§ (1) In addition to the duties of Customs payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall as from the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged, levied, and paid, the duties specified in Part I. of the Third Schedule to this Act.
§ (2) The duties of Customs on the articles mentioned in Part II. of the Third Schedule to this Act, being articles in which spirit is contained, or in the manufacture of which spirit is used, shall be proportionately increased, and there shall accordingly be charged, levied, and paid the duties specified in that Part of the schedule.
§ (3) In addition to the Excise Duty payable for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall, as from the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged, levied, and paid an Excise Duty of three shillings and ninepence, and so on in proportion for any less quantity.
§ Sir WILLIAM BULL moved to leave out Sub-section (2).
§ I earnestly appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this question of taxing medical spirits. This is not a question of luxury but of necessity. When people are ill, spirits of this kind are ordered, and they are bound willy-nilly to 734 take them. This is a very heavy tax on people who are ill able to afford it. A large number of our hospitals are struggling under great difficulties, and the increase here is estimated for some of them to amount to £2,000 or £3,000 a year. I have been in communication with several large chemists throughout the country, and this morning I had a letter from one who stated that he did not trouble about the tax because he simply intended to put it all on to the consumer. I had a letter from another, who said that his bill, in connection with these spirits, would be over £3,500 a year. Taking the London hospitals alone, I understand the tax will amount to over £50,000. The tax is bound to be extremely unpopular among the-poorer classes. Even a poor man who has to have a tooth out under gas will have probably to pay more fees on account of the tax.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs I understand, the proposal is to leave the duty on certain articles which are specified in the Second Schedule as they are at the present moment. That would be a very difficult thing to do. The late Lord Ritchie when Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Bill in 1903 to try to do something of the sort. That Bill failed. The views held by the hon. Gentleman opposite were for some little time held by the Pharmaceutical Society which sent a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They heard what was to be said by the Board of Customs and Excise on the question, and 735 they went away satisfied that the proposals embodied in this Amendment were impracticable for this reason. If you gave spirits duty free to chemists and hospitals, you could not subsequently control the disposal of the spirits by the person who was entitled to obtain the spirits duty free. He could destil the spirits out of the particular articles mentioned in the schedule, and you could not say whether they were used in a hospital or elsewhere. It would be impossible to say whether the chemist had disposed of them to the nearest public-house, or whether he really served them for the purpose of medicine. The objections, therefore, to giving the exemption are not so much theoretical as practical. The Government cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope the Committee will not agree to it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am not surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the practical difficulties in the way of accepting this proposal would be very great. Nobody who has not had access to official information and advice is in a position to discuss the matter in the same way as those who are dealing with such affairs, or to say whether the difficulties could be overcome. For certain purposes they are overcome now. Under a Bill which was passed in, I think, the first Session of this Parliament—a Bill which I had previously tried to pass—spirit is allowed for certain manufacturing purposes to be issued duty free.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated dissent.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Chancellor of the Exchequer is thinking of the old Act which required that the spirit should be rendered impotable—denatured was the technical term—before it was issued. Substantially that met the case wherever it was possible to use denatured spirit. But the progress of science as applied to manufactures rendered it necessary in certain manufactures that pure spirit and not denatured spirit should be used. I believe it is called silent spirit. It is pure alcohol with neither taste nor smell out of which you can concoct whatever blend of spirit your customer may desire. At any rate, it was made clear that British commerce was hampered through our manufacturers not having the same facilities in regard to the use of this spirit as were enjoyed by their foreign competitors, and especially by the Germans, who have carried the application 736 of chemistry to industry to a very high point, and I did seek in my last year of office to pass a Bill to render the issue of pure spirit to our manufacturers possible where we were satisfied that it could be done without fraud. I was unable to pass that Bill, but it was passed, I am glad to say, by the present Prime Minister as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, in the first Session of the present Parliament. Therefore, for the purposes of manufacture, it is now permissible to issue pure spirit without payment of duty on whatever security the Excise require being given that the spirit shall be used for the purposes for which it is nominally taken. I am not quite clear about the position, but I think it is possible that that spirit disappears in the process of manufacture, and that therefore if there were to be any fraud it must be drunk before it is used in manufacture, as it cannot be extracted afterwards. If that is so it does make a distinction between the case of these drugs and such cases as are now within the limit of the law. Whether it would not be possible for the Excise to take sufficient security in the case of chemists, speaking without access to official information, I cannot say. I only hope that the Government have seriously considered the question before they decided that it was impossible to make that distinction. If they have seriously considered it and the statement made by the Financial Secretary is their considered judgment, I am not in a position to dispute it and I do not dispute it. But I do say that this is one more reason against adding to the very heavy Spirit Duties which have already passed. We think of this tax as a tax on spirituous liquors drunk for pleasure or comfort. But here it is working out as a very heavy tax on drugs, and on drugs which have to be used by all classes of people equally and by charitable institutions to a very great extent, and the addition which is being made will be a very serious tax upon hospitals, dispensaries and other institutions of that kind. It is an incidental result of the tax which of course the Government did not contemplate, and which, no doubt, they would be as glad as anybody else to avoid. But if they say it is unavoidable the conclusion to be drawn is that there are even more objections to the additions made to this tax than appear on the surface.
Mr. LYULPH STANLEYI would like to say a word on this subject, having been at one time of my life a student of science. 737 I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that there are certain processes of manufacture in which alcohol is used as a solvent, and can be recovered again and again. In the dyeing industry it is used very largely as a solvent, and can be recovered. But I rose mainly to speak of the articles contained in Part II. of the Schedule. I do not wish to pose as a greater scientist than I am, but anyone who has followed this subject at all will know that several of these articles cannot produce alcohol at all. Of course by a series of elaborate chemical operations you can get alcohol from them, but when you have got it it is not really potable in a form which can be drunk. Chloroform, for instance, would require a considerable series of operations before you could get alcohol, and there are several other things which it may be desired for fiscal reasons to tax, but which cannot produce alcohol which would compete, though they could produce it for the purposes of intoxication. I would urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the arguments used on the Front Bench against removing this tax, and basing it, as I think it properly could be based probably, on purely fiscal reasons.
§ Mr. FELLThis tax will fall on these substances which have been mentioned, and surely it cannot be supposed that those who use these drugs would distil from
§ them spirit which might be potable and might be used for other purposes in competition with whisky. If this tax is really intended, then I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a very poor opinion of those who conduct hospitals and dispensaries. This tax amounts to an increase of from 33 per cent. to 37 per cent. in the duty. In one hospital alone it will amount to £250 a year. No one can say that is not an appreciable amount in the case of a single hospital, especially in times like these when subscriptions are falling off. These institutions are hit heavily. Besides, the amount which the Government will get is comparatively small. The real object of this duty is to get a large amount of revenue from whisky, and in the circumstances I really think hospitals and dispensaries, photographers and dentists, and others, should be saved from the burden of this extra duty, especially considering the enormous duty which is already being derived from the duty on drugs. In a country like England it is hardly necessary to tax things which are used in times of stress and trouble, or that hospitals and dispensaries should be subjected to an unnecessary burden.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 84.
739| Division No. 720.] | AYES. | [11.35 p.m. |
| Allen, A. Acland, (Christchurch) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hodge, John |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Elibank, Master of | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Barker, Sir John | Essex, R. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Kelley, George D. |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Everett, R. Lacey | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Findlay, Alexander | Lamont, Norman |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Fullerton, Hugh | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gibson, James Puckering | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bright, J. A. | Gill, A. H. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brodie, H. C. | Glendinning, R. G. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Glover, Thomas | Lupton, Arnold |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gulland, John W. | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Maclean, Donald |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Clough, William | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Harwood, George | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Helme, Norval Watson | Massie, J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Middlebrook, William |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Henry, Charles S. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morrell, Philip |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Higham, John Sharp | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Myer, Horatio | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Robinson, S. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Nussey, Sir Willans | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Watt, Henry A. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Partington, Oswald | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Pointer, Joseph | Seely, Colonel | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Pollard, Dr. | Shaw, Sir Charles Edward | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Summerbell, T. | |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir Edward Strachey. |
| Rees, J. D. | Tomkinson, James | |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton) | Toulmin, George | |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Verney, F. W. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F. | Fletcher, J. S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Forster, Henry William | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Peel, Hon. William Robert Wellesley |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gretton, John | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Renton, Leslie |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Haddock, George B. | Renwick, George |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Harrison-Broadley H. B. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Healy, T. M. (Louth, North) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Stanier, Beville |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hill, Sir Clement | Starkey, John R. |
| Clyde, James Avon | Hills, J. W. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Hunt, Rowland | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, N.) | Keswick, William | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Younger, George |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morpeth, Viscount | William Bull and Mr. Fell. |
§ Sir W. BULL moved in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "three shillings and ninepence," and to insert instead thereof the words "one shilling."
§
The Excise Duty in spirits prior to the Budget of the present year was 11s. per proof gallon, having been raised from 10s. 6d. by the extra 6d. imposed as a war tax in 1900, and subsequently made permanent. The Budget increase of 3s. 9d. per proof gallon has raised the duty to 14s. 9d. and the increase on the Excise and Customs Duty on spirits under the Budget, had the consumption remained unaltered, would have meant an addition of some £7,000,000 to the Revenue from the Spirit Duty. Having, however, to face a falling consumption, and the additional effect of the enormous increase in the duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated
740
that the increased yield of the duty would be about £1,600,000. He is reported to have said, and I think it is correct, that he had calculated on an 11 per cent. decrease in the consumption, but I have made a very careful examination of the available figures, and it seems to me that a reduction of about 15 per cent. may have been in his mind, the discrepancy perhaps being explained by his having in his reported remark dealt only with the further fall owing to the increase in the duty, and not with the decline of the consumption, which has been in evidence for years past. Assume that with a 15 per cent. drop in consumption as compared with last year, the yield at the increased duty might have produced the additional £1,600,000 to the Exchequer. What is shown by the returns as to the actual effect of the new duty?
741
The financial year terminates on March 31st. The Budget was not introduced till April 29th. The new Spirit Duty of 3s. 9d. per proof gallon became operative on and after April 30th. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated, the clearances in April largely swelled the yield in that month. The influence of such anticipatory clearances in March and April must be borne in mind when considering the heavy fall shown in the figures for May and June. But the general figures are very striking. The following figures have been given in reply to questions asked in Parliament by various hon. Members on July 13th, August 12th, and September 6th. The figures of beer and wine are also quoted, though the matter in point in the present instance relates to the figures as to spirits only:—In April, 1907, the home-made was £1,435,000; imported, £331,000; total, £1,766,000. In April, 1908, the home-made was, £1,435,000; imported, £327,000; total, £1,762,000. In April, 1909, the figures respectively were: £2,354,000, £486,000, and £2,840,000. In May, 1907, the figures were £1,461,000, £317,000, and £1,778,000. In May, 1908, the figures were £1,360,000, £280,000, and £1,640,000 respectively. In May, 1909, home-made dropped to £387,000; imported, to £104,000; total, £491,000. Therefore from April, 1907, to May, 1909, the drop was to considerably less than one-third. In June, 1907, the respective figures were: £1,234,000, £250,000, and £1,484,000. In June, 1908, the respective figures were £1,190,000, £219,000, and £1,409,000. In 1909, we get another drop, the figures being £587,000, £129,000, and £716,000. In July, 1909, the figures were £990,000, £180,000, and £1,170,000. In August, 1909, home-made was £1,075,000; imported, £188,000; total, £1,263,000, against £1,600,000 in August, 1907. Therefore, the drop, if the Committee have been able to follow these figures is something terrific in spirits. It is far more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently ever anticipated. The fall directly the new duty came in force is very striking. The following Question and Answer, put and given in the House on September 13th, 1909, may be quoted:—
Mr. PATRICK WHITE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the reduction in revenue on spirits taken out; of bond in Great Britain and Ireland during the four months May to August this year, as compared with the same period fast year; and whether he would stale the quantity of spirits taken out of bond for the seven months September, 1908, to March, 1909, and the quantity which would require to be taken out during the corresponding seven months of 1909–10
742
to produce revenue which, added to the preceding four months' yield, would give an amount equal to the revenue derived from duty on spirits in the corresponding eleven months of 1908–9, plus the estimated increase of revenue from the new duty?
The Secretary to the Treasury answered and said:—
The reduction in the revenue from spirits in the four months, May to August, 1909, as compared with May to August, 1908, was £2,189,000. The quantity of spirits on which duty was paid for the seven months September, 1908, to March, 1909, was 21,574,000 gallons. The quantity which would require to be cleared for the seven months from September, 1909, to March, 1910, in order to make the spirit revenue for the last eleven months of 1909–10 exceed that for the corresponding period of 1908–9 by the estimated increase of revenue from the new duty, i.e., £1,1100,000, would be about 23,680,000 gallons.
§ The explanation of the figures given in the above question as to the four months May to August seems to be as follows:—1908, 11,148,000 gallons, at 11s., brought in £6,131,000. In 1909 there were only 4,960,000, at 14s. 9d., which brought in £3,658,000, showing a decrease of £2,473,000. But the official figure for the decrease is slightly more, namely, £2,489,000. It will be observed that the question of the hon. Member for North Meath omits the month of April, no doubt owing to its abnormal position. The four months' (May-August) result of the operation of the new duty shows a decrease of 55½ per cent. in the consumption. If the April figures be included with the large clearances there is still a decrease of 29.2 per cent. in the amount taken for consumption. Now, to get the money estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it will be seen from the reply quoted above that the amount of spirits to be taken for consumption during the remaining seven months (September to March of the current financial year) would have to be only 894,000 gallons less than the figure for the same months in the preceding year. There would have to be only a decrease of 3.6 per cent. This points to the probability of a deficit instead of the expected gain; and illustrates the truth of the contention that the limit of taxable capacity had been reached.
