowland Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Joynson-Hicks, William Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Starkey, John R.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Keswick, William Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Clive, Percy Archer Kimber, Sir Henry Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Clyde, J. Avon King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Lambton, Hon. Frederick William Tuke, Sir John Batty
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Courthope, G. Loyd Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craik, Sir Henry Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Duncan Robert (Lanark Govan) M'Arthur, Charles Younger, George
Faber, George Denison (York) Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) Morpeth, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Fell, Arthur Morrison-Bell, Captain
Fletcher, J. S.

Question put accordingly. The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 177.

Division No. 718.] AYES. [10.50 p.m.
Agnew, George William Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Chance, Frederick William
Alden, Percy Bell, Richard Channing, Sir Francis Allston
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Bennett, E. N. Clough, William
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Berridge, T. H. D. Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Boulton, A. C. F. Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Bowerman, C. W. Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Brigg, John Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Bright, J. A. Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Cory, Sir Clifford John
Barker, Sir John Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Cowan, W. H.
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles Crosfield, A. K.
Barnard, E. B. Carr-Gomm, H. W. Cross, Alexander
Barran, Sir John Nicholson Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight Dalziel, Sir James Henry
Davies, Ellis Wiliam (Eifion) King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Laidlaw, Robert Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) Lamont, Norman Robinson, S.
Dobson, Thomas W. Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Roe, Sir Thomas
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Levy, Sir Maurice Rogers, F. E. Newman
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Lewis, John Herbert Rose, Sir Charles Day
Eubank, Master of Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Erskine, David C. Lupton, Arnold Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Essex, R. W. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Evans, Sir S. T. Mackarness, Frederic C. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Everett, R. Lacey Maclean, Donald Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.
Falconer, J. M'Callum, John M. Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Seely, Colonel
Findlay, Alexander M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Micking, Major G. Sherwell, Arthur James
Gibb, James (Harrow) Mallet, Charles E. Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)
Gibson, J. P. Marnham, F. J. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Glendinning, R. G. Massie, J. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Masterman, C. F. G. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Menzies, Sir Walter Tomkinson, James
Gulland, John W. Middlebrook, William Toulmin, George
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Molteno, Percy Alport Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Verney, F. W.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Morrell, Philip Wadsworth, J.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Myer, Horatio Waring, Walter
Harwood, George Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Haworth, Arthur A. Norman, Sir Henry Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Hedges, A. Paget Norton, Captain Cecil William Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Helme, Norval Watson Nussey, Sir Willans Watt, Henry A.
Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) Nuttall, Harry White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Henry, Charles S. O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Partington, Oswald White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Higham, John Sharp Paulton, James Mellor Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Wilkie, Alexander
Hodge, John Pirie, Duncan V. Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Holt, Richard Durning Pollard, Dr. G. H. Williamson, Sir A.
Hooper, A. G. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Jenkins, J. Rainy, A. Rolland
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Rees, J. D.
Kelley, George D. Ridsdale, E. A.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Foster, P. S. M'Arthur, Charles
Ambrose, Robert Gardner, Ernest M'Kean, John
Arkwright, John Stanhope Glover, Thomas Meagher, Michael
Balcarres, Lord Goulding, Edward Alfred Mooney, J. J.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Gretton, John Morrison-Bell, Captain
Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) Muldoon, John
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hamilton, Marquess of Nannetti, Joseph P.
Bull, Sir William James Harris, Frederick Leverton Newdegate, F. A.
Burdett Coutts, W. Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hazleton, Richard Nolan, Joseph
Carlile, E. Hildred Healy, Timothy Michael O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Hill, Sir Clement O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hills, J. W. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Peel, Hon. W. R. W.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hunt, Rowland Pointer, J.
Clancy, John Joseph Joyce, Michael Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Clive, Percy Archer Joynson-Hicks, William Power, Patrick Joseph
Clyde, J. Avon Keating, M. Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Reddy, M.
Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. Keswick, William Renton, Leslie
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kilbride, Denis Renwick, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Kimber, Sir Henry Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Courthope, G. Loyd King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cullinan, J. Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Devlin, Joseph Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Sheehy, David
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lowe, Sir Francis William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Duffy, William J. Lundon, T. Stanier, Beville
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) Lynch, A. (Clare, W.) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Starkey, John R.
Fell, Arthur MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Fletcher, J. S. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Forster, Henry William MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Tuke, Sir John Batty White, Patrick (Meath, North) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Valentia, Viscount Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Younger, George
Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Walsh, Stephen Willoughby de Eresby, Lord TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Boland.
Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Mr. FELL moved to add at the end of the Clause the words "except in the case of tea grown in a part of the British Empire, which shall pay a tax on four-pence."

