§ Question again proposed:
§ That as from the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the following duties be charged in respect of land:—
- (i.) A duty on any increment value accruing after the said date at the rate of one pound for every full five pounds of that value, the duty to be taken on the occasion of the transfer, or the grant of a lease of the land, and on the occasion of the death of any person where the property passing on his death comprises any such land, and in the case of land belonging to a body corporate or unincorporate on such periodical occasions as Parliament may determine;
- (ii.) A duty on the value of any benefit accruing to a lessor by reason of the determination of a lease at the rate of one pound for every ten pounds of that value;
- (iii.) An annual duty in respect of the capital site value of land which has not been developed for building or other purposes at the rate of one halfpenny for every pound of that value.
§ (2) MINERAL RIGHTS DUTY.
§ That there shall be charged for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten, and every subsequent financial year, on the rental value of all rights to work minerals and of all mineral wayleaves, a duty at the rate in each case of one shilling for every twenty shillings of that rental value.
§ The rental value to be taken to be—
- (a) Where the right to work the minerals is the subject of a mining lease, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year in respect of that right; and
- (b) Where minerals are being worked by the proprietor thereof, the amount which is determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be the sum which would have been received as the rent by the proprietor in the last working year if the right to work the minerals had been let and the minerals had been worked to the same extent and in the same manner as they have been worked by the proprietor in that year; and
- (c) In the case of a mineral wayleave, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year in respect of the wayleave.
§ (3) INCREMENT VALUE DUTY ON MINERALS.
§ That any duty charged on the increment value of minerals which are comprised in a mining lease or are being worked shall be charged annually, and the increment value shall be taken to be the sum by which in each year the rental value of the minerals exceeds the annual equivalent of the original capital value of the minerals, or the capital value of the minerals on the last preceding occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been collected.—[Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. DILLON
When I returned to this House after a somewhat prolonged absence I found the House engaged in a prolonged Debate on the question of bargain and private interviews between Ministers and private Members. The Leader of the Opposition, in a speech of singular eloquence and subtlety, was at the moment engaged in proving to the House and, I suppose, to the country, that a transaction of a highly discreditable character had taken place between the Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, in which the Prime Minister had come off second best, and the hon. Member for Waterford and the Irish party were on top. But when the Leader of the Opposition sat down up rose the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), who declared that the Prime Minister had ascertained the weight to an ounce of the hon. Member for Waterford, had sized him up, had planted his foot upon his neck, and was now engaged in the operation of reducing him to pulp or powder—a task which I do not think the Prime Minister has ever undertaken against any individual, either opponent or supporter. Then the Debate was wound up by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). 2104 who in a few sentences of intense passion, declared that in his opinion there was no bargain, because the Prime Minister had not the courage to make one, that he had simply taken his orders from the hon. Member for Waterford, and, like an obedient slave, had obeyed them without making any bargain at all. Do not hon. Members see that there is a slight inconsistency between these statements'? In my opinion, a more futile and preposterous Debate was never engaged in by this House. One fact, and one fact alone, to a somewhat detached spectator, such as I was upon that occasion, was perfectly manifest, namely, that the Members of the Tory party and the Friends of the hon. Member for North Louth were exceedingly angry because the Members of the Nationalist party and the Members of the Liberal party saw their way to co-operate in a policy having for its object the advancement of the liberty of the democracy of Ireland and England alike. Really I do not see anything in that to be ashamed of. I believe, on the contrary, that what took place will be the cause of genuine rejoicing to every true friend of liberty in Great Britain and Ireland. There was a great deal of talk about bargains. As a matter of fact, there was no bargain; but I am not one of those who think that political bargaining is discreditable. On the contrary, I think we are here for the purpose of political bargaining. So long as the bargain is made in the interests of one's country and not in one's own interests I do not think that any party ought to be ashamed of political bargaining; still less, a small party like ours, who can never hope or desire to obtain political office in this country. How can we hope to serve the cause of Ireland in this House if not by political bargaining? The only thing I regret in the course of recent transactions is that there was not a political bargain made between the Irish party and the Liberal party at a much earlier stage: [An HON. MEMBER: "Then it was made?"] I said there was no bargain. I point to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), who declared there was no bargain. As a matter of fact, it is notorious there was no bargain. When the Irish party met the other day to consider the situation they were as free as air. They were in no way tied. It was open to the Irish party, when they met' last Monday, to decide to vote against 2105 this Budget and against the Government. Where, then, does the bargain come in? I am not unsupported in this contention. I am supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy). It was his chief complaint. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire said there was no bargain: that the Prime Minister had not the courage to make a bargain. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Louth. I am sorry that there was no bargain. Again, as regards these private interviews between Ministers and others. The Prime Minister made a speech the other day at Oxford, I think. It was a very frank speech. In it the right hon. Gentleman said:—He deeply regretted that he was not at the head of a homogeneous majority in the House of Commons.''That was a very frank and manly statement, and perfectly natural. Of course, it is far easier for the Prime Minister, as the Leader of a great party, if he is at the head of a homogeneous majority. It simplifies his task. But the right hon. Gentleman manfully recognised in that speech that he was not at the head of a homogeneous majority, and that if he was going to carry on the Government of this country it would only be by setting up a mutual confidence and a mutual understanding. That has been made the subject of a great deal of taunt from above the Gangway. Hon. Members seem to forget that not very long ago—there are men in this House who will remember it—the second Government of Lord Salisbury adopted this method. The Government of 1886, which last till 1892, was based on a coalition. It was a great and powerful Government. It was composed of a coalition of two absolutely independent parties, with separate leaders and separate party organisations. So absolute was the separation that the Leader of one of the parties could have turned out the Government at any time. But hon. Gentlemen sat upon these benches side by side. Does anybody suppose for a single moment that Lord Salisbury took one step or decided upon a single matter without consulting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham? In the same sense as has been suggested was not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham the master? Hon. Members above the Gangway—those certainly who remember those days—did not think any less of that Government. It was a strong Government. It lasted for six years. It was strong enough to destroy the Constitution of Ireland— 2106 and perhaps the coalition at present may provide a strong enough Government to right that.