§ It is clear, of course, that the estimate that consumption would fall off by one-sixth was too low. But, taking that figure, it would follow that instead of 23,000,000 gallons only 19,133,333 will have duty paid on them during these seven months. That is at least 4,500,000 gallons less than the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires. Translated into money at 14s. 9d. a gallon, it means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get £.3,318,000 less than he estimated. That is to say, instead of gaining £1,600,000, he 743 will lose £1,700,000 or more. As the consumption is diminishing to a greater extent than was anticipated, it is, indeed, probable that he will lose considerably over £2,000,000. This is a specimen of his finance. He has been warned again and again that it is unwise to tax a falling industry. He would not listen. He seems to have obstinately clung to the belief that if only you add enough to the duties they must yield more, which, of course, is a failing that Chancellors have again and again discovered to their cost. When they increase a tax upon a commodity beyond its taxable capacity the result, instead of a gain to the Exchequer, results in loss. The right hon. Gentleman has added as much as he dare to the Spirit Duty and there is still the prospect of losing £2,000,000 to the Exchequer. He says, in justification of this tax on whisky, that be must have the money. I am afraid in this particular instance in the Budget, instead of over-estimating as he has done on other occasions, it is perfectly clear that in this particular case he will probably lose a very considerable amount. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter, and try to remedy the mistake which I contend he has made by this proposal.
§ 12.0 P.M.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORThe hon. Member has given the Committee a number of figures to which I shall incidentally refer, but I will endeavour, as far as possible, not to repeat his statement. The figures which the hon. Gentleman has used refer mainly to the consumption of whisky. I would like the Committee to understand the point of view from which Members of the party in whose name I am speaking look at this tax, and that is not from the point of view of the consumption of whisky, but as a tax dealing a deadly blow at one of the very few manufactures left in Ireland. The very first figures I will quote will show that point of view. The average amount of spirits distilled in Ireland in 1906–7–8 was 12,105,499 gallons, and the average amount of spirits exported during the same period was 8,155,157 gallons. In round numbers it comes to this, that of the 12,000,000 gallons of whisky which were manufactured in Ireland, 8,000,000 gallons were exported. On this side of the House we have always contended that a large and pressing tax on whisky as compared with a small tax on beer was a preferential disadvantage to us, because, after all, whisky is the popular beverage of Ireland 744 and beer is the popular beverage of England. I do not want to dwell too much upon that fact, because I believe that statistics recently issued show that the consumption per capita in Ireland of whisky is rather lower than the consumption in England and Scotland. Although I hold the view that it is unfair to Ireland to tax its popular beverage gigantically higher proportionately than the popular beverage in England. I contend that the main strength of our position is that you are taxing in our case a manufacture as well as a beverage. I have given figures to show that of the whisky manufactured in Ireland, roughly, £12,000,000. £8,000,000 as an average are exported. On this question of taxing of whisky, we have maintained this position from almost the first moment the tax was brought into existence, and I regret to say that the history of the tax is far from creditable to the finances of this country and to those Gentlemen, to whatever party they belonged, who have been in charge of them. This tax was brought into existence in 1853 by the late Mr. Gladstone when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Naturally, it is far from my desire to say anything which might seem in the least degree derogatory to the memory of Mr. Gladstone, for, whatever disservice he did to Ireland in the earlier stages in his career, he more than made up for it by his passionate devotion to the cause of that country; but, at the same time, looking on Mr. Gladstone purely as a financier in 1853, I am sure in unconsciousness and in ignorance of the facts of the tax and of the conditions of Ireland, he inflicted upon Ireland one of the heaviest blows it ever received from the legislation of this country. In that year he established this tax and inflicted upon Ireland an additional burden of £2,500,000 of money. That is a very large addition to the taxation of a poor country at any time, and the hardship on that particular occasion was aggravated, according to the confession of every man, including, I believe, Mr. Gladstone himself, because this enormous addition to the taxation of Ireland was inflicted when she was just beginning to emerge from all the sorrows and sufferings of the famine which began in the year 1846. To show how even a humane man like Mr. Gladstone could, ignorant of the conditions of Ireland, inflict such a grievous injury upon the country, I have only to recall to the memory of the Committee what was painfully familiar to us on these Benches 745 that, at the very moment he added £2,500,000 of taxation to Ireland, people were flying from her shores at the rate of from 100,000 to 200,000 a year. I do not want to make the present Chancellor of the Exchequer responsible for all the errors and sins of his predecessors, but we feel we have on this question a great and grievious historic wrong. We have therefore, whenever a proposal has been made to increase this tax, always opposed the Government of the day. If I am not very much mistaken, it was on a proposal of the late Mr. Childers to increase the tax in 1885, that we defeated a great Ministry. After that defeat, Chancellors of the Exchequer left us alone for a while. There then, however, came the war, and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, looking round for revenue, made an addition to the tax on whisky. What was the condition? I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer must look with something like scorn on the timid modesty of his predecessor, for while he adds 3s. 9d. to the duty Sir Michael Hicks-Beach only put on 6d., and he excused his action on two grounds: First, he said it was a war tax. Of course a great war justifies taxation which would be unreasonable in times of peace. The second ground of excuse was that it was only a temporary tax. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's words were:—
I look upon it (the 6d. additional duty) as a temporary addition to existing taxation, and I hope merely for the coming year.That was the statement which was made in 1890; yet the tax which was to be imposed for one year only has remained ever since on this Irish manufacture, and the only realisation we have of the promise held out to us by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach is not the remission of the extra sixpence, but an addition to the tax of 3s. 9d. That is briefly the history of this taxation. Anybody who like me has represented in this House the ancient City of Galway, or who spent much of his boyhood there, must feel very acutely on this question. One of my earliest recollections is of the hideous skeleton of what was once a prosperous distillery. There is scarcely a town in the British Empire which bears upon its streets a more eloquent imprint of the disastrous results of decreasing trade and population. Every one of my friends who has visited that place will corroborate me when I say that there are in the centre streets a number of ghastly ruins of once reputable and decent houses. These ruins were to be seen in Galway when I was a boy: they are still to be seen there 746 and many others have since been added to the large number already in existence. But up till a few years ago there was one distillery left there. Now, however, that has disappeared, and anyone who has an idea of the hideous and crying want of employment in that poverty-stricken city will appreciate what it means when still another place of manufacture is closed.My hon. Friend and successor in the representation of Galway tells me that no fewer than 100 men were thrown out of employment by this last disaster. I knew very well the proprietor of that distillery, Mr. Henry Persse. He was a good old County Galway landlord and Tory. He told me the history of that distillery, and one of the most interesting chapters was this: In order to make the whisky as good as possible and to put it on a level with the best whiskies produced in Scotland, he came over to England to the place of business of a most respected Member of this House who died a few years ago—the late Col. Webb—and got from him the best barley seed that could be produced. Then he went back to County Clare and there created a new barley industry. Therefore I still adhere to my main position that you are interfering with a manufacture, and everybody will see who will pursue the facts of this case, that it is not only the manufacture of whisky that 13 paralysed or considerably prejudiced by such proposals as these, but a large amount of unemployment is created. This is true not only in regard to distilling, but that want of employment pursues Ireland in other directions, such as agriculture and the diminution of the crop of barley, which is one of the Irish farmer's best sources of revenue. Is it fair to Ireland at the moment when she is still suffering from the effects of the paralysis of her industries by the selfish lgislation—admitted to be selfish by every man in this House—of this country in the eighteenth century, that Ireland should be left with only a few manufactures, and you should inflict this deadly blow upon the manufacture of whisky and all the industries which are allied and associated with its manufacture. That is my objection to this tax from the point of view of the manufacturers; but I also venture to find fault with my right hon. Friend—though it is rather daring for me to do so—from the financial point of view, and here again, although I have not the exact words, I quote Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who, when he was urged by some people to increase 747 the tax upon whisky, speaking strictly from the financial point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that his reason for not increasing the tax on whisky was that he found that if you increase the tax beyond a certain point on such a product as whisky, the result was not the increase but the decrease of the return from that article, and my hon. Friend behind me, although I do not recollect it myself, says that Sir William Harcourt, also a great financial authority, said the same thing. Surely if ever prophecies were proved to be true by subsequent events these two prophecies of these two distinguished financiers have been realised. Of the many figures that were quoted by my hon. Friend I will only give just one, which, I understand, was drawn from an answer given from the Treasury Bench, and according to it the reduction of revenue from spirits from May, 1909, to August, 1909, as compared with the same period of the previous year was no less a sum than £2,489,000. I know that like the hon. Member, whom I once ventured to call the Robespierre of the Temperance Party, there are a certain number of men who would say that the fact that revenue was diminishing from whisky was "glad tidings of great joy."
I do not take quite the view that the reduction in the consumption of whisky necessarily means even an increase in temperance. What it does mean, and has meant in Ireland, is that people drink less whisky and more porter. That seems to me a very inverted kind of temperance indeed. But the peculiar position in which Ireland is placed is this: that if the consumption remains stationary then the customer has to pay the additional tax. If the export remains stationary or goes down, as it has done, Ireland again is damnified because of the reduction of the profits upon what is now one of her few remaining industries. I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way, taught by the falsification of his anticipations, to do away with this addition to the tax altogether. This tax has created in Ireland a feeling of disappointment—I might almost say of despair. If from a Government, many Members of which are friendly to the political opinions of the Irish Party, we are to get so crushing a blow as this, it seems almost to drive us to the conclusion that it is hard to expect on this whisky tax justice from any Ministry, whatever be its political complexion.
§ Sir JOHN DEWARIf there is a strong case for the Irish distiller there is a stronger one for the Scotch distiller, because if the tax hits Ireland unfairly, it hits Scotland very much more unfairly. If there is a reduction of something like 25 per cent. in the manufacture of Scotch distilleries, it is a very serious thing for the Scotch manufacturer. But I want to speak more from the point of view of the user, and how it is going to affect Scotland and the taxpayer in Scotland as a whole. I think it will result in inconvenience to the one and injustice to the other. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that although economically this may not perhaps be easily defended, still, morally, it is a good tax. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to keep in view the moral effect of the tax just as well as the economic effects of it, but at the same time I do not think the moral effect of this tax justifies the economic unsoundness of it. I believe its effect will be to send those who at present use spirits to use what is, to many of them, a much more objectionable and injurious form of stimulant. I know that since the Budget was introduced a return has been got from Scotland showing that the arrests for drunkenness have very materially decreased. Well, you cannot impose an additional tax of 33 per cent. on an article without having very unexpected results.
It is possible, of course, to make alcohol so expensive that nobody could afford to drink it, but there are many who will drink whether they can afford to do so or not. Those men who drink too much will have it whatever it may cost. The reduction in the consumption will take place not among the intemperate users of spirits, but among the temperate users. The increase in the duty will drive people to seek stimulants in illegal ways. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has discounted the chance of an increase in smuggling. The methods adopted for checking smuggling in Scotland have been very effective. I do not believe that it is so flourishing an industry as it used to be. In Ireland there are many seizures of smuggling apparatus. In the east ends of great towns some smuggling is carried on, and I should not be surprised if the change now to be made in the duty were to lead to an increase in that illicit industry. It is not difficult to make spirits. All you require is a kettle and a few yards of tubing. In that way spirits can be obtained which can be used by people who are not particular 749 about quality. It is a good thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the view that this tax may be defended on moral grounds, for on economic grounds it cannot be defended. It has been proved that it is economically unsound. We are all in favour of taxing luxuries, but this of all luxuries was the least able to bear it. It is already taxed 800 or 900 per cent. on the cost. Other kinds of alcohol are taxed on a very different scale. The spirit in beer, which is the drink of Englishmen, is taxed 2s. 2d. per proof gallon; in wine, 4s. 2d. to 7s. 4d. per gallon; while spirits are now to be taxed 14s. 9d. per gallon. It would seem, therefore, that of all luxuries spirits is the one which ought not to have been taxed. Over and above that the demand for spirits is steadily declining, and an article which is becoming less popular is surely not the one which should be singled out for increased taxation. Beer has increased in popularity, and is being more largely consumed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The consumption of beer has gone down."] It increased last year. No other article would have been treated in this way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been warned by what happened when the duty on spirits was last increased, but in the face of that the duty is to be increased 3s. 9d. per gallon, or about 33 per cent. The result may be that instead of getting the £1,600,000 additional revenue which the Government hope to receive, the increase will yield to the revenue nothing at all. It is very likely that the duty will yield much less at 14s. 9d. than last year when it was 11s.
One word as to how it affects Scotland. It hits the manufacturer. It means a reduction of something like 25 per cent. in the working of various distilleries. Those distilleries are mainly in the Highlands and the poor districts. There is a large group of them on the west coast, but they are mostly in Morayshire, Banffshire and Inverness-shire, in the very poorest parts of the country. Now as to how it affects the Scotch taxpayer. The Scotch taxpayer is taxed at a very much higher rate for the article he consumes than any other inhabitant of these islands. The Englishman consumes 4.6 proof gallons of alcohol in the year, and the Scotchman 3.2 proof gallons. The Englishman consumes it in the proportion of four parts of beer to one of spirits, and the Scotchman three parts of beer to four parts of spirits. The Englishman for his 4.6 proof gallons of alcohol pays 16s. 10d. to the 750 revenue, while the Scotchman for his 3.2 proof gallons pays the revenue 22s. The Scotchman consumes 1.4 gallons less and contributes 5s. 2d. more. Take the consumption for the whole of the country. Last year England consumed 22 million gallons of spirit, Scotland consumed 7 million gallons, and Ireland 36 million gallons. England consumed a great deal more than the other two put together.