I have had the pleasure of moving this Amendment on two previous occasions, and the last time but one the Prime Minister, in answer to my remarks, said that the amount of tea which came from foreign counries was so small in comparison with the proportion that came from portions of the British Empire that he considered it was a negligible quantity. That was two years ago. I will now quote the figures for the last three years, which I have obtained from the President of the Board of Trade. The amount of tea which came from parts of the British Empire, from British India, and Ceylon in 1906 was 289,000,000 lbs., but last year it was reduced to 281,000,000 lbs., or a reduction of 8,000,000 lbs. in three years. Tea, on the other hand, which came in from China in 1906 was 13,000,000 pounds. In 1908 it had risen to 22,000,000 pounds, showing an increase of 9,000,000 pounds as against a reduction in the tea grown in our Empire of 8,000,000 pounds. I do not take any credit to myself for saying two years ago that it was probable, unless some Resolution, such as I was then proposing was carried, the imports of Chinese tea would increase. Any judge who had seen what was going on in tea drinking, at any rate among the upper classes, would have considered that would have been the effect. This Committee, however, is so out of touch with the sympathy which we would show towards the Colonies of the Empire and so out of touch with the opinion of the country at the present time, that it is useless to urge anything in favour of Colonial preference here, but, I have put this Amendment down and shall, of course, carry it to a Division, so that we may see in black and white those who are in favour of giving our friends in the Colonies a slight preference over those in other countries. This assembly is so out of sympathy with it that it is quite useless advocating this subject here, but we will advocate it soon in the country, and there we shall have a very different answer.


This is another hardy annual. It was moved in the late Parliament. I am not sure it was not the late Mr. Lowther who moved it, but I do not think he got much support from his own side.


He got mine.


I think the hon. Member was about the only one. I think I voted for it, but it was on the general soundness of opposing everything which came from His Majesty's Government. I can only use the same argument that I used with regard to the other Amendment. Even if it was desirable to discriminate between these two classes of tea, it would be quite impossible to do it this year.


Is it a fact that there has been an increase in the tea from China of 9,000,000 lbs. within the last three years, whereas there has been a decrease of tea from our own possessions of 8,000,000 lbs.?


I heard the figures with some surprise. I knew there had been a change within the last few years, and that there has been a greater run on China tea, and, if the hon. Member tells me those are the figures, I am not in a position to challenge them. I shall be glad to look into the matter.


The figures are contained in an answer by the President of the Board of Trade.


I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to give us these figures, seeing that they are of an extremely serious nature. Whatever the opinion of the House may have been in past days it is different now. During the last year or two we have found that our Colonies have come forward and helped us in various ways in connection with the naval and military defence of the Empire. Here is an opportunity to make some return. This tea is grown by our fellow subjects. Surely if we can show, as we have shown, that there is a decrease of tea imports from our own Colonies and an increase from China, it is a serious matter which should engage the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have a right to a more satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman, who, at any rate, might give us the figures we have asked for.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 216.