I have lived in many countries and seen something of politics in other countries, and you have bargains made. Men make bargains for their country, and men make bargains for themselves. I am not quite sure that this House is entirely free from the latter kind of bargaining. At all events it cannot be said—and I have been in this House for thirty years—that the Irish party have even been successfully accused of making in the true sense of the word a corrupt bargain. We have been approached more than once. Offers have been made to us in the course of these recent Debates. They are very interesting. I was reading the other day a leading article in the "Morning Post," which is a very important paper—at least it is in my opinion, for it speaks for a great body of Unionist opinion. What does that paper say in regard to this matter? It is really rather interesting, when the Irish are represented as rebels and dynamitards whom no British Minister would deal with at all Said the "Morning Post" of 28th March:—The Nationalists have it in their power to decide whether the taxation of Ireland shall now be increased by anything between £500,000 and £2,0 0,000 a year— to take the extreme estimate of Mr. Lloyd-George's new taxation—or reduced by a corresponding amount through the transfer of taxation to imported food of a kind which Ireland produces for home consumption and does not have to buy.That is a very important offer. As I read it, it means an offer of £4,000,000 per year—supposing this basis of £2,000,000 added taxation to Ireland, which was accepted by the "Morning Post" to be correct. If that offer were made to us by the responsible leaders of the Tory party, of course we should be bound to consider it. I do not know whether such an offer has been contemplated. Responsible leaders of the Tory party have not approached us. They have offered nothing to us, or we would be bound to consider it. Personally I, as a Home Ruler, would refuse it, because, even though that be a very considerable mess of pottage— £4,000,000 a year to a country like Ireland, which has been over taxed—I would not barter away our chance of liberty. Because the "Morning Post" goes on to intimate that we should make up our mind to abandon Home Rule and definitely settle down as a part of the United Kingdom under the present system. I would not accept that offer. I can quite understand Irishmen saying, "Well, it is a great offer to a poor country 2107 like Ireland," because you must always remember that £4,000,000 a year to Ireland is equal proportionately to £100,000,000 to a country like Great Britain—and it is a mighty bribe ! I can understand an Irish leader saying, "This is a very big offer, and if the Tory party consider it worth while to buy up the Home Rule movement by the offer of £4,000,000 a year, then I shall accept." So far as I am concerned I do not see anything discreditable in an Irish leader considering that. 1 can conceive an Irish leader taking the view that I have indicated. I certainly would not lake it. I have so much faith in the virtue of home government and liberty that even for that bribe I would not sell the prospect of liberty. Even on the basis named, according to my idea, there would be no dishonour in that bargain so long as none of the £4,000,000 went into our private pockets. It would be a bargain that the Irish party would be perfectly entitled to consider and refer to the Irish people for consideration. The "Morning Post" goes on to say—they go into figures:—Take the single item of dairy produce. According to figures lately given in a Free Trade contemporary, a duty of u per cent, on the foreign supply imported into the United Kingdom, and of 2½ per cent, on the Colonial supply, would yield £1,650,000 of revenue, practically none of which would be paid by Ireland. Ireland exports to Great Britain over £4,000,000 of dairy produce, and under the operation of the 5 per cent, preference might soon export more.''They go on to point out that the 5 per cent, duty upon dairy produce would, of course, apply to, the British Colonies as well as to foreign countries. From that statement, what they offer us is that by this bargain our taxation is to be reduced by making the English consumer pay 5 per cent, more for his dairy produce than he now pays. That would not induce me to abandon the cause of Home Rule. But I repeat again that I see nothing to be ashamed of in political bargaining made by an Irish leader so far as these bargains concern the interests of the Irish people. And I deeply regret that at an earlier stage in these proceedings we were not able to enter into a closer bond of understanding and bargaining with the Government for the pursuit of a policy, the main dominant policy of the Liberal party, with which we are entirely agreed.