The Prime Minister reading out an answer to a question seemed to think that that was a complete answer to the accusation that they were taxing Scotland unfairly. But those are the very figures to which we object. The proportion of taxation which ought to be contributed to the revenue is—England 80 per cent., Scotland 11 per cent., and Ireland 9 per cent., but of the taxation England contributes only 61 per cent. instead of 80, Scotland 21 per cent. instead of 11, and Ireland 11 instead of 9. These are the proportions for last year. The extra 3s. 9d. would make it infinitely worse now. In a full year England would contribute £4,100,000 more, Scotland £1,300,000, and Irleand £680,000 extra. Scotland would thus pay £610,000 more and Ireland £130,000 more than its fair share. England is thus paying upwards of £700,000 less than its fair share. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question, pointed out that on the Licence Duties England contributes a very large sum, which ought to equalise those duties, but since that the Licence Duties have been modified, and in that event we are entitled to ask for a modification of the Spirit Duty. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended that the licence holder should put the extra profit he got on the increase in price of spirits towards paying any Licence Duty in view of that. I was a little surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say to-day that he did not think the Licence Duty was ultimately paid by the consumer.
My point is this: If, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, this question is put right by the Licence Duty being much more largely contributed to in England than if he modified the Licence Duty, then at the same time, in fairness, he ought to modify the Whisky Duty. If the extra duty, this sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires, had been raised from beer, what would the effect have been. Beer stands in a very much better position than spirits. The reason which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives is that he could not 751 put such a sum on beer as would justify the retailer in putting on a halfpenny per glass. I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should think that any disadvantage. The present duty on beer is only one halfpenny on three glasses, and yet it is paid by the consumer. How is the extra duty on spirits paid? It is not paid in every case by putting on one-halfpenny per glass. Some retailers have raised the price, some have reduced the quantity, some have reduced the quality, and some, I dare say, have done all three. But that will regulate itself ultimately. Competition between traders will ultimately put that right, and the result will be that the consumer will certainly pay all the duty, and probably a little more. If this had been put on beer instead of whisky, Scotland would have paid a million pounds less than she now pays by this form of tax, and that means 5s. per head for every man, woman and child in that country. It is a very serious thing. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here, for I wished to draw his attention to the constituency of East Fife, which is a fair specimen. On a moderate computation it will mean something like £15,000 contributed by East Fife, and something like a million pounds contributed by Scotland more than its fair share. I have only this further to say, that, seeing the return from 14s. 9d. is to be less than the return from 11s., if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the Amendment which is proposed by the hon. Member opposite, he will get not less but more revenue from this tax.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe three speeches to which we have listened from an hon. Member opposite, from an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and from my hon. Friend behind me have been very much to the same effect, all couched in very similar language, all breathing a very similar spirit, and all making complaint, not, I am happy to say, that some extra contribution should not be made by the consumers of whisky, or the producers of whisky, as the case may be, but all agreeing that there should be some increase while deprecating the necessity for that increase which is involved in the new proposal.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORI did not express any such wish.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo, but the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment to 752 insert 1s. instead of 3s. 9d., so that at all events he agrees that a tax of one shilling is not unjust or unfair to put on the consumers of whisky, because after all the producers or manufacturers invariably do their best to transfer the tax to the consumer. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment gives the House a number of very interesting figures which it was rather difficult to follow. [Mr. T. M. HEALY, "Oh!"] They occupied twenty minutes and I confess I was perfectly unable to follow them, and I think the majority was in the same position as myself. The hon. Gentleman opposite has a copy of it, and it is easier for him than anybody else in the House to do so. As far as I could understand, his principal complaint was that we had very much underrated the decrease in the consumption and the consequent fall in revenue which resulted from the increase in the tax. I have answered on behalf of my right hon. Friend a great number of questions put to me from every part of the House for at least three or four months trying to prove that the small increase which was estimated by my right hon. Friend was an improperly small increase, and that we were deliberately and unjustifiably putting down the increased revenue which we might expect from the increased tax, and that we were, to that extent, trying to mislead the House of Commons and the country by our anticipations. From the point of view of revenue unhappily we were only too sanguine with our estimate. There have been two quite clear and easily understood reasons why there has been a great falling off in the apparent consumption of whisky, and the withdrawal of whisky from bond, and the falling off in revenue. One is due to the anticipation that took place previous to the present financial year, and in the second place the anticipation which took place between the 1st of April and the 30th of April of this year. The statement was made somewhat later than usual, and the trade being excited by some extra tax on whisky the result was that there were large forestalments swelling the revenue of last year and depleting the revenue of this year; from both causes to which I have alluded. But in addition to that which is the normal case whenever an increase is anticipated—
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYCan you give us the figures of the withdrawals?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEMy right hon. Friend, who will speak later, has got them 753 and will give them to the House. In addition to that usual forestalment there is a very considerable hope, on the part of at all events some of those who deal in spirits, that the duty will not be imposed. Some are hoping that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will mitigate what they deem to be the severity of the tax, and others hope, owing to an electoral decision, that the proposal may be nullified. Both those anticipations are, I think, false. The postponement of the withdrawal of whisky from bond and placing it upon the market, while undoubtedly depleting the revenue for the earlier part of the year, will only swell it in the later part. But however that may be, the fact remains that at the present moment the revenue is undoubtedly a great deal less than we had anticipated. As has already been pointed out, there has been a great decrease in the consumption of whisky. I do not know whether the fact is deplored by hon. Gentlemen opposite; it is certainly not by the great majority of Members on this side. The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir J. Dewar) said that this was not merely an economic, but a moral tax. It was not imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with any view to morality, but if its fiscal operation leads to morality, I do not think any Member in the House could object to that result. With reference to another apprehension of my hon. Friend, I can assure him that there is no indication of any sort to lead the revenue authorities to suppose that there either has been or is any considerable prevalence of smuggling, at any rate in Scotland, and there has been no increase lately. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) referred to the fact that when Sir M. Hicks-Beach, as he then was, put an extra 6d. on whisky, it failed to produce any more revenue, and led to the belief that the taxation of spirits had practically reached Lbs highest point. The folly, from the fiscal point of view, of putting on so small a tax as 6d. is that it is quite possible to defeat the intention of the Government by decreasing the strength of the whisky, by lowering the quality while adding to the quantity. One of the reasons which have led my right hon. Friend to propose so heavy an addition to the tax is the belief that it will be impossible to evade the imposition by decreasing the strength of the spirits sold. I have been taken to task for saying all taxes are unpleasant. I do not know that the taxation of whisky is more pleasant than any other taxation; but if one of the results of 754 the heavy taxation is to diminish the consumption of that spirit I do not think it is a fact to be altogether regretted by the House.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThe greater the inexperience of the Minister the more confident he becomes. So far as I know, both the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are in their first year's Budget, and one would suppose, to listen to them, that they were Finance Ministers of 25 years' standing. Accordingly, these Gentlemen, who never had the taxation of the country in their hands before, get up into the box with absolute self-confidence, as if they had served an apprenticeship to the job, and deny the experience of generations, and throw to the winds the statements and suggestions of men of experience, Mr. Gladstone and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. In this case they do so in face of the flattest contradiction of their own prophecies; in face of the falling revenue of millions, against their own estimate of increased revenue.
I want to call the attention of the House to the way Ireland suffers—I do not say that Scotland is not in the same case—from the Budget. Here we are in the month of September dealing with an overloaded Budget—a tired House, a tired Ministry, with fatigue as the fastest friend of the Government. What was the case before this system of Finance Bills had been invented, and invented apparently to cope with the House of Lords? Practically every tax was the subject of a separate Bill. Now you take up this question, affecting vitally one country out of three, or two countries out of three. And you, by the modern system of finance legislation, by introducing a whole number of other things in which the other countries are less interested, put the minor grievances of the larger and wealthier country in the foreground, and then you get not only an exhausted house, but an exhausted party, and naturally laxity of attention and Debates after midnight. As to the new system, take the case we heard to-night. You put first in this very Clause a tax on chloroform—on hospitals, on charity, and on photographers. The very drafting of this Clause is an offence, because you, in order that you may dawdle out the time, attempt practically a fraud on the House of Commons. Why, even your Schedule is better than your Clause. You put in your Schedule, page 53, an additional duty on spirits first. You put the duty on chloroform, and chloral hydrate in the second 755 Schedule. This is modern draftsmanship; this is modern finance. Of course all these things are cunningly contrived, just as the Minister cunningly contrives to put this tax into the sixty-first Clause of his Bill. Fancy a tax of this kind affecting-Ireland and being put number sixty-one in order! Of course English Members who are rich men can spend their time here; they have only to take a shilling hansom cab to come clown to the House. It is nothing to them, but perhaps if they lived four or five hundred miles away, and had to come here at great expense, and stay here at great expense, they might take a different view of the case. So much upon what I may call the fringe of the subject.
Let me come now to the prophesy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Secretary to the Treasury conceded one thing which I perfectly believe. When the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway quoted the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, he said he was unable to follow them. I fully accept that statement. The extraordinary thing, however, is that these figures which were collated by hon. Members above the Gangway and by us, were extracted by a question of the hon. Member for North Meath, and were read everyone of them by the Secretary to the Treasury in the answer which he gave to the hon. Member. What does that prove? It proves that the right hon. Gentleman was a mere phonograph of the Treasury. He rattled them off without in the least taking the smallest interest in the fact that so far as some of the countries he is supposed to govern are concerned—these are vital statistics—and he does not understand them. That is modern finance: he does not understand his own figures, and he is quite proud of it. Another extraordinary thing is his whole reply was founded upon this fact. "Oh," said he, "it is all to be explained by anticipatory withdrawals." He is confident of that. I asked him could he give the figures of the anticipatory withdrawals. Not at all! His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them when he came to speak. Is this the case of the Finance Minister that he is stuffed like a turkey for fattening? The Treasury clerks take a mass of figures and by some means or another he gets them into his system; he cannot assimilate them, and when his own figures are quoted he is really unable to comprehend them. I fancy I see Mr. Gladstone at that table—a man 756 who if he had to lay a tax of a farthing on the subject, would turn it over and over again in his brain, and when about it, would listen to you patiently, no matter what the hour of the day or night, and would take the fortune of the meanest subject of this realm into his great consideration. There is a large majority now, I quite agree, behind the Government. It makes an enormous difference in the way figures are handled, and in the way Statesmen behave on the Treasury Bench. I wonder sometimes they come into the House at all. Some of them do not, and I think they are quite right, having regard to the way their action is received by the present House of Commons.
1.0 A.M.
I now come to the estimates that have been formed. May I say that nobody was more pleased to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer achieve his great position than myself, and I feel sure that after he has had a little more experience he will regret this Budget. I cannot believe that any man, no matter how able, can jump in a year and six months to the great position which Mr. Gladstone once occupied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a very arduous Session, and I greatly sympathise with him. Although I may think the right hon. Gentleman in some of his proposals is wrong, I recognise that at the bottom and foundation of his action there lie those considerations upon which he and I take common ground. I am not blaming his intentions or the spirit in which he carries out his duty, but I do say it is inevitable when a Minister comes for the first time into a great position he falls absolutely into the hands of the officials. Who made all these prophecies? Who made these estimates? The right hon. Gentleman himself a year or two ago would not have ventured to have made such prophecies as he has now made. At any rate what he has prophesied, as I understand it, is that there will be an increased yield for the year of £1,900,000. That was a prophecy in which he must have been assisted by someone. Has he forgotten Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's statement that taxation on whisky had reached the highest point, and that was at a time when he was putting this tax on as a war tax? What war tax are you going to raise in Ireland when you have exhausted these duties? Will you tax bread and salt and stirabout? I say that unless you can justify this as a war tax there is no justification for it; and as a war tax where would you be if, relying on an extra yield of £1,600,000 for the production 757 of armaments and pay of men, you find instead of that additional yield you get a loss of £1,700,000. Grattan once said: "You cannot argue with a prophet; you can only contradict him." But here you have the prophet falsified. It is a strange thing that the falsification of the prophecy of the right hon. Gentleman takes place in England. Let me ask this—suppose your tax were on wine, and you carefully avoided taxing whisky? The Secretary to the Treasury says that he is sure that his hon. Friends below the Gangway would be very pleased if whisky should cease to be drunk. Have any of them drunk a bottle of champagne themselves? It is pretended that the poor man's liquor may be attacked, and that the rich man's liquor may be left untouched. You treat the Budget as though it were a sacrament of reconciliation, some incense you offer on the altar of morality. I think it was Artemus Ward who displayed his moral waxworks. This is a moral Budget. Suppose this were a tax on wine, and that a friendly Government in France—where, remember, there was recently, owing to the exactions and mistakes of the Central Government, something almost like a revolution in the wine country—supposing that the French Government were able to show that England, her largest customer, had practically brought about the destruction of the wine-growing industry in the Gironde or other wine districts of France, what remonstrances would come to the Treasury from the French Ambassador! You are taking up one little manufacture which your laws have left to Ireland—and you have left in many places nothing but ruin—and what is going to happen? I have a distillery in my district. For twenty years it has not paid its way, and the consequence of this Budget will be to starve out something like a hundred families. These people and their fate will not affect England. Should the distillery of Persse of Galway come to an end there would not be a ripple of feeling throughout all broad England on the subject. When distilleries in Ireland are destroyed, the work will be gone, the capital gone, the factory gone, the machinery sold, and you never can resuscitate the distilleries. Remember that these are old trades which have lasted for hundreds of years, and that each distillery has its special secrets—it was a question of moment at one time whether the excellence of the article was due to brewing, distilling, purchasing of grain, or mashing—all these things, to which generations 758 of men for hundreds of years have given their time, you propose for your miserable necessities of the moment to wipe out and to send the manufacturers abroad to America or Australia. And why? On the prophesy, the false prophesy, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he may get more money. And if he does not, what will the explanation he-will give be? "Oh, it was the month of April"; "it was withdrawals"; "it was the March hares of March," or some other futile consideration. Why had not such explanations been substantiated by the production of the figures of withdrawals? The Secretary to the Treasury said that the figures will be supplied in due time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I look back to the day of Mr. Gladstone's Government.