Division No. 719.] AYES. [11.7 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Fletcher, J. S. Newdegate, F. A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Forster, Henry William Nicholson Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Foster, P. S. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord Gardner, Ernest Peel, Hon. W. R. W.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Gretton, John Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) Renton, Leslie
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Haddock, George B. Renwick, George
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hamilton, Marquess of Robert s, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bull, Sir William James Harris, Frederick Leverton Ronaldshay, Earl of
Burdett-Coutts, W. Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hill, Sir Clement Salter, Arthur Clavell
Carlile, E. Hildred Hills, J. W. Stanier, Beville
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hunt, Rowland Starkey, John R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Joynson-Hicks, William Staveley Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Clive, Percy Archer Keswick, William Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Clyde, J. Avon Kimber, Sir Henry Valentia, Viscount
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Courthope, G. Loyd Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Wilson, A Stanley (York, E. R.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Craik, Sir Henry Lowe, Sir Francis William Younger, George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- M'Arthur, Charles
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) Mason, James F. (Windsor) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Goulding.
Faber, George Denison (York) Morpeth, Viscount
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) Morrison-Bell, Captain
Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) Cory, Sir Clifford John Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Agnew, George William Cowan, W. H. Healy, Timothy Michael
Alden, Percy Crosfield, A. H. Hedges, A. Paget
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Cullinan, J. Helme, Norval Watson
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Dalziel, Sir James Henry Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Ambrose, Robert Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Henry, Charles S.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon, S.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Devlin, Joesph Higham, John Sharp
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Dobson, Thomas W. Hodge, John
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Duffy, William J. Holt, Richard Durning
Barker, Sir John Duncan, G. (Barrow-in-Furness) Hooper, A. G.
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Barnard, E. B. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Jenkins, J.
Barnes, G. N. Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barran, Sir John Nicholson Elibank, Master of Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Erskine, David C. Keating, M.
Bell, Richard Essex, R. W. Kelley, George D.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Evans, Sir S. T. Kilbride, Denis
Bennett, E. N. Everett, R. Lacey King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Berridge, T. H. D. Falconer, James Laidlaw, Robert
Boland, John Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Boulton, A. C. F. Findlay, Alexander Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bowerman, C. W. Fuller, John Michael F. Lament, Norman
Brigg, John Fullerton, Hugh Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis
Bright, J. A. Gibb, James (Harrow) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gibson, J. P. Levy, Sir Maurice
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gill, A. H. Lewis, John Herbert
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles Glendinning, R. G. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Glover, Thomas Lundon, T
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Lupton, Arnold
Chance, Frederick William Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Gulland, John W. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Clancy, John Joseph Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Mackarness, Frederic C.
Clough, William Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Maclean, Donald
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Cooper, G. J. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) M'Callum, John M.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Harwood, George M'Kean, John
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) Haworth, Arthur A. McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hazleton, Richard M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
M'Micking, Major G. Pointer, J. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Mallet, Charles E. Pollard, Dr. G. H. Summerbell, T.
Markham, Arthur Basil Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Marnham, F. J. Power, Patrick Joseph Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Massle, J. Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Thorne G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Masterman, C. F. G. Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Tomkinson, James
Meagher, Michael Rainy, A. Rolland Toulmin, George
Middlebrook, William Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) Verney, F. W.
Molteno, Percy Alport Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough) Wadsworth, J.
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Reddy, M. Walsh, Stephen
Mooney, J. J. Rees, J. D. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Worrell, Philip Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) Waring, Walter
Muldoon, John Ridsdale, E. A. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Myer, Horatio Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Watt, Henry A.
Nannetti, Joseph P. Robinson, S. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Robson, Sir William Snowdon White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Nolan, Joseph Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke) White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Norman, Sir Henry Roe, Sir Thomas Wilkie, Alexander
Norton, Captain Cecil William Rogers, F. E. Newman Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Nussey, Sir Willans Rose, Sir Charles Day Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen).
Nuttall, Harry Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. Williamson, Sir Archibald
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.
Partington, Oswald Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Paulton, James Mellor Seely, Colonel TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)
Pirie, Duncan V. Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, an agreed to.