Let me turn for a moment to the Budget and our attitude towards it. This has been continually misrepresented in this House. As originally introduced the Budget undoubtedly in many of its clauses 2108 was most unjust to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork in his speech last night said that in his opinion "the Budget in most of its clauses was drawn with the malignant purpose of hitting Ireland "—that is the Budget as it was originally introduced. I myself on the Second Reading expressed a directly opposite view. I do not believe that any such purpose entered into the minds of Ministers. I believe, on the contrary, as we then stated, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of Debate asseverated, that in drafting the Budget his mind was entirely occupied with the conditions of Great Britain, the country from which he expected by far the greater amount of his money. He did not advert—that is the usual ground of our complaint—'to the fact that a Budget which might be conceivably perfectly fair to Great Britain might hit Ireland most cruelly, because Ireland is a country economically different in all its details to Great Britain—more so perhaps than any other country in Western Europe. Therefore, if you draft a Budget based upon the different characteristics, economic, social, c[...] and industrial of the two different countries, you are always certain to inflict a gross injustice upon Ireland.
What is our attitude towards the Budget? From the beginning we said that even in its original form, as regards its general purpose and its general scheme, we were not opposed to it; but as regards many of its clauses, it hit Ireland with intolerable injustice. We brought these matters under the attention of the House and the Governmnt last year. The Government were able to vote us down by a majority of 150. I must point to the fact that we succeeded in obtaining from the Government by force of argument and long discussion concessions which removed at least three-fourths of the grievances of which we complained. I will have a word to say about that in a moment. Then came the Third Reading of the Budget. We abstained from voting by an overwhelming vote of the Irish party, and we decided to abstain from voting against the Third Reading for two reasons. In the first place, because, as I have said, we have succeeded in the course of discussion in removing the greatest grievances of which we complained, and we thought that some recognition was due to the Government for the way in which they had acted to us in Committee. 2109 In the second place, the stronger reason why we abstained from voting on the Third Reading was, as has already been stated by the Chairman of the party, because a dominant issue had risen, so vital to the question at present of Home Rule for Ireland, and we saw the shadow of this great conflict between the Commons and the Lords might bring Home Rule within our grasp. We therefore decided not to take part with the Lords against the Commons in the approaching struggle.
Now these were the two reasons upon which we decided not to vote against the Third Reading of the Budget after it had passed through its Committee stage and Report stage in this House. That was our attitude towards it. We said—and our position was perfectly accurately described by the Prime Minister on Monday night—we did not object to the Budget as a whole. On the contrary, as a whole we thought it a fair democratic Budget, but to certain clauses of it we took the strongest possible objection, and we protested against certain provisions, which we still hold worked unfairly towards Ireland. Let me say a word, first, as to the provisions of which we still complain, and then as to the question of concessions. We hold, at least I personally hold, that the concessions we were seeking are, as regards the main structure of the Budget and its eventual effect, insignificant, although vitally important to certan limited interests and classes in Ireland. They have been misrepresented, I think, with deadly effect as concessions specially in favour of Ireland and not applying to Great Britain. That is not true. As regards nine-tenths of the concessions for which we were anxious, they were concessions that would apply equally over the whole of the three Kingdoms. There were alterations in respect of certain provisions which, like those we had got altered last autumn owing to the different financial and economic conditions of the two countries, undoubtedly pressed upon Ireland, and I hold and still hold—it is my own opinion —that these concessions, even under the very peculiar circumstances under which this Budget of last year is now being passed, might have been made without exciting any undue conflict, because I think we would have been able to show so strong a case, and to show that there were not special exemptions in favour of Ireland but in favour of the whole country, and which would remove from the Budget certain blots and provisions which inflict 2110 grievous injury upon Ireland without altering substantially or radically the framework of the Budget machinery or of its principles.