In June, 1885, this House was packed and excited, it was a Debate in June; many Members found themselves unable to come beyond the Bar, and it was all on the question of putting a sixpence on whisky. On this question Mr. Gladstone's Government was hurled out of Office. The Government of that day were able to take up the question in June, the present Government are only able to take it up in September. In the long period of delay some people thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to drop the tax, while others relied upon a General Election. I believed, from all I read in the Irish Press of the efficacy of what is called judicious negotiation, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to yield. I have been waiting here for a considerable time to see when the concessions to Ireland are going to be given. On every Clause you hear that there is going to be some concession made to Ireland. Now we are at Clause 61, and when is the concession to Ireland going to come? The extraordinary thing about it is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the responsible Minister, delegates his refusal to—I hope it is not offensive to say so—to an underling who came down flat-footed and said, "I am thinking imperially; I refuse to-give this foreign beer any concession; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Bung will say ditto." At what special date did the Treasury Moses strike the rock? Remember that you are racking the tax out of the people who are expected to sell this commodity and to pay you more money for the right to sell it, although by your own confession they have sold millions of gallons less than you expected. So that not only is the consumer to be charged 759 extra for the product, but the vendor of the product is to pay a higher Licence Duty for selling less of the article. I am not going into the question of the difference between Scotland and England and Ireland.
I say Ireland cannot stand it. I am satisfied Ireland cannot stand this tax. I leave aside the question that we shall not, practically speaking, get any benefit out of this tax. If England gets some benefit and Scotland gets some benefit (I suppose Rosyth will cost the taxpayers some millions of money), where do we stand? At any rate, some advantage goes to Great Britain. Oh! it is sickening. You will not find an Irish Member who in relation to old age pensions said one word on the subject. You will find that the attitude which we took up on old age pensions was most careful and guarded. And when you brought in the Old Age Pensions Bill it was said that you had stripped our clothes to pay for them. I am not going now into the comparative benefits to the various countries. But I would point out that a man in England pays twopence for a glass of beer and has three halfpennyworth of manufactured value, the Government getting one halfpenny; but if a man gets two pennyworth of whisky in Ireland, the Government gets 1½d. and he gets only ½d. But I refuse to argue the case by these considerations. I say you have bled Ireland white in point of taxation, and you, remember, profess to be the Party which stood by Mr. Gladstone's Royal Commission which 15 years ago gave a solemn decision that Ireland was paying three millions too much. And it is on the top of this and in face of that decision that your so-called Home Rule Ministry and by a Minister we used to count among our friends put this iniquity upon us.
§ Mr. G. YOUNGERI think it is very much to be regretted that a tax of this kind should be discussed at this hour of the morning. I am bound to say that I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has resolved to take this Clause up at such a late hour. I say so as the Member for a constituency which contains no less than 23 distilleries, the proprietors and others attached to which are extremely concerned about this tax, whose future welfare depends on the manner the right hon. Gentleman deals with it, and who will be unable to read a single word of this Debate to-morrow, for it is not 760 likely to be reported in the Scottish papers. Their representative, I think, is entitled to complain of the action taken by the Government. I have duplicated on the Paper the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) to reduce this proposed tax to 1s., because I am perfectly convinced that not only will the Revenue greatly suffer by the extent of the imposition proposed, but that my constituents will very greatly suffer; and seeing the position of affairs, I think it a very sad and serious thing that burdens should be put upon the shoulders of these unfortunate people who happen to be distillers in Scotland.
I think the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is far more likely to be achieved if he were to reduce the tax. After all, this is not a temperance measure. It is difficult to believe, no doubt, but it is a Finance Bill, though there are many peculiarities about it. Therefore, as this is a Finance Bill, and we are not now-dealing with the Question from any moral point of view, I believe the normal flow of trade could possibly be restored if something like an extra 1s. were asked for instead of the 3s. 9d. which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say he will reduce the tax at the end of the year, I do not think it will make an atom of difference in the withdrawals from bond between now and March 31st There is a general feeling that some sensible Chancellor of the Exchequer after an election will practically restore things. I have been interested in reading the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly those of the President of the Board of Trade, who I am sorry to see has gone to bed. He has told his audience on every occasion that the Budget puts no tax on industry. I wish he would go on an excursion with me to Campbeltown and stand up on a platform in Campbeltown and say that the Budget places no tax on industry. I should be sorry for his skin if he did so. There is an unfortunate pressure about what is proposed. These people are attacked, most seriously attacked, by this tax. They depend wholly or almost wholly on the distilling industry for a livelihood. It is not expected that a single gallon of whisky will be made there this winter. Of course there are large stocks in the country, but there are no orders coming in, and there will be no employment for these 6,000 or 7,000 people. There is nothing they can look to. They 761 live down in the Mull of Kintyre, far removed from the other parts of Scotland, except by steamer communication. These people cannot go into any other trade, and there is no casual labour for them, and they have a miserable winter to which to look forward, all because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a mistake and proposed to put on this tax, which has stopped all the demand, and ruined this trade, at any rate for the time being, and I doubt whether it will ever be able to recover its former position. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in making a case for the tax, said that the falling off was due to anticipation of the increased duty. I have dealt already with that. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the reason why the heavy tax was imposed was this: that if a light tax had been imposed, dilution would be practised, and the Treasury would not have got their money. That probably was true enough some years ago, and it would have been a good enough argument before the tax was raised to 11s., but since that time whisky has been and is now sold in public-houses all over the country at something so closely approaching the minimum standard which is allowed by law to be sold, that it is impossible to further dilute it. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, ought to have known that. If he had consulted the Board of Inland Revenue they would have told him that whisky is now sold 24 under proof, and that the law forbids it being sold at less than 25 under proof. That was the position enacted by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I submit it is not now possible to depart from it. The fact is very well known to the Inland Revenue, and they ought to have informed the Treasury of it. The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir J. Dewar) ended by giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer some extremely bad advice. He told him he ought to have raised this money from beer, and he also said that beer was increasing in consumption, while that of whisky was decreasing. I cannot understand where the hon. Member got his figures from. Does he not know that the consumption of beer decreased last year by more than 1,000,000 barrels—I think the exact figure was 1,100,000? Even last month, although it is said that breweries have benefited by the Whisky Tax, the duty received was reduced by £130,000 or £140,000 in comparison with the corresponding month last year. Once bitten 762 is twice shy, and I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the painful experience he has had of taxing an article falling in consumption, is likely to go to another which is falling equally in order to obtain further sums for the Treasury. Even the right hon. Gentleman has too much wisdom for that, and I do not think he will try that game. Therefore, I do not think the advice the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir J. Dewar) gave will be accepted.
I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even at this late moment, to reconsider this tax. I believe that if he could see his way to contemplate a certain loss by reducing this impost to 1s., and if he would study the trade—for they are perfectly willing to bear their share of the burden—there would be little chance of the duty being reduced in the next Parliament, and there would only be the ordinary withdrawals from bond instead of that hand to mouth withdrawal which is certain to take place and which will seriously affect the Revenue up to the end of the financial year. It will not only help the Treasury by conceding this moderate tax, but it will also give the licence holder the advantage he is entitled to, namely, to charge an advance of a certain sum in order to pay the new Licence Duty, a prospect now denied to him if he cannot sell whisky at a profit. The right hon. Gentleman, by taking the course I have suggested, will also do a service to the publican and some good to distillers in the North of Scotland, those who depend upon them, and those who grow barley. The barley grown in the north, in Morayshire for instance, cannot be sold there and will have to be sold in the south. This will no doubt help the brewers over the three-penny stile which the right hon. Gentleman has erected, but it will mean a loss to the farmer. Take it which way you like and look where you please, the tax will do the Scottish distilling trade and the agricultural industry great disservice. It will not yield an income to the Treasury, and from all points of view the proposal seems to me to be extremely bad and unfortunate.
Mr. P. J. POWERWe have heard various reasons adduced in speeches and in conversations why Ireland should support this Clause. It is said that if we are in favour of temperance it is our duty to support this Clause. I may mention in passing that even the most extreme advocates of temperance in Ireland are, as a body, 763 opposed to this unjust taxation. I have heard the argument used inside and outside this House that Ireland has derived such immense advantage from old age pensions that it is only just and right that she should contribute to the fund. I believe that is a most fallacious argument. We have again and again endeavoured to state the poverty of our country in this House. It is not a pleasant task for an Irish Member to do it, but we have to do it. I consider the very size of the sum which has come to Ireland for Old Age Pensions is a great corroboration of the statements we have made, and ought to be a proof to the Government of the intense poverty that exists in the country. So far from justifying the imposition of additional taxes on Ireland, I think the appalling poverty which the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act has proved should urge the Government to deal in a more lenient and more just way with us than they propose to do. I believe that the sum that comes into Ireland would be larger than it is were it not for the non-registration of births. There are hundreds and thousands who should be in receipt of old age pensions who have been cut off through the legislation of this House. Let us look at the matter from another point of view. In the admirable speech delivered by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) he pointed out that the effects of the tax are far-reaching, and that it will reduce the area of the country under tillage. I wish Sir Edward Clarke were here in this House. He was a distinguished Member of it, and I remember hearing him deliver speeches on the subject of taxation in England as compared with that in Ireland, and he proved that in England the consumption per head was £4 2s., and the taxation levied was only 15s. 6d. per head, but that while the consumption in Ireland was only £2 13s. per head we contributed 13s. 6d. per head. This tax is imposed on one of the few remaining industries you have not crushed out of existence. By the action you are taking to-night I believe you will kill that industry. I remember very well that when the extra 6d. was put on whisky it was predicted that it would begin the process of killing the industry, and I think that the figures that have been published show that you have already taxed whisky too much, and that this extra tax is not only going to kill an industry, but that it will not bring in a farthing of the sum expected from it.
§ Mr. RENWICKIn the course of the Debate we have heard a good deal about the effect of this tax upon the distiller, but very little has been said about the injustice which it does to the consumer of whisky. The tax proposes to take out of the pockets of the consumers of whisky a sum of £1,600,000 in addition to the enormous sum of £21,000,000 a year already levied on spirits. That is to say, it proposes to increase the £21,000,000 to no less than £23,000,000. Who are the principal consumers of spirits, upon whom, be it remembered, this additional burden will fall? It is no reflection upon the working classes to say that they are the principal consumers of whisky, and whisky forms a very large proportion of the spirits which are taxed to the enormous extent I have indicated. If they are the consumers—a fact which nobody will dispute—they are the people who are asked to pay this taxation. I maintain that it is a manifest injustice to ask the working classes to contribute this enormously increased amount of taxation in respect of the alcohol they consume, especially as the burden they have to bear in connection with the old taxation is already very heavy.
I remember that in May last, when the Resolution in regard to the tax was under discussion in this House, the Prime Minister made an extraordinary admission. He said that the publican, the retailer of spirits, could recoup himself for the extra tax in one or two ways. He could add to the dilution, which was already allowed by law, and in that way he could take the tax off the consumer. The Prime Minister added that he was informed the publicans had done this deliberately, and were making an increased profit of £4,000,000. If you add that £4,000,000 to the £1,600,000, you arrive at the result that the working classes will be called upon to pay £5,600,000 more as the result of this tax alone. A statement of that kind, even when repeated some months after it was made, deserves attention, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a fact that in addition to the £1,600,000 which he expects to get for the revenue the publicans will be able further to tax the consumers to the extent of £4,000,000. The matter is very serious, and I commend it to the attention of the Labour Members, who ought to back me up in the demand I am making for an explanation. I do not expect they will do so, because they are bound hand and foot to the Government. They must recollect, however, that this question can 765 be raised in the country, and, as a matter of fact, has been raised already. Depend upon it, the consumers who are called upon to pay this enormous amount of extra taxation are people with votes, and when they have an opportunity to exercise those votes they will not forget this impost. It is very significant that every penny of this £1,600,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to get from the addition to the tax will be collected in the current year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that next year he expects to raise upwards of £2,000,000. I would point out that the Government are proposing to spend £2,000,000 on the valuation of land, and it will bring in during this financial year probably only £50,000. I maintain, therefore, that the proposal as regards the tax we are now discussing is a gross injustice on the working classes as compared with the burden on the other classes who are proposed to be taxed in regard to their ownership of land. The latter class are not called upon this year to pay an amount anything like equivalent to that which is to be extracted from the consumers of whisky and is therefore to be taken directly out of the pockets of the working men. The matter is one of extreme importance to some of the poorest people in the country.
If it is immoral to drink whisky it is folly to think that you can make it
§ more moral by increasing taxation. If it is immoral, it is not the duty of the Government to tax it to a greater extent, but to do away with it altogether. The very fact that the Government recognise the traffic in liquor as legitimate justifies those who consume it in saying that they ought not to take this particular article and put such an enormous amount of taxation upon it. If the Government had introduced a corresponding tax on the rich man's wine there might have been some justification for the course they have adopted. But whilst they are taxing the working men to this enormous extent they have not had the courage to put a corresponding duty on the wines consumed by the richer classes. I shall not be surprised if I do not receive from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the explanation I desire, because whenever I ask the right hon. Gentleman for any figures he seems to know nothing about the matter, and when the right hon. Gentleman is not in the House, those he loaves in charge of the Bill seem equally ignorant.
§ 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, 112; Noes, 95.