The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien) delivered a speech recently about which a great deal has been said. I do not intend to refer to it for more than a sentence or two. The hon. Member declared the Government were prepared to exempt Ireland altogether from the Budget, and also to restore the finances of the Wyndham Act, in which he was specially interested, which would cost at least £500,000 or £600,000 a year. I think the delivery of that speech rendered it absolutely impossible for the Government to give us any further concessions. I still hold, and feel perfectly confident, that our concessions for which we asked are so reasonable that when the Budget of next year comes to be introduced, whoever is in power—[An HON. MEMBER: "IS this a bargain?"]. There is no bargain; I wish there was. [An HON. MEMBER: "An understanding."] It would be a very excellent understanding; I should not be ashamed of it. But I was going to say that the concessions which we asked for whichever Government is in power next year we shall succeed in obtaining. Somebody said, I think the hon. Member for North-East Cork, when we were speaking of next year's Budget, "When will that be?" And a voice answered, "After the House of Lords is abolished." But the Budget of this year must be introduced, the Government must be carried on, and no matter what happens at the next General Election, and it would be a wise man who could tell, I have a shrewd suspicion, indeed I have a confident hope, that no-matter what may be the fortunes of the next election, so far as British parties are concerned the Irish party will have a very considerable voice in the next Parliament. I care not which party gets into power at the next election, the Irish party will have a considerable voice, and I think we will be able to get our concessions; at any rate we shall be able to bargain. It will not be necessary, nor would it be tolerable, that the next Budget should be carried through under the closure—in the circumstances that may be both necessary and desirable now—and therefore we would be able to put forward our claims for the concessions which we consider just to Ireland, and I have such confidence in the strength of our case that I think we shall get these concessions. One thing that has 2111 astonished me during the last few days is the extraordinary change that has come over the Tory party during the past few weeks. For the last two months they have been clamouring every night for the Budget. Now they have got the Budget, and they do not seem to be entirely happy. It seems to me to be rather hard to please them. When the Budget was held back they attacked the Government; now that the Budget is to be passed they do not seem happy.
I turn now to the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy.) The hon. Member last night delivered a most powerful attack upon the Budget. He represented himself—he was in a humble vein—as an extremely incapable man. I rather quarrel with the hon. Member's description of himself. I think he is an extremely capable man and one of the best experts in Ireland upon this subject. But I think that that makes the character of his speech all the more inexcusable, for I never heard a speech in this House that more grossly misrepresented the subject. I am very glad that the hon. Member addressed the House upon this question of the Budget, because he gave hon. Members in every part of the House a specimen, and a good specimen, of the class of oratory with which certain parts of Ireland have been deluged in the last six months—arguments which have been supported by various powerful interests, including the landlords and the distillers and others of that class. The hon. Member commenced by complaining bitterly that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) did not address the House in the course of this Debate. But when the hon. and learned Member for Waterford does address the House his utterances are not accepted with enthusiasm or support in the quarter in which the hon. Member for North-East Cork sits. He went on to say that the Budget was drafted in most of its clauses with the deliberate and malignant purpose of hitting Ireland, and he proceeded to analyse the Budget for the purpose of illustrating that proposition. He first alluded to what I will call the two-million theory. He said that the Budget was inflicting an additional burden upon Ireland of £2,000,000 a year. He was a little more cautious in bringing out that proposition in the House where he knew he could be dealt with than in the freer air of Irish platforms. We 2112 are charged with relying upon official figures. In dealing with these matters you must rely to some extent on official figures, because you have nothing else. But orators like the hon. Member for North-East Cork have a contempt for figures. They do not need to discuss figures. They take some good round solid substantial sum, and they hurl it at the heads of their audience; £2,000,000 a year sounds well, but I never saw any of these gentlemen whom I may describe as the £2,000,000 a year school give any figures to support their contention.
I assert that the Budget as it originally stood would have laid upon Ireland an additional burden of £540,000 a year. As it now turns out, owing to the failure of the Spirit Duties and other matters the actual additional load placed upon Ireland by this Budget will be considerably under £500,000 a year. The hon. Member for North-East Cork spoke in scornful accents of Irish Members whom he described as helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they ought to be helping Ireland. I can never understand, and can never accept the proposition that you are helping Ireland in matters of this character by making ridiculous and preposterous statements, nor will I ever understand that you are helping Ireland by hurling baseless and cruel charges against men who have been lifelong and faithful friends of Ireland, while you cover with adulation the lifelong enemies of Ireland. We have a strong case against England on this question of over-taxation, but in my opinion —I state it for what it is worth— the worst enemies of our cause are those who are the propagators of these preposterous and exaggerated statements. This Budget, in my opinion, passing as it now will pass, will lay upon Ireland the charge this year of about £480,000.
§ Mr. DILLON
I quite agree that Treasury figures should be scrutinised, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman at the earliest possible moment to lay upon the Table of the House a White Paper containing the Treasury estimates of these figures, showing exactly what Ireland is paying. Then let these gentlemen who talk about £2,000,000 produce their calculations to show that the Budget does in fact lay a burden of £2,000,000 a year upon Ireland. That is a fair challenge, and let them face the Irish people upon the issue, and if they are proved to be wrong I hope 2113 they will withdraw and apologise. That I think is perfectly fair.