767| Division No. 721.] | AYES. | [1.40 a.m. |
| Agnew, George William | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Everett, R. Lacey | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Nuttall, Harry |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Findlay, Alexander | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Barker, Sir John | Fuller, John Michael F. | Partington, Oswald |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Gibson, James Puckering | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Gulland, John W. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Harcourt, Robert V, (Montrose) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Bennett, E. N. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Pointer, Joseph |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hedges, A. Paget | Pollard, Dr. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Helme, Norval Watson | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Higham, John Sharp | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rees, J. D. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Holt, Richard Durning | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton) |
| Clough, William | Horniman, Emslie John | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Robinson, S. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lamont, Norman | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lupton, Arnold | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Maclean, Donald | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Seely, Colonel |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Marnham, F. J. | Summerbell, T. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Massie, J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Elibank, Master of | Middlebrook, William | Tomkinson, James |
| Essex, R. W. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Toulmin, George |
| Verney, F. W. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | |
| Waring, Walter | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir Edward Strachey. |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wilkie, Alexander | |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | |
| Watt, Henry A. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Gretton, John | Murphy, John |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F. | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Haddock, George B. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Nolan, Joseph |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harris, Frederick Leverton | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Boland, John | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hazleton, Richard | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Healy, T. M. (Louth, North) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hill, Sir Clement | Ratcliffe, Major R. F. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Roddy, M. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Renton, Leslie |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc.) | Joyce, Michael | Renwick, George |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Keating, Matthew | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kilbride, Denis | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Clyde, James Avon | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Sheehy, David |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Stanier, Beville |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Starkey, John R. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lundon, Thomas | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lynch, Arthur Alfred (Clare, W.) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Cullinan, J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Devlin, Joseph | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) | M'Kean, John | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meagher, Michael | Younger, George |
| Duffy, William J. | Mooney, J. J. | |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster. |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.) | Muidoon, John |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
768§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 94.
769| Division No. 722.] | AYES. | [1.45 a.m. |
| Agnew, George William | Elibank, Master of | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Essex, R. W. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Evans, Sir S. T. | Massie, J. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Everett, R. Lacey | Middlebrook, William |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Barker, Sir John | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Findlay, Alexander | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Gibson, J. P. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Bennett, E. N. | Gulland, John W. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Partington, Oswald |
| Brodie, H. C. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Haworth, Arthur A. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hedges, A. Paget | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Helme, Norval Watson | Pointer, J. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., s.) | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Clough, William | Higham, John Sharp | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Holt, Richard Durning | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Horniman, Emslie John | Rees, J. D. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Robinson, S. |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Lamont, Norman | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Lupton, Arnold | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Maclean, Donald | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Seely, Colonel | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Summerbell, T. | Watt, Henry A. | |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | |
| Tomkinson, James | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey. |
| Toulmin, George | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | |
| Verney, F. W. | Wilkie, Alexander | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Gretton, John | Murphy, John (Kerry, E.) |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Haddock, George B. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Nolan, Joseph |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harris, Frederick Leverton | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Boland, John | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hazleton, Richard | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Healy, Timothy Michael | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Reddy, M. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hunt, Rowland | Renton, Leslie |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Joyce, Michael | Renwick, George |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Keating, Matthew | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Kilbride, Denis | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Sheehy, David |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Stanier, Beville |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Starkey, John R. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lundon, T. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lynch, A. (Clare, W.) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cullinan, J. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Devlin, Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | M'Kean, John | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Duffy, William J. | Meagher, Michael | |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Mooney, J. J. | |
| Fell, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain | W. Bull and Mr. Younger. |
| Foster, P. S. | Muldoon, John |
§ Mr. JOHN MOONEY proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ I do so partly because of the lateness of the hour, and partly because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave a definite and deliberate pledge in the course of the Debate on the last Amendment, a pledge which there has been no attempt made to keep. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the House when the discussion was taking place upon an Amendment which vitally affects not only Ireland but Scotland and England as well. In view of the way we have been treated in that respect, and of the fact that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury promised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reply to the points raised, and give us figures on which he contradicted us; and that the only contribution to the Debate we have, in fact, got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was his Motion that the Question be now put—under all these circumstances I think we have no option whatever but to propose, as I now do, that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
770§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI was not aware that my right hon. Friend had promised that I should take part in the Debate, if I had known I should have certainly intervened. I very much regret that I did not know that the promise was given. As to the figures, I assumed that they were asked for, and I sent them across the floor by one of my friends on this Bench. I regret that there has been a misunderstanding, but, at any rate, the Clause is not yet disposed of, and the figures will be relevant to any part of the discussion on it. When I take part in the discussion on the Clause I can give the figures. I very much regret that I was not aware of the statement which was made on my behalf.
§ 2 A.M.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGOf course, everybody will accept without hesitation the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was not aware of the promise made and he will not be surprised, nor will the Committee, if we draw attention to the extraordinary difficulty under which we are asked to debate the Bill. A Minister who occupies the responsible position held by the Secretary to the 771 Treasury, who is always understood to be the right hand man of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tells the Committee that he is unable to meet the demand made to him for the production of some figures dealing with a point in very active dispute. In answer to the demand all he could say was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would produce the figures and take part in the Debate. It is an amazing thing that that statement should have been made on behalf of the Government, and that the Minister in charge of the Bill should not have been told that this promise had been made on his behalf. There will be no desire or attempt to refuse to accept the personal assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think we are entitled to complain that when we are discussing, as we were discussing, a most important Amendment to a most important Clause, that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it right to Closure the Debate, although he must have been aware that no one from this Bench had spoken—a fact which surely would have lead him to believe that we were expecting a fuller and more complete reply than we had received from the Secretary to the Treasury. I do not think anybody will accuse me of bitter language when I say that the reply the Secretary to the Treasury made to the demand for fairer treatment on this part of the financial proposals was inadequate. I think he himself will admit that he did not make a reply which could be thought convincing and adequate to the demands made. Surely it was known to the Government that the Debate opened up the whole question not only of the distilling trade but of the allied trades and of the great industry of agriculture. On behalf of the latter not one single speech has been made. Nobody spoke from this bench. Although we do not suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware of the promise that had been made, we hope in future the Members of the Government will be more communicative with each other as to arrangements than on this occasion.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI accept the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What a position this puts Irish interests and Scottish interests in. This tax is absolutely unexampled. From the Budget point of view the Ministry do not think it worth while on the appeal made by 772 Scotland or Ireland to put a Cabinet Minister up to state the case of the Government. After all, those of us who are foreigners here, take an interest in the procedure and in the past of this House. And I say is it not an extraordinary thing on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that with regard to a tax affecting a vital interest and the question also of industry he should come down to this House, and having sought to justify a Budget tax of 3s. 9d. on whisky, he should say, "I do not intend to trouble about the Irish and Scotch case—I have got my majority"? But did he think he had only got a majority of 18? I venture to think that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought that he had only a majority of 18, he would have talked till all was blue. That he did not intend to speak shows the amount of differential consideration that he gives to statements coming from the Irish party, which is so loyal in supporting the Government. (Laughter.) Well, I could not say I have supported him.
At least the gentlemen who have given the right hon. Gentleman loyal support throughout the Budget discussions were entitled to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Ministry something different to the shambling statement of the Secretary to the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I find it very difficult to characterise it. That is my excuse. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George), has stated with accuracy—and I thank him for his courtesy—that he gave the figures with regard to the alleged forestalments. But was it in accordance with the spirit which usually obtains in this House, that when these statements had been sent across the floor of the House by messenger, and before they could be dealt with by the Members, the right hon. Gentleman should get up and move the Closure? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will permit me, I will have the piece of paper which he sent over to these benches framed. I will hand down his piece of paper with a notification that it was handed across the floor by a Minister—the highest Minister after the Prime Minister—in reference to the most crushing tax ever imposed upon our country, and in compliance with a promise which an underling gave, and which was broken, and in reference to figures which unless they were intended as an insult must have been intended for the purposes of debate. 773 I will also record the fact that the Minister who handed these figures to a man who, at all events, was greatly interested on behalf of his country, within half a minute put the garotte on the man to whom he gave them.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 110.
775| Division No. 723.] | AYES. | [2.7 a.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Paddock, George B. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hamilton, Marquess of | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harris, Frederick Leverton | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hazleton, Richard | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Bull, Sir William James | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Healy, Timothy Michael | Reddy, M. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hill, Sir Clement | Renton, Leslie |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Renwick, George |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Joyce, Michael | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Keating, Matthew | Sheehy, David |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kilbride, Denis | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Stanier, Beville |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Long, Rt. Hon. Waiter (Dublin, S.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Valentia, Viscount |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lundon, Thomas | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lynch, A. (Clare, W.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Waring, Walter |
| Cullinan, J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Devlin, Joseph | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | M'Kean, John | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meagher, Michael | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Duffy, William J. | Mooney, J. J. | Younger, George |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Forster, Henry William | Muldoon, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Boland. |
| Foster, P. S. | Murphy, John (Kerry, E.) | |
| Gretton, John | Nannetti, Joseph P. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, George William | Everett, R. Lacey | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Nuttall, Harry |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Findlay, Alexander | Partington, Oswald |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Barker, Sir John | Gibson, J. P. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Gulland, John W. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Pointer, J. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hedges, A. Paget | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Helme, Norval Watson | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Rees, J. D. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Higham, John Sharp | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Channing Sir Francis Allston | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Holt, Richard Durning | Robinson, S. |
| Clough, William | Horniman, Emslie John | Rohson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lamont, Norman | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lupton, Arnold | Seely, Colonel |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Maclean, Donald | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Marnham, F. J. | Tomkinson, James |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Massie, J. | Toulmin, George |
| Elibank, Master of | Middlebrook, William | Verney, F. W. |
| Essex, R. W. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Mewnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir Edward Strachey. |
| Watt, Henry A. | Wilkie, Alexander | |
| White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | |
| White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
§ Sir JOHN DEWAR moved at the end of the Clause to insert the words: "Provided that, if the spirits be of an age of not less than five years, the duty shall be two shillings per proof gallon, and if the spirit be under live but over three years' of age, the duty shall be two shillings and nine pence per proof gallon, the age of spirits that have been blended or vatted being taken to be the age of the youngest spirit in the blend or vat."
§ This Amendment will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to make some amends for not speaking on the other part of the Clause. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at one time looked with favour on this proposal, but if report be true his attitude has changed, because the distillers were not unanimous amongst themselves as to what they wanted. The proposal I have to make is this: That the right hon. Gentleman should continue to charge 14s. 9d. on the whisky that is new, and that he should give a reduction as the whisky gets older, the principle being that the tax on whisky five years old should be 13s., on whisky three years old 13s. 9d., and beyond that the higher rate. I am not wedded to the letter of my Amendment. What I want is that as the whisky gets older it should not be charged more duty. The Commission which sat to consider the question said it was not the quality but the quantity that made a man drunk. Old whisky is very good. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) quoted the case of the two monkeys to prove that old whisky is better than new. Everybody must rely on his own experience, and everybody knows that old whisky is certainly more palatable. The amount that I suggest the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take in old whisky is just about the cost of maturing it in bond. The man who produces new whisky will suffer no injustice because it has not been subject to the extra cost of maturing. The 13s. 9d. which I propose should be charged will just bring the new whisky to the same price as the old whisky, and the result will be that the ordinary consumer will get the old whisky at the price of new whisky. The ordinary consumer at present has no chance of getting old whisky at the price of new, because the old whisky sold in the ordinary public-house is more or less new whisky.
776§ If the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the Amendment, he will put the ordinary working man in the position of getting the same whisky as the man who is richer. The experiment is well worth trying. It will not result in any diminution of revenue; it will aid moral and temperate improvement; it will help distillers in the North of Scotland whose whisky requires more time to mature; and it inflicts no injustice on the whisky which matures more quickly.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEMy hon. Friend was quite right in assuming that I regard his proposal with a good deal of sympathy, and I may tell the committee I am very anxious that something of this kind should be done. But I found, in the first instance, that those who are engaged in the manufacture of whisky are very divided upon the subject. I will not say the majority of whisky distillers, but the whisky distillers who produce the largest quantity of spirits, were undoubtedly against it. A deputation representing both the Scotch and the Irish distillers waited upon me. I put the question to them, and I found at once that there was a division of opinion. I asked them to consider the matter, and to formulate proposals. A committee-room was placed at their disposal, but after discussing the matter I think they were still divided. More than half of them retired, and those who brought the report to me certainly did not represent anything like the majority of the whisky distillers of Scotland. I afterwards received a very strongly worded protest from the other distillers against accepting anything of this character. Since then the report of the Whisky Commission has been issued, and, so far as it goes, certainly it does not encourage this notion. Under the circumstances, therefore, I thought that on the whole my best plan was not to interfere. Those who are engaged in grain distilling resented the proposal very strongly, on the ground that it would give an unfair preference to one branch of the business as against the other. As my hon. Friend knows the Government were rather invited to take the side of one branch of the whisky trade as against the other branch. I confess that although I felt very willing to accept something on these lines at the outset, I came to the conclusion, more especially after the report 777 of the Whisky Commission, that the Government could hardly take sides in a difference of opinion between the two sections of whisky distillers.