Let me take up one or two particulars with which the hon. Member for North-East Cork dealt in order to prove his charge that the Government had a malignant purpose in drafting certain clauses of this Budget. He dealt, I think, with four points in this long Budget. He dealt first of all with the taxes upon agricultural land, Death Duties, Stamp Duties, and the Whisky Tax. I am one of those who believe still, notwithstanding the figures of the hon. Member for North-East Cork—1 admit he is a great expert upon the matter—that the wording of the Budget as it originally stood does exempt agricultural land. When hon. Members above the Gangway are challenged on this point they begin to talk about cabbage gardens in the centre of the City. Their idea applies to about twenty or thirty acres of land in a city, upon which cabbages have been planted, and they call that agricultural land; but that is not our view. We mean the genuine farmer. I quite agree that if there is a shadow of a doubt about the exclusion of agricultural land the words should be made clear. We do know, however, that the intention of the Government was never questioned, and they have now put in words to make the meaning clear. But whether the words proposed are effective or not, the intention of the Government in putting them in is beyond all question. Surely, when we come to this provision the learned lawyers in the House will be able to frame words which do not include cabbage gardens in the city, but which will nevertheless carry out the intention of the Government. What was the view taken in Ireland upon this subject. It was that if a farm was put up for auction—I may say that small farms in Ireland are sold for what rational men would call far above their agricultural value—Increment Duty might be charged on all the value obtained by the small farmer which was above the fair price. The words of the Act are, "If sold at the time in open market."
§ Mr. DILLON
I am dealing with what was the intention of the Government, and this is quite clear. Let me now deal with the Death Duties. The hon. Member for North-East Cork on this point said:—Hitherto the Irish tenant farmer has paid practically no Death Duties.2114 The hon. Member went on to explain what the effect of the Budget would be, and the substance of his statement was that after the passing of this measure the Government would get from Irish land a double Death Duty—one from the landlord and another from the tenant, while the English tenant would be let off scot-free. The hon. Member then went on and gave the impression to the House that the protection given to the Irish tenant by the case of the Attorney-General versus Robinson was abrogated by this Bill, and that in future the Irish tenant farmer would be in a worse postion under this Budget than the English tenant farmer, and that a double Death Duty would be exacted from Irish land. Now there is not a shadow of foundation for that statement, because the law is left unchanged by this Bill, and all the protection given to the Irish tenant farmer by the Attorney-General versus Robinson is still reserved to them. How can the hon. Member for North-East Cork stand on that statement? The hon. Member makes a long charge, and says all he wants is equal justice, and he leaves the House under the impression that a great injustice is intended to be done by an alteration of the law in this respect, when, as a matter of fact, the law has not been in the least altered, the Government having met that point by Amendments inserted in the Budget last year. When we come to examine further the provisions of Clause 61 of the Finance Bill we find that a great majority of the Irish farmers, and some of the poorest of them, will be placed in a much better position as regards the Death Duties by this Budget than they were before. Is the method adopted by the hon. Member a tolerable way of conducting Debate in this House? I put that question to any hon. Member who listened to his speech last night. Most skilfully he gave the impression that this Budget was going to inflict an enormous injustice on Irish farmers as a whole. I maintain that, so far as the tenant farmer of Ireland is concerned on this point, he is left untouched by the Budget, and the purchasing farmers will get substantial relief from this Budget.
Now I turn to the Stamp Duties. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork drew an extraordinary and vivid picture of the injustice that would be inflicted on Ireland by the Stamp Duties. He said all we want and ask for is that there should be equal justice done between the Irish and the English as regards the Stamp Duties, and he went on to state 2115 that this Budget had introduced an intolerable injustice in regard to the Stamp Duty to the Irish farmer who had bought his holding.
§ Mr. DILLON
The hon. and learned Member never alluded to that at all. What he complained of was that the Budget introduced a principle of gross injustice as regards the Stamp Duties in relation to purchase agreements in Ireland. He said that hitherto the tenant who sold his farm only paid Stamp Duty on the money he received as the price of his farm, and that under this Act he will pay not only Stamp Duty on the money he received, but he will also be obliged to pay Stamp Duty on his unpaid mortgage due to the Land Commission. That, Sir, has been the law in Ireland for years, and the Budget has nothing whatever to do with that.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALY
I am sure the hon. Member will not object to my interrupting him. My point was that the effect of land purchase in Ireland had already converted nearly half that country into tenant purchasers, and in the case of those tenant purchasers they had to pay on the sale of their holdings, and not merely on the purchase money, but also on the mortgage due to the Land Commission, and I stated that the effect of this Budget will be to double that injustice.
§ Mr. DILLON
The hon. and learned Member did not refer to the doubling of the Stamp Duty at all. What he said was:—We all know that over half the area of Ireland the landed property is now held by tenant farmers, each of whom holds his farm subject to a substantial mortgage payable to the Irish Exchequer. Hitherto when an Irish tenant sold his farm, Death Duty was paid on the money got for the farm.Now that statement is false.
§ Mr. DILLON
You never mentioned the question of the doubling of the Stamp Duty. What the hon. Member said was that before that the tenant paid on the money he paid for his farm, and that now under this Act he would have to pay not only on the money he got when it was sold, but also on the mortgage. The hon. and learned Member seems to forget that when 2116 he was speaking on this very question on 18th May he used the following words, and I have looked up the reference:—The complaint we make on this Resolution is not the doubling of the Stamp Duty. If the Stamp Duty is to be doubled in England, we apprehend that we cannot make any fair complaint if it is doubled also in Ireland.''I again assert that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork never uttered a word last night about doubling the Stamp Duty. I know this, because I sat and listened carefully and critically to his speech last night. What he complained of was that the Budget was going to bring into the Stamp Tax the mortgage due to the Land Commission. Now the Budget has no influence on that matter whatever, and it is an old grievance which we complained of long before the Budget was introduced.
§ Mr. DILLON
That was not his complaint last night, although it may be his complaint now, when he is hedged and driven into a corner. Last night he never said anything at all about a double grievance, and this is only an example of the kind of oratory which has been used to poison public opinion in Ireland. We are not afraid to debate this question either before our Constituencies in Ireland or before this House, nor are we afraid of the policy we have adopted. I, myself, would have been willing to make even larger sacrifices rather than divide the democracies of the two countries, once we were satisfied that this was going to be a real fight. I, for one, am prepared to maintain on any platform in Ireland that the grievances, real as they are, inflicted upon Ireland by some of the clauses of this Budget, have for political purposes been grossly, monstrously, and wickedly exaggerated.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
I am sure the rest of the Committee will share with me the pleasure we feel at the return of the hon. Member for East Mayo to the House of Commons. I do not think, however, that I can compliment him upon the clearness of his utterances in regard to this question of the bargain. In the first place, he suggests that there has Been no bargain, and then he went on immediately to express his great regret that the bargain had not been struck at an earlier period.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
That is not what he said. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member in the references he has made to his colleagues who represent the City of Cork and a portion of the county of Cork. Those hon. Members are perfectly well able to take care of themselves, and I am not concerned to interfere in their disputes. I am, however, anxious to draw the attention of the Committee to an important matter which vitally affects the interests of Ireland—I allude to the position which agricultural land is going to occupy under this Budget both in Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister, in his speech on Monday night, used the following words:—I confess, I think the plain language of the Bill itself, and the repeated declarations of Members of the Government—undoubtedly fears and anxieties were expressed in the course of the General Election, not only in Ireland, but in Great Britain, as to whether a rise in the value of purely agricultural land might not under some conditions, become subject to Increment Duty. No doubt a great man3' hon. Members opposite have used that argument. Possibly some have even secured votes, for aught I know, and may even have won their present seats by suggesting to the electorate that this was the case.I have no doubt that some hon. Members hold their seats in this House of Commons as the result of false pretences. I have no doubt whatever about that. We would not have had all these fictions about the big loaf and old age pensions unless it was thought that they would have some effect, and I assume they were found just as useful at the last election as were the fictions about Chinese slavery at the previous election. Let us see what exactly was the controversy in Ireland over this question, and on which side the truth lies, and who was right. The right hon. Gentleman has not exactly stated it as it arose, because he has introduced these words:—The controversy was as to whether a rise in the value of purely agricultural land, might not under some conditions become subject to the Increment Duty.He has introduced the word "purely" there. I will show later on, from the utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he stated in this House, beyond the shadow of a possibility of contradiction, that even in the case of purely agricultural land there were a number of provisions under which, if its value as purely agricultural land was increased, that increased value would have to pay Increment Duty. I will deal with that later on; it is not the issue now.
2118 Let me state how the controversy arose. There were three ways in which this question of the exemption of agricultural land might have been dealt with in this Budget. It might have been dealt with by the simple exclusion of all agricultural land. Amendments were moved from this side of the House with a view of obtaining the insertion of a provision to that effect, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his way to accept it. I am not quarrelling with that now. Another method would have been to insert a provision that agricultural land, so long as it was used for purely agricultural purposes should be exempt from Increment Duty. That also was suggested and argued, but the right hon. Gentleman declined to accept it. The only remaining method by which it could be done was the one adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, to exclude from this Increment Duty the agriculture value of agricultural land, but not the agricultural land itself. The result is that agricultural land in respect of every element and every ingredient, whether present or prospective, over and above the agricultural value, becomes subject to Increment Duty. That is perfectly clear on the express language of the Bill itself, and I will show in a few minutes that it is borne out by the declarations of responsible Ministers.
What was the position taken up by the lion, and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and his colleagues in Ireland upon this point? Did they tell the farmers of Ireland that their agricultural land was to be subject to Increment Duty in respect of every ingredient other than its agricultural value? No, they did not. This is what they told the farmers of Ireland, and it was upon this statement that the controversy arose which has been finally disposed of against the hon. and learned Gentleman by the statement of the Prime Minister made in this House en Monday evening. Speaking in the City of Dublin, a short time after the close of last Session, and summing-up the so-called victories of his party in connection with this Budget of last Session, the hon. and learned Gentleman claimed two main and substantial concessions. His first claim was that he had obtained a relief for Irish publicans in the matter of the Licence Duties, and I think the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) must have forgotten that when he said that they had claimed and received no concession that was not applicable or was not extended over the entire United Kingdom.