§ Mr. YOUNGERWhile I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Amendment, I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a division of interest in the matter. I would suggest that the Committee should adopt a new Clause which I have put on the Paper and which would place all the distillers on the same level. It would not allow any whisky to be used for potable purposes which had not been kept in bond for two years. I believe that among other good results a provision of that kind would put an end to the violent drunkenness which is the cause of so much crime, and which everybody so greatly deplores. It has been proved over and over again by scientific experiments that old whisky, although apparently exactly the same as new, has physiologically very different effects. Whisky distillers desire to see two years compulsory bonding, and I would remind the Committee that this was one of the recommendations of Lord Peel's Commission. As a Member of that Commission and as one who signed that recommendation, I thought it my duty to bring the matter up now at the first opportunity. If I am in order I shall move my new Clause later on, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give it his favourable consideration. The only trouble is that it may not be regarded as exactly germane to a Finance Bill, but there are so many clauses in the Bill which are not germane to finance that I do not think I should be more out of order than is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in regard to some of the Clauses which he proposes to pass into law.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI can well understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer found the distillers who distil from raw grain opposed to the scheme of graduation. The duty as proposed in the Finance Bill falls unequally upon the two classes of distillers, and we may disabuse our minds of any other idea on the point. It presses with exceptional severity on the distillers who distil from home-grown barley in the country districts of Scotland. Why do I say that? First of all, in order to get at the facts I wrote letters to every licensee in my Constituency to ask for information. The information I have from them does not show the figures relating to whisky despatched from bond in anticipation 778 of a rise in the duty, or whisky not despatched from bond in anticipation of a fall, but the actual figures of sales over the counter to the consumer. These are more valuable than the figures which the Treasury have. These figures show that on the lowest estimate the falling off in the sales of whisky over the counter is 23 per cent. as compared with last year, and the figures run up as high as 50 per cent. Then I come to a point in which I am more interested. Let us analyse what these sales are. I asked every licensee, "What is your experience now under the Budget of the demand for the cheaper as compared with the better grades of whisky?" The answer I have received from 64 out of 65 licensees is that the demand is for the cheaper grade of whisky. Only one licensee replies that he does not find any difference in the demand and his is a special trade. The demand, therefore, let the Committee observe, is for the very cheapest class of whisky. Why do I say that this tax falls unequally on the two classes of distillers? Because in order to meet this demand for the cheapest class of whisky the vendor—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think that has reference to the last Amendment. This is an Amendment as to the age of whisky.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI was going to bring my argument round to show that in buying a cheaper quality you buy a newer whisky. I submit, therefore, with all respect, that my argument is relevant. They buy the cheaper quality now. The cheaper quality is the whisky made from raw grain. The consumer buys more of the raw grain whisky and less of the whisky which is distilled in my Constituency, and which costs something like 3s. to 3s. 9d. to produce. Consequently the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer falls unequally, and therefore I am in favour of a graduation which would tend to place the distillers who distil from barley more on an equality with those who distil from raw grain. There is another reason why one favours a graduation of the duty, and that is that the new whisky is not so good for the system as the older whisky is. Therefore the proposal would be good from the point of view of sobriety. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would really tend to encourage the consumption of the more maddening forms of drink. Reference has been made to the Report of the Whisky Commission. That Report does not, I submit, 779 condemn graduation. Moreover, the Commissioners did not make such very strong statements as we have been led to believe.
They said:—
Most of the witnesses were of the opinion that old whisky was less deleterious to health than new whisky, and that this difference was more especially marked in the pot still product.They further say thatFurthermore it appears that pot still whiskies are regarded in the trade as still young at that age, and that it is advisable to store them in wood for additional periods.The Report is not quite so opposed to this proposal as we are led to believe. Secondly, this Report is not at all at variance with graduation, although on practical grounds—and mark, these were the words used—they were opposed to compulsory bonding. Well, the practical difficulties no longer exist.I am informed that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to graduate the tax—as far as the needs of the revenue are concerned—there would be no difficulties in the way. Consequently, that may be put on one side. There is the other point as to whether old whisky or new whisky is injurious. I asked every one of the licensees in my constituency what, in their experience, was the effect on the consumer. This is a very important thing for the House to know. The vendors of this article said that it is their experience that new whisky acts very much more quickly on the system than the old. One writes that the after effects of new whisky would be worse than that of old. Another says, "New whisky is certainly more conducive to a quick drunk than those that are well matured." Another says, "Unquestionably new whisky is more conducive to drunkenness. It is amazing such a question is necessary." That is good evidence from the practical side. The recommendation of Lord Peel's Commission was a unanimous recommendation, and was not the recommendation of a Committee that was appointed to inquire into something else. It was appointed to consider whether it was a good thing for the country that whisky should be kept in bond. The fact is admitted with practical unanimity that "the effects of new Taw whisky are deleterious in a high degree, and without going into what fusel oil is, or how generated, we are satisfied of the superiority or of the less noxious effects of old as compared with new whisky; and we have set the evidence of those who speak from observation of the effects against the conclusive evidence of experts 780 who speak with uncertainty or hesitation. Thus, balancing this testimony offered on the one side and on the other, we cannot refuse our concurrence with those who advocate a period of compulsory bonding." There is no doubt new whisky is bad for the consumer, and that it gives a more maddening consequence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now an opportunity for doing a great deal in favour of temperance and sobriety, and I hope he will avail himself of the opportunity.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI do not differ with the last speaker that new whisky is bad for the system. But I think he has failed to show that new whisky is worse than old whisky. [An HON. MEMBER: "Try it and see."] I speak from small experience on this matter. I do not deny that I shared the delusion which still prevails in some quarters that new whisky was more deleterious than old whisky. But on investigating the question the Commission which looked into the matter in 1889 found strongly against compulsory bonding. The finding of that Commission was that the compulsory bonding of all spirits was unnecessary. The hon. Member suggests that the proper thing would be to have a compulsory period for bonding rather than the proposal in the Bill. The real reason of my rising is not to go deeply into the question, but simply to remind my hon. Friend of some other things the Commission reported. The hon. Baronet read:
Most of the witnesses were of opinion that old whisky was less deleterious to health than new-whisky,but he omitted to read this:—It was not established before us that the toxicity of whisky is affected by age.Toxicity, I understand, means poisoning qualities. The Commissioners draw attention to the fact that most of the witnesses repeated the current impression about the matter that new whisky is more harmful than old whisky, but that the moment they tried to get evidence of a more scientific and practical character no such evidence was forthcoming from any of the witnesses.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONIs the hon. Member aware that vendors of whisky were asked to give evidence on the point, and that, according to my information, none of them were called?
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI cannot say anything about that. The Commissioners also said that a case was brought to their notice 781 where the workmen at a distillery consumed new spirit without any specially deleterious effect being observed. And then the Commissioners went on to say, what I believe to be the truth in this matter, namely, that the general tendency of the evidence was that any especially evil effects observed were rather to be attributed to the excessive quantity consumed than to the quality of the spirit. It is the quantity not the quality of the whisky consumed that tends to drunkenness. My hon. Friends have been saying that owing to the operations of the Budget the Scotch people have been driven to drink cheap new whisky, which is more intoxicating. But they forget the fact that, in spite of their contention that new whisky drives people much more readily to intoxication and crime; the number of convictions for drunkenness is now one-third less than it was before the Budget was introduced. That does not point to the conclusion that new whisky is more harmful than old.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt is an unusual experience for us to hear the hon. Member for the Appleby Division (Mr. Leif Jones) as an apologist of the moderate drinker. I welcome him in his new rôle. The speech of the hon. Baronet who sits for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) would have been more weighty with the Government if his convictions were strong enough to carry him into the Lobby against them. But I am not very much interested to meddle with the quarrel or difference of opinion between the hon. Baronet and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, on the whole, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to a right decision upon this question. I shall not go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet who sits for Inverness (Sir John Dewar). If it be the case that on the grounds of health it is a desirable thing that whisky should be retained in bond, that may be a proper matter for legislation; but I do not think it is a proper matter for a Finance Bill. The hon. Baronet failed, as it seemed to me, to show that any hardship that there was was due to the tax. If the tax had to be paid immediately the whisky was distilled then, of course, the whisky which by its nature has to be kept long is at a disadvantage as compared with whisky which can be put at once on the market. The duty does not have to be paid when the whisky is distilled, but only when the whisky is taken out of bond. It is not the effect of the 782 tax which the country ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to counteract but the whisky. I think the right hon. Gentleman is wise to say that he will not make use of the Finance Bill to interfere with the competition between the two branches of the trade. If it is a question of health then the matter may be argued on that basis, but the Finance Bill is not the proper measure on which to argue it.
§ Mr. A. LUPTONAfter about two hundred years of experience of different kinds of whisky, and after the research of the scientific men of the world, experiments are now made upon monkeys, in order to decide the relative merits of the various whiskies. I think all whisky should be put in bond, but I maintain that it is very little use to keep it in bond for two years. Put all the whisky in bond for two hundred years—there would be some good in that.
§ Mr. D. KILBRIDEI wish to present an aspect of the case which has not yet been put to the Committee. The hon. Member on the other side, who, from his speech, I gather represents a barley-growing district in Scotland, told the Committee that the whisky produced in his constituency cost from 3s. to 3s. 9d. a gallon. I presume that a great deal of the whisky that is made elsewhere is produced at a manufacturer's cost of 1s. That 1s. whisky is not made from English, Irish, or Scotch produce. That whisky is made, as everybody knows, largely from German spirit. That whisky is also made, as everybody knows and as the hon. Baronet for Elgin and Nairn has indicated, from maize. I am not aware that there is any maize grown in Ireland, or in England, or in Scotland. And now what is the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing? He is penalising whisky made from home produce to the advantage of cheap whisky, which is made from German or American produce. Now I heard from a distiller some time ago about this Budget and the reason that he was favourable to it was that it will, as he says, "do him more good than any decent legislation that was ever passed." He was very much in favour of this because the whisky he produces is about 1s. 2d. a gallon, and he said to himself, "John Jameson's costs 7s. 6d. mine costs 1s. 2d. Will not the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeed by this taxation in running John Jameson out of the market?" Like my hon. Friend behind me, I can speak from practical knowledge, and I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that for my health 783 and my health's sake in the morning I would sooner drink whisky made of barley malt than that made from any German product.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANOrder, order. The Amendment deals with the age of whisky and not with the quality of whisky.
§ Mr. KILBRIDEYes, Mr. Caldwell. I learn that whisky made from German products does not improve with age; but when made from barley malt it does improve. Everybody knows—everybody who speaks from- practical experience, which hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House cannot do—that patent still whisky does not improve with age; but pot still whisky does. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in refusing to accept the Amendment
§ proposed by Sir J. Dewar is certainly penalising whisky made from home products.
§ Sir JOHN DEWARI have no wish to press this Amendment to a Division, and I beg the leave of the Committee to withdraw it.
§ Question put, "That the words 'Provided that, if the spirits be of an age of not less than five years, the duty shall be two shillings per proof gallon, and if the spirit be under five but over three years' of age the duty shall be two shillings and ninepence per proof gallon, the age of spirits that have been blended or vatted being taken to be the age of the youngest spirit in the blend or vat' be there added."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 116.
785| Division No. 724.] | AYES. | [2.55 a.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex, F. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Harris, Frederick Leverton | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hazleton, Richard | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Healy, Timothy Michael | Renton, Leslie |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hunt, Rowland | Sheehy, David |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Joyce, Michael | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Kilbride, Denis | Stanier, Beville |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Starkey, John R. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cullinan, J. | Lynch, A. (Clare, W.) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Waring, Walter |
| Duffy, William J. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Foster, P. S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Younger, George |
| Gretton, John | Muldoon, John | |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Murphy, John (Kerry, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Renwick and Mr. Fell. |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Nannetti, Joseph P. | |
| Haddock, George B. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, George William | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Crosfield, A. H. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Barker, Sir John | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Bennett, E. N. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hudson, Walter |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Elibank, Master of | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Essex, R. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Evans, Sir S. T. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Everett, R. Lacey | Lamont, Norman |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Findlay, Alexander | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Clough, William | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lupton, Arnold |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Gibson, J. P. | Maclean, Donald |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gulland, John W. | 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) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Marnham, F. J. | Rees, J. D. | Verney, F. W. |
| Massie, J. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Middlebrook, William | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Robinson, S. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Nussey, Sir Willans | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Rogers, F. E. Newman | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Partington, Oswald | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Seely, Colonel | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Pointer, J. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | |
| Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Summerbell, T. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir Edward Strachey. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Tomkinson, James | |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Toulmin, George |
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. J. J. MOONEYNow that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here perhaps he will answer a few questions. I understand that this is a Finance Bill Now a Finance Bill is required for the purpose of granting His Majesty the necessary means of raising public revenue. I was surprised to hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tell us that the tax on whisky is not imposed for revenue purposes but for temperance purposes. I do not think you should pursue a temperance policy in the guise of a Finance Bill. I object to this temperance legislation for Ireland The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a great deal of fun about the way in which he had been attacked for his wrong estimate. He stated he had been accused of over-estimating the revenue and of under-estimating the decrease. All I know is that on the actual figures given to-day of the decrease of consumption in Ireland, that country will suffer the loss of £500,000 a year by this tax on decreased consumption. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, I believe, in possession of figures which he says go to prove that there has been no undue decrease in consumption since the month of April.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENo.
§ Mr. MOONEYI understand him to say that there appears to be a decreased consumption from the month of April, but that really there has been as much whisky consumed since April owing to the fact that in April there were forestalments of an enormous amount of whisky.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE indicated dissent.
§ Mr. MOONEYI understand that he accounted for the abnormal decrease in 786 consumption for the four months to the end of August on the ground that sufficient whisky was taken out of bond in April to keep them going in the hope that there might be a reduction of the tax, or that the tax might be abolished. That was the statement given to the House by his representative, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to throw over the Financial Secretary. I am only replying to the arguments of the light hon. Gentleman. He said that the figures of consumption do not show the actual consumption, because we must add the figures of whisky taken out of bond during the month of April. I understand now from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is not so. That shows the difficulty in which we are working. I understand the Government's case to be that there was a fictitious decrease, which is due to the fact that certain astute people knew that he was going to increase the duty, and took out certain kinds of whisky.
Even admitting that there is going to be an increase in the taxation of Ireland to the extent of £500,000, I do not agree with the figures shown to me for the month of April. The tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting on is going to hit. Ireland in an exceptional way. It hits three classes of people. First the distiller, next the consumer, and then the farmer. The great pride of this Government is that they want to make agriculture profitable. The result of your taxing whisky in Ireland, even before this 3s. 9d. was passed, is best illustrated by what happened in the district of Gal way. The distillery which Mr. Persse ran was the result of his endeavours to use only the home grown article. When the distillery was closed the farmers had no market for their barley. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the trouble to look at the agricultural statistics for Ireland he will find that in the last ten or 787 fifteen years an enormous quantity of land has gone out of cultivation, particularly in the north of Ireland. I see the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture on the Front Bench. He will bear out my statement. The reason for that is very simple. In that time several small distilleries in Ireland have ceased to exist. There were distilleries with land round them in which barley was grown, but when the distilleries were closed the farmers could not get their barley into a market, and they had to produce other crops. By this extra tax of 3s. 9d. you are first of all going to take £500,000 out of our country, and next you are going to destroy the small distilleries. Each one of them employs a certain amount of labour, some 50 to 100 families being dependent upon each distillery, and all of these are going out of employment. The hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. J. O'Connor) put before the House a short time ago the fact that Irish whisky made from bailey cost from 3s. to 3s. 9d. a gallon.
If you put a tax of 14s. 9d. on an article which cost 3s. 9d. you immediately bring the cost of that article up to a prohibitive price. The retailer cannot get the money back from the public, although he was told to do so by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the public will not pay. He is therefore driven to put on the market a cheaper article. The cheapest article he can get in this locality, which is called whisky, is manufactured from German spirits and costs about tenpence a gallon. You destroy the Irish farmer's market for his produce, you destroy the trade of the Irish distiller, you drive the distiller's men out of employment, and you bring in a German article at tenpence a gallon. That is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's idea of benefiting Ireland. As regards what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said about forestalment, I have the figures showing the quantity of spirits taken out of bond, and they show that the consumption in Ireland during the month of August last year was 548,000 gallons, whereas this year it was only 318,000 gallons. Anybody who knows anything about the trade will understand that this decrease could not have been caused by the amount of whisky taken out of bond in the month of April. It is an absolute decrease and not a decrease caused by forestalment. The fact of the matter is that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer occasionally quotes Sir Michael Hicks-Beach as a 788 financial authority, he seems to forget entirely what Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said in this House after he had put on the extra 6d. in 1900. In April, 1901 or 1902, when he was making his Budget statement, he went over the various articles he could tax, and what he said was: "I have considered the feasibility of putting an extra tax on whisky, but one has to be very careful about dealing with an article like this, because we find the history of this thing shows us that once you get beyond a certain point not only do you not increase your revenue, but you actually decrease your old revenue." I submit that is what will happen here.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I assert, has put on too heavy a tax. Not only is he not going to get anything like the increased revenue which he has estimated he will obtain, but he is actually not going to get the old revenue from this article. I think under those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman must seriously reconsider the position of this tax and, in view of the great hardship which will be caused in Ireland owing to the number of people who will be thrown out of employment, he might take steps to reduce the proposed extra taxation on the special industry of that country. The right hon. Gentleman always justifies every tax he proposes to impose by saying when he gets up in this House that he must have money to carry on the Imperial services, but in this case the experience of five years shows that he is not going to get additional money by increasing the tax. He says that in the Budget he distributes evenly over all persons in the community the necessary burden for carrying on the government of the State. The answer given to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shropshire this afternoon really goes to show that he has not distributed the burden of taxation in an equitable manner. As far as I remember the figures, the answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury was that on £100 worth of whisky the amount paid in duty was £61; on £100 worth of beer the amount paid was £23, and on £100 of champagne the amount paid in duty was £7. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it is a fair distribution that champagne, which is not the drink of the working men, should only pay £7 out of £100, and that whisky should pay a tax of £61 out of £100. Beer, which is the drank of English working men, he lets off rather lightly. But the working men of Scotland and Ireland, which are not 789 beer drinking countries, are to pay three times as much as the English working men. I think the figures supplied by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have distributed the taxation in a much more equitable manner.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have taken the opportunity of refreshing my memory by reading the Debate which took place on the Resolutions on the Whisky Tax earlier in the current year, and I cannot help noticing the difference between the criticisms now and then. The criticism now is that, so far, the extra taxation has not produced the revenue estimated, and that it will not do so by the end of the year. Every speaker who took part in the Debate on the Budget Resolutions, however, criticised my proposals from exactly the opposite point of view. There was not a single Member who took part in the Debate who did not condemn my estimate, and suggest that I was deliberately underestimating the amount of revenue I should get from the extra taxation. It was suggested to me that I did it purely in order to create a surplus, I thought then that there would be a decrease of consumption, and I knew there were forestalments, so that to that extent I have been nearer to what has happened than any of my critics in this House. What has happened since then? The foresbalments we knew pretty well. In two respects I over-estimated. The revenue has not been a very promising one. I under-estimated undoubtedly the immediate effect upon consumption, but I am assured by those who know something about the trade that this effect will only be temporary. Undoubtedly in some districts the reduction in consumption has been very considerable. I have heard almost startling figures. In some districts I have heard 30, 40, 50, and, I believe, 70 per cent. of a fall. But in some districts the opinion has been expressed that it was purely a temporary condition of things. Two things account for it—the publican putting up the price, and the workmen saying they will not buy it. I admit that the temporary reduction in the amount of whisky consumed has undoubtedly not merely surprised myself and the Revenue officials, but surprised everybody. There is another reason, I think, which accounts for the fact that up to the present there is a state of uncertainty in the whisky trade as to what is going to happen. To be perfectly frank, they are not sure whether the 790 Budget is going through. There are-political possibilities which they are-reckoning on. They think there may be a chance that either the Budget might not go through, or that probably the Government would not stick to the duty. The effect of that is that they are keeping their stocks as low as possible, both wholesale and retail. There is no doubt they are conducting their business on the lowest possible margin. They are perfectly right from a business point of view until an absolute certainty has been established. That, I think, has undoubtedly had a very considerable effect upon the revenue. But we have only dealt up to the present with five months. The forestalments were about £2,500,000.
§ Mr. YOUNGEROh, no, £1,500,000.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe horn Member is only referring to the Excise figures. My recollection is that there were £900,000 for March, including Customs and Excise; there were about £1,650,000 odd for April. Add the two together, and it comes to about 2½ millions. That is for Customs and Excise. These are the correct figures.
§ Mr. MOONEYDo I understand that these are the forestalments, or are these the actual figures for the month of April, and if so, how do they compare with the month of April for the three previous years?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThey are forestalments.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI have the actual figures of duty. April, last year—homemade, £1,435,000; imported, £327,000; total, £1,760,000. April, this year—£2,840,000—making a difference of £1,100,000, which I said.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI will check the figures given by the hon. Member. They are very considerable, and they, undoubtedly to a very large extent, account for the apparent decrease in consumption being larger than the real one. Now I think I have dealt with the point regarding the discrepancy in connection with the actual realisation and the estimate I made. The point I am making is that during the current five months of the year all these forestalments operate. It is therefore during five months of the year that the short stocks operate. I have taken steps to check the matter, and the gentlemen responsible for advising me still, in spite 791 of what the hon. Gentleman says, adhere to their statement. I will undertake to check the hon. Gentleman's statement, but I have given to the Committee the actual figures given by the officials responsible for the matter. That accounts very largely for the discrepancy between the estimate and the realisation. I still say I do not think you can make up the estimate by taking a year. I still think there will be a substantial increase this year, but I do not think it will come to anything like the figures I gave to the House when I made my Budget estimate.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWell, how do you justify the tax?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWill you give us the new estimate, what you now think the tax will produce in the year?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI could tell the right hon. Gentleman from week to week how the matter stands. It would be quite impossible to give a reliable estimate for another week or fortnight. The officials have come to the conclusion that before they can estimate with anything like approximate accuracy they must be satisfied that the reserve stocks are pretty well exhausted. In their judgment that will happen within the next week or two. I must give an estimate to the Committee before the Budget is through. But at the present moment I am not in a position to give an estimate to the Committee. It would be a mistake for me to do so. I can assure the Committee we have gone into this matter week by week. The justification for the tax is this: I had to get £16,000,000; I had to find sources of revenue. When I came to indirect taxes I had to decide as between tea, beer, sugar, tobacco, and whisky. These are the only sources of revenue which I think would bring in a substantial sum. I came to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to tax tea, and what happened? Hon. Members on the Opposition side made very strong speeches against it, and voted unanimously against taxing tea. The Opposition also invariably voted against the Sugar Duty. They voted last year in favour of a larger reduction than the Government were prepared to make. I gave my reasons with regard to beer. Any tax we could put on beer which could be passed on to the consumer would produce fifteen or 792 twenty millions sterling. That was more than we wanted. I had therefore to choose tobacco and spirits. Assuming a year in which there is no forestalment, in an ordinary year, I thought that they would produce a very substantial addition to the Revenue.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI quite understand the difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in regard to giving this estimate. But the absence of it places the Committee in a very great difficulty also. The right hon. Gentleman gave his estimate in the ordinary course when he made his Budget, and he is obliged to admit now that he and his advisers were mistaken and that that estimate will not be realised. But what is the amount of Revenue which is to be expected from the tax now, neither he nor his advisers will venture to say until we have voted the tax. I do not mean to suggest that he has deliberately withheld the information, but the fact that he cannot make an estimate before we have passed the tax is a most unfortunate thing and places the Committee in a great difficulty.
I do not quite understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer came so much to under-estimate the effect of the forestalments. He attempted to justify himself, I think, a little by saying that he has looked back to the Debate on the subject and finds that nobody who criticised the tax on this side of the House took that line, but that everybody alleged that he was going to get a great deal more than his estimate. He is mistaken in thinking that nobody raised the question as to whether he would get so much. I have not refreshed my memory, but I am pretty confident that I raised the point myself and said that there was grave danger lest the increased tax would tend to injure revenue. I remember, however, making another speech in the opposite direction, which the right, hon. Gentleman may have come across. That speech was in reference to an observation which the right hon. Gentleman himself made as to the effect on the distiller and the trade of raising the price of whisky by a halfpenny. It was then stated by other right hon. Gentlemen, colleagues of the Chancellor, that by raising it a halfpenny the distillers would get even more than the Government. That appeared to be a perfectly preposterous suggestion, and I remember saying that if the Government were right as to the amount that would be 793 recorded by the trade, they were clearly wrong in their own estimate. However, I am not concerned to pretend that I was wiser than I was; and the fact that we on this side of the House were wrong is no justification for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, after all, had the figures of the expected withdrawals. They were known to him when he made his estimate. Why, therefore, have the results taken him by surprise?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not think I made myself clear. I never said that the forestalments were a surprise to us, because we knew the actual figure. What I am surprised at is, first of all, the diminished consumption, and, second, that the stocks were so largely drawn upon. Those are the two things which surprised us; the forestalments I actually knew. I had the figures.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt is not the forestalments that have vitiated the estimate! Then it is the fact that stocks are being used up?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAnd diminished consumption.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat does that mean, this diminished consumption which has such a great effect on the revenue? How much of the effect upon the revenue is due to living on stocks and how much is due to diminished consumption? The right hon. Gentleman says he has himself the figures, and is alarmed at the extent to which consumption has been diminished in some districts. Those reports have reached all of us. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a little time ago, said that, after all, the result was to diminish consumption, and that that was a result which would not be regretted on his side of the House. Is that really what it is the business of a financial Minister to do? He did not say that if it diminished drunkenness he would not mind; but that if it diminished consumption, without any social improvement, he is quite content to see a great industry crippled, and the habits of the people changed, with a result that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who proposed the impost, is avowedly disappointed. That is a rather novel attitude for the Government to take up with regard to their financial measures. Is it surprising that under these circumstances I was unable to follow the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman? I venture to say that no anticipatory 794 clearances would clear up the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken quite carelessly, and his anxiety to make a point at the moment carried him much beyond what he had any real authority to say. I notice even at this moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary cannot agree as to what the results of the tax are going to be. The Financial Secretary said something about anticipatory clearances, and that they would get their money; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks they are not going to get their money. You have brought this tax to an unproductive point. You have increased it by a perfectly unparalleled increase at a time when consumption was falling. You have aggravated the fall.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEClearly what is happening is that the people are not drinking so much as they did before.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThen the Chancellor of the Exchequer is simply killing the goose that is laying so many golden eggs. He is injuring the tax which has been a most important part of our financial system. He is affecting employment in this particular industry in the first place, and undoubtedly making the position of some small distilleries much harder, and in some cases perhaps impossible to maintain. Through that he is attacking the farmer and the labourer. He is diminishing the market for barley; he is in all probability decreasing the amount of barley that will be grown, and when you add to that its effect in that way it will be seen that some of the poorest districts in the country will suffer—districts where there is least hope of turning to other things. All this, I say, constitutes a very grave objection to the tax that the right hon. Gentleman is imposing. I do not wish to go through all the points made in the brilliant speech made by the Leader of the Opposition; but it should be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman has singled out for this gigantic increase a form of alcoholic liquor which is specially drunk in two portions of the United Kingdom.
I notice that one hon. Member is shaking his head violently. No doubt there is more whisky drunk in this country than in Scotland or Ireland, but there is not more whisky drunk per head among the working men of this country than in Scotland or Ireland. On every ground—of policy, of financial convenience, of justice, and of reason—I think the Chancellor of 795 the Exchequer has made a bad choice in proposing this gigantic increase in relation to this already heavily burdened industry.
§ Mr. P. WHITEI maintain that it is not right to dislocate the whole trade by putting these duties on. The proposed taxation will act exceeding unfairly on an Irish industry, and will mean a great loss to it. I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon the proposed tax at once rather than to dislocate the trade.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDBefore this vote goes to a Division I desire to make a protest on behalf of the island of Jamaica. That island has three principal products—logwood, sugar, and rum. The logwood trade has been entirely spoiled and lost owing to the new discoveries of the manufacture of dyes out of tar. The consequence is that during the last two years the island has been obliged to rely entirely upon its sugar and upon its rum. They have had very good prices lately, comparatively speaking, for their sugar.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe rum does. I think it will be admitted that rum is a spirit. The position in regard to Jamaica rum is this: The whole of the crop of last year, which was grown under the impression that it would be sold in this country at a certain price, was shipped in the months of January, February, March, and the early part of April of the present year. Most of it came to London, and owing to the Resolution that we passed for this Budget, and the imposition of this 3s 9d. on whisky, most of it is lying at present in bond, incapable of being sold. The loss which is inflicted upon the island of Jamaica if this tax is persisted in and the Budget should ever pass into law will be practically irreparable. I think it is only fair when the imposition of 3s. 9d. extra tax on all spirits, including rum, is brought before the Committee in this way, that one or two minutes should be occupied in making a protest on behalf of this island.