§ Mr. DILLON
I never said that at all. What I said was that most of the concessions we were claiming—I did not say all —extended to the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
I quite fall in with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I understood him to say, not merely the Concessions they were now claiming, but the concessions they had succeeded in obtaining during the course of the Budget discussion last Session. That, however, is a small point. The hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to severely criticise his colleague the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) for not having recourse to official figures, but what was the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford on that occasion? He said:—This concession to Ireland in the matter of publicans' licences is worth in actual money £61.000 a yearI wonder where he got that figure, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from his seat in this House on 22nd October last year, stated that the total money value of that concesion was £25,000. So much for official figures. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford went on to make this statement, as the result of which the controversy arose at home with regard to agricultural land:—We have succeeded in exempting from the operation of all the Land Taxes all the agricultural land of Ireland. I have seen that statement contradicted. I have seen statements to the contrary made. I say that these statements to the contrary are false. It is an absolute fact that all agricultural land is excluded from Unearned Increment, and from all other Land Taxes.I observe that hon. Members below the Gang-way are very faint in their cheers, but I will demonstrate to them that that statement of the hon. and learned Member was absolutely incorrect, and I will prove it out of the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Let there be no mistake as to what the assertion was. It was that agricultural land, as such, was exempt from all the Land Taxes, the true fact being that agricultural land, as such, was not exempt, but only its agricultural value; and, in respect of every other incident connected with agricultural land and every other ingredient in it, it was included in the Budget for the purpose of the Increment Duty. The hon. Member for East Mayo seems to be under the delusion that the result of the definition, or the exemption of the agricultural value of agricultural land, is to exclude from the Increment Duty any additional price that agricultural land 2120 fetches by reason of undue competition. He never made a greater mistake in his life. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has deliberately stated in this House that one of the elements he intended to charge, and which he does charge in respect of Increment Duty under this Budget, is the excessive price resulting from undue competition in the case of small holdings. Let me quote. Speaking in this House on 22nd June last year of the cases in which agricultural land is going to remain subject to Increment Duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the following statement:—One is the case where, owing to artificial reasons over which he has no control, and which cannot possibly he placed to his credit, there is an enhanced value given to his land by the efforts of the community.I ask the attention of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who uttered that faint cheer a moment ago to this:—I divide these first of all into markets. What does that mean? It means, as I have already explained, generally, that where a town grows in a certain direction with great rapidity naturally land which was far removed from a market suddenly gets, as it were, almost within reach of the market, and the land is, therefore, doubled, trebled, or quadrupled in value. That is a, value that has nothing to do with its normal growth or those fluctuations in prices which I have referred to. It is a value which is created by the community and by those great aggregations of people who have come together.What was his next illustration?The second case is where there is a special building" value which is attributable to the same circumstances.Now I ask special attention to his third illustration—There is another value which is created in many cases. I am sorry to say, by the demand for small holdings. In some cases the demand for small holdings and allotments have put up the value of land by 100 per cent. I know of a case myself where the demand for allotments put the value of land up 300 per cent. That is not the natural value: it is a purely artificial value, which is created by the action of the community. I think in a case of that kind, a landlord ought to be subject to the same increment as if it had been a purely building value.5.0 P.M.
We have it on the authority of the Prime Minister that the language carries out the express intention of himself and his colleagues, and I should like to know who was right in the controversy in Ireland— the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, who stated that all agricultural land was excluded from all land taxation, or the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. William O'Brien), and the hon. and learned Member for the East Division of the County of Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), who stated that the whole agricultural land of Ireland would be subject to the every item of Increment Duty in respect of any value or any ingredient in it over and above its actual agricultural value. 2121 But the matter was again put beyond doubt by the statement of the Attorney-General, who, speaking in this House on 10th August, said:—Whenever you get a value over and above your agricultural value, then that is an indication, as fair us any indication that you can get, that the needs of the community in respect of this particular piece of land are now in excess of their needs in respect of that land for merely agricultural purposes… Therefore that is an indication that the time has come for a change in the purpose for which that land is used. ‥ ‥ Undoubtedly it id clear we have proposed to tax value—the value in the market—the saleable value rather than the value which arises from existing use.I should have thought that that made the matter absolutely and abundantly clear. Therefore one effect of this Budget, in reference to which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his colleagues are not going to raise one finger to save their country, under the Budget is the ordinary case of the farmer who gives a higher price for the farm that lies near to his own. Over and above its agricultural value he pays an additional sum per acre owing to his anxiety and keenness to get it by reason of it running into his own land. I say if there is any meaning in the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that farm, in respect of the additional sum paid, will be liable to Increment Duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear in his statement on Monday night that the additional Amendment he was making to the Budget on this point was not to be taken or intended as any concession. It was merely declaratory of the previous intentions of the Government, and it could not be quoted against him as any departure from the Budget. He seemed rather to plume himself on the fact that, even in this particular, there was to be no departure from the Budget of last year. I want to know whether, having regard to the revelations made in this House last Monday night, it was worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to plume himself so much on the inviolability of this Budget. Had he forgotten that the pen-and-ink result of the negotiations in regard to the Budget was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not prepared to give way in the case of Ireland unless the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his colleagues would spare him and his Government from the crowning humiliation of swallowing their proud declaration as to the impropriety and impossibility of seeking assurances from the Crown at a certain 2122 stage of his administration? I am not going to enter into the merits of the controversy between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. W. O'Brien). I listened very carefully to the conflicting grounds, if they may be called conflicting, and the only discrepancy I noticed was that while the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork City said he had read a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made what I thought was a rather pettifogging point.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
I quite understand that, but I would remind you of what was said in the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, to whom I am replying.