§ Mr. GRETTONI only want to say a few words on this tax. It is, in my view, a consumer's tax, not only because the consumer has to pay the difference in price, but because I believe it makes for the supply of an inferior article to the 796 public. Everybody knows that the whisky the public get is not the spirit that leaves the hands of the distiller. It passes through other hands and is blended according to the particular brand and particular price required. There is already a large quantity of very inferior spirit sent into this country which is manufactured on the Continent at a very low price, for the purpose of blending in the cheaper sorts of whisky sold under no particular name in a good many parts of the country. This spirit, I am informed, is manufactured in Hamburg or Rotterdam at 9d. or 9½d. a gallon, and it can be imported into this country at 11d. a gallon, not including duty. No spirit of a reasonable kind can be manufactured in this country for less than 1s. 3d., because there are certain Excise restrictions with regard to the materials to be used in the manufacture of whisky. Those restrictions do not apply to these very cheap spirits which are manufactured on the Continent. This increase in the Whisky Tax is a direct inducement and incentive to the blending of this cheap spirit with the whisky that is legitimately manufactured by Scottish and Irish distillers. I am informed that it is shown in the Returns that the consumption of whisky has greatly fallen off. That great reduction will perhaps balance itself to some extent, but I am quite certain that the Government are entirely wrong in thinking that this tax is not going to seriously reduce the whisky consumption in this country.
The real test in this matter is not the Excise Returns, but the experience of those engaged in the trade of retailing whisky. When you find that that trade is falling off, as it is in some cases—I have personally investigated cases in which it has fallen off from 25 to over 30 per cent., and sometimes as much as 50 per cent.—the Government will gain some idea how far the tax is going to fail them. In some cases the trade done has been so great that the price of whisky has not been put up, and the only way in which whisky can be sold at the old price is by selling a very inferior article. One very curious result which the Government have not anticipated is that in some cases in London and elsewhere the public desire to have the same quantity of whisky, and have to pay 4d. instead of 3d., and they save the penny by not having mineral water but plain water. The result is that the mineral water manufacturers have suffered a great decrease in business owing 797 to the operation of this tax. It appears to me that on these grounds the tax is not going to yield the revenue the Government anticipate, and the public are going to get an inferior article. The Government's case has entirely broken down, and the tax ought not to be imposed.
§ 4.0 A.M.
§ Mr. JOHN CLANCYI should not be doing my duty as an Irish Member if I did not utter a protest, brief as it must be, but I hope emphatic, against this proposed increase in the Spirit Duty. I desire to take note of the speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I hope he will remember, when he comes into office again, all the good things he has said to-night. I do not recollect that when his party increased the whisky duty, we heard a single word such as he used to-night in deprecation of this proceeding. There is no knowing what may happen in the future, but after his speech to-night he will be bound to take off the 3s. 9d. that is being put on now if ever he assumes the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer again. A controversy has arisen to-night into which I will not enter. The question is whether this tax is going to produce what the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates. A good deal has been said on both sides of that question, but I do not intend to add a word to the controversy. The point I desire to make is, that if the Revenue is obtained and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's original estimate is realised, the grievance of Ireland will be all the greater. The reason is perfectly plain, because it is undoubtedly the case that you will increase the proportion of indirect taxation which Ireland already pays. Before the introduction of the Budget the proportion of indirect taxation paid by England was 42 per cent. and in Ireland it was 73 per cent. What will happen if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimates are realised? The proportion paid by Ireland will probably be increased beyond 73 per cent., while probably the proportion paid by England will go down. I cannot regard such a result with equanimity, and all I can say is that we should be gravely wanting in the performance of our duty if we did not utter a protest against a result of that kind being brought about under any Budget.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI should like to intervene just for a moment in order to give the information I spoke of when I interrupted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to correct 798 his figures. The figures for the month of April show that the withdrawals out of bond in 1907 amounted to £1,766,000 of duty, in 1908 to £1,762,000 duty, and in 1909 to £2,840,000 duty, or a difference comparing 1908 and 1909 of £1,080,000 duty, not £2,000,000 duty as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. If you take the quarter ending March there was a total forestalment of 680,000 gallons, but I do not think that accounts for the very great loss of revenue. Undoubtedly a certain amount of revenue was lost owing to forestalments, because the Exchequer only got a tax of 11s. instead of 13s. 9d. But that is only a matter of about £400,000, and I believe it was included in the calculation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced the Budget. It is very disappointing to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no attempt to answer the speech I made earlier in the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman justified the amount of the tax by stating that if you did not put on a heavy tax you would not be able to obtain the revenue owing to dilution. There is however, as I pointed out, a limit of strength below which the publican cannot now dilute and still keep within the law, and even if sixpence or threepence had been put on it would have been got quite easily owing to the fact that the publican has reached the limit of dilution. It seems to me very unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not attempted some better justification of the tax. I am sure the distillers in Scotland will regard this as a very unsatisfactory night's work, and they will not have a high opinion of the wisdom or fairness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORI make no apology to the Committee for engaging its attention for a short time at this early hour of the morning. I want to associate myself with my colleagues in their protest against this inequitable and iniquitous tax. Further, I wish to express my great disappointment that the attitude taken up by the Irish Members to-night has not found support on the other side of the House. How Members on the other side, led by the Government, have often professed and expressed great friendship for Ireland. They have not expressed it to-night. Perhaps it was right to dissemble their love, but why did they kick us downstairs? That is what they are doing. [Cries of "No, no."] I am entitled 799 to my opinion, and I am going to express it. You may dissent from it if you like. It ha3 been said to-night by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that this is a fatal blow struck at the remaining industry of the Irish people. He has pointed out that the loss to Ireland in its export and home trade will amount to no less a sum than £2,000,000 per annum. Are we to sit down here quietly either by day or by night and not raise a protest against such an iniquitous tax? Ireland has been over-taxed already. You have heard that before. You will hear it again. It will be repeated and reiterated at all seasonable times. You are about to add to the inequitable taxation of Ireland by the tax now under discussion. It has been pointed out that this great industry in Ireland is being damaged very seriously, because there is a decrease in the manufacture of the article itself, and injury is also inflicted on agriculture. How is this statement to be proved? It may easily be proved by a reference to the statistics which have been published by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland. From their latest publications it may be gathered that between the year 1907–8 there was a decrease in the growth of barley of over 16,000 acres, or nine-tenths of the total acreage under that crop in Ireland. It may be said that this decrease in cultivation would be made up by the imports of barley, because Ireland does not depend entirely for her supply on her own native growth of barley. She imports largely from Canada, Russia, and other countries. But what do I find? Between the two years I have named there has been a decrease of no less than 164 cwt. in the imports of barley. And it is still going on. But that is not all. There has been a decrease in the imports of malt to the extent of 400,000 cwt. So that if you check the growth of barley in Ireland, and the importation of barley into Ireland, it proves clearly that there is a lesser quantity being manufactured. What do I conclude from that? That you are attacking a dying industry, that you are going to inflict a fatal blow on that industry by the imposition of this tax. I heard it stated by the hon. Gentleman who has just engaged the attention of the Committee that one of the results of this tax will be that the people will be supplied with an inferior article. That is the case. The people are demanding their whisky 800 for the same price. They cannot be supplied as they were before with a good commodity. If they are to get whisky at the same price as before it must be of an inferior quality. Now there is another effect that will follow from this tax. It will increase illicit distillation. A very large increase was put upon the Excise duties in 1821. What was the result? A vast increase in illicit distillation, so much so that the tax was removed. From every point of view this is an inefficient, inequitable, and unjust tax so far as Ireland is concerned. It is because our people feel very strongly about it that we are to-night making our most solemn and earnest protest against this vast injustice to Ireland.
§ Mr. HUNTThis tax really seems to be too absurd. As it has been shown, not only is it unjust, but it will not provide any money. Hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite are attacking their Irish friends as much as their Scottish friends. Is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington aware of what he said in May, 1905? "The 6d. tax had been renewed, and the right hon. Gentleman moved to leave out the Clause which reimposed the war tax on spirits because it was a war tax." The 6d. is still on and there is 3s. 9d. more of a war tax going on. The same right hon. Gentleman went on to say that "An effort should be made towards economy, but the Government have forgotten their pledges about economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer really ought to tell the Committee what these war taxes are." When the subject was under discussion the right hon. Gentleman did not think if this 6d. tax was kept on that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get as much money as if it was taken off. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will observe that this sixpence is still kept on, and that 3s. 9d. is stuck on the top of it. When the sixpenny tax was being discussed, the right hon. Gentleman said "that the excessive taxation of these commodities did not promote or increase temperance, but simply made those with a craving for liquor poor as well as drunken." That was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion at that time. Then the hon. Member for Halifax—another Member of the Government—said "that the extra sixpence on spirits led to the consumption of immature spirits which was provocative to violent crime." If a sixpence provokes violent crime I wonder what 3s. 9d. on the top of it is going to do. I know a number of people in the north of Scotland, and 801 they all say that there is an enormous amount of harm done by the highlanders drinking new raw whisky. They tell me that a couple of glasses of new raw whisky will send a man nearly mad; but if it is moderately good whisky and mature they say it will do good and not harm. I do not wish to press that view, but it is said to be so. Another Member of the Government, the Member for East Perthshire, said, "The Government had no right to continue in peace times this sixpenny tax, which was a war tax; that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to indicate the date when it was going to be removed." I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have made up his mind by now that the tax is useless, if only because he will not get the money. If these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who spoke their minds so freely in 1905 were right there is no doubt that this extra taxation will have a very bad effect, because men who must drink whisky will drink bad whisky and there is nothing worse for your inside than bad whisky. There is no doubt about it this extra tax is especially unfair to Ireland and Scotland. I do say that no Government, not
§ even a great democratic Government, has any business to tax the working man's whisky 300 to 400 per cent., and let the rich man's wine off. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave the figures of the taxation on whisky and wine. He said that the tax on whisky is between 300 and 400 per cent., and the tax on good champagne only about 8 or 9 per cent. I cannot calculate how many times more the poor man is taxed than the rich in this connection. I do not care what anybody says, no Government has any right to go and cram taxes on the working classes of this country like this. I hope that that will be brought home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he goes down to his wild Welsh hills. I hope down there they will say, "Consider how this Liberal Free Trade Government harasses the poor man."
§ 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, 118; Noes, 84.
803| Division No. 725.] | AYES. | [4.25 a.m. |
| Agnew, George William | Glendinning, R. G. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Pointer, J. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Gulland, John W. | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barker, Sir John | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Rees, J. D. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hedges, A. Paget | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Helme, Norval Watson | Robinson, S. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Brigg, John | Higham, John Sharp | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Horniman, Emslie John | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Clough, William | Lamont, Norman | Seely, Colonel |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lehmann, R. C. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Summerbell, T. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lupton, Arnold | Tomkinson, James |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Maclean, Donald | Toulmin, George |
| Cowan, W. H. | M'Callum, John M. | Verney, F. W. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Markham, Arthur Basil | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Marnham, F. J. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Massie, J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Middlebrook, William | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Elibank, Master of | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Essex, R. W. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Nussey, Sir Willans | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Nuttall, Harry | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Partington, Oswald | |
| Findlay, Alexander | Paulton, James Mellor | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. A. Pease and Sir E. Strachey. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | |
| Gibson, J. P. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Haddock, George B. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hamilton, Marquess of | Nolan, Joseph |
| Boland, John | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hazleton, Richard | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Healy, Timothy Michael | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Reddy, M. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hunt, Rowland | Renton, Leslie |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Joyce, Michael | Renwick, George |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Keating, Matthew | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Clyde, James Avon | Kilbride, Denis | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Sheehy, David |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stanier, Beville |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Starkey, John R. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lundon, T. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lynch, Arthur (Clare, W.) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Cullinan, J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Devlin, Joseph | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meagher, Michael | Younger, George |
| Duffy, William J. | Mooney, J. J. | |
| Fell, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Foster, P. S. | Muldoon, John | A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Gretton, John | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
804§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 84.
805| Division No. 726.] | AYES. | [4.30 a.m. |
| Agnew, George William | Gibson, J. P. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Glendinning, R. G. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Allen, Chares P. (Stroud) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Gulland, John W. | Pointer, J. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Barker, Sir John | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Rees, J. D. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hedges, A. Paget | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Helme, Norval Watson | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brigg, John | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Robinson, S. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Higham, John Sharp | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Horniman, Emslie John | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Clough, William | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lamont, Norman | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lehmann, R. C. | Seely, Colonel |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Summerbell, T. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lupton, Arnold | Tomkinson, James |
| Cowan, W. H. | Maclean, Donald | Toulmin, George |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | M'Callum, John M. | Verney, F. W. |
| Crosfield, A. H. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Markham, Arthur Basil | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Marnham, F. J. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Massie, J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Elibank, Master of | Middlebrook, William | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Essex, R. W. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Nussey, Sir Willans | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Nuttall, Harry | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Findlay, Alexander | Partington, Oswald | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Paulton, James Mellor | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Haddock, George B. | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Boland, John | Hamilton, Marquess of | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Bull, Sir William James | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hazleton, Richard | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Healy, Timothy Michael | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hill, Sir Clement | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Radcliff, Major R. F. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hunt, Rowland | Reddy, M. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Joyce, Michael | Renton, Leslie |
| Clyde, James Avon | Keating, Matthew | Renwick, George |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Kilbride, Denis | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Sheehy, David |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Stanier, Beville |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lundon, T. | Starkey, John R. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lynch, Arthur (Clare, W.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Cullinan, J. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Devlin, Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Duffy, William J. | Meagher, Michael | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fell, Arthur | Mooney, J. J. | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Foster, P. S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Gretton, John | Muldoon, John | W. Bull and Mr. Younger. |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Friday).