The hon. Member was not dealing with the discrepancies in the accounts given by the right hon. and hon. Members.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
Having regard to what did transpire, having regard to the avowals of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that all these concessions were offered to him long ago, and having regard also to the statement addressed to the American Press by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool that the Irish party had been offered these concessions, I think the time has gone for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to be pluming themselves on their devotion and attachment to every comma in this Budget. What I cannot understand in this connection is the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford and his colleagues. They held this Government in the hollow of their hands. They had them on the run, and, so far from its being a case of choosing between alternative bargains, I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman had only to hold out and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have taken him to the very highest mountain from which he could have surveyed the whole Liberal programme and would have said to him, "All this and more will be yours if you will only give me your seventy votes." The hon. and learned Gentleman has not thought fit to pursue his advantage. He stated in the speech to which the hon. Member for East Mayo referred yesterday his reasons for not dividing against the Budget on the Third Reading last Session. The hon. Member for East Mayo quoted two of 2123 those reasons, but he failed, or forgot, to mention the third. The third reason given by the hon. and learned Member for not voting against the Budget on that occasion was that it was quite unnecessary, because, at that time, it was well known that the Budget would be thrown out by the House of Lords. Therefore he has put himself in this position. He was saved, in so far as he and his party were concerned, from deliberately voting for the betrayal of the financial interests of Ireland, and so certainly saved from the infliction of financial injustice on that country by the action of a House whose destruction he now seems bent upon.
With regard to this question, in which I take the greatest interest, having regard to its application to my own country— and I think it will be admitted, although this question of the exemption of agricultural land is a serious one both for England and for Scotland, there is, perhaps, no part of His Majesty's Dominions in which its importance is greater than in Ireland—I want to say just one word, although I fear it may not be quite in order. I am not going to deal with the proposed addition to the Clause of the Financial Bill, except to say that I fail to understand it. Certainly it does not extend relief to agricultural land. Of course, we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that it is not intended, by the addition, to give any relief that was not covered by or contemplated in the original Finance Bill. We have that most distinct assurance. Let us see what the clause was without this addition. It provided that the Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes. Surely hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway from Ireland can see that that bears out entirely what I have said—that this exemption is in respect of agricultural land solely and only in regard to its agricultural value in the case of thousands and millions of acres throughout Ireland, which by reason of their proximity to a market, or a railway, or a large town, or which through any other cause gets an inherent value over and above its agricultural value, that value is to be subject to the Increment duty. Hon. Gentlemen behind the Government cheer that statement, but hon. Members below the Gangway from Ireland are dumb on the point. To my certain knowledge they have gone throughout the length and breadth of Ireland 2124 assuring the Irish farmers that we, who told them that that was the effect of this Budget were entirely mistaken, and that the true solution of the position was this: That under all conditions agricultural land in Ireland, as such, was free, and exempt from any of these duties. Yet it is as clear as anything can be—if, indeed, there is anything clear in this Budget—the one thing that the only exemption agricultural land is given is in respect of its agricultural value, and that every other ingredient and element of valuation, whether present or prospective, is to come within and be made subject to this Increment Duty. I believe in my heart that when the farmers of Ireland understand the position which has been arrived at — namely, that as a result of seventy votes controlled not merely by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, but controlled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, not a single voice among the seventy has been raised in this House in defence of their interests, and in opposition to an imposition which will ultimately, I believe, crush many of them out of existence. There will be a day of reckoning for the hon. Gentleman and his party.
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)
I listened with very great attention to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I was not very well able to gather what was the precise purpose of his speech. It seemed to me that if he intended anything it was not to complain of the Budget as it now stands, but to regret that on its first introduction the Budget was something different from what he now appreciates it to be. I am asked what I mean by that. Let me repeat. I did not understand that any criticism which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman had regard to the Budget as it is now introduced; the whole point of his criticism was that, as originally introduced, there was not that exemption of agricultural land which is now given.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not intentionally misrepresent me. I think every Member of the Committee understood that when I called attention to the existing Finance Bill I was pointing out that the proposed exemption leaves the matter exactly where it was, and that under that exemption the only thing exempted is the agricultural value of the land.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure he will quite appreciate the natural error into which I think he falls.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes; I think he will. He quoted in support of his case a speech made by my right hon. Friend on 22nd June and a speech made by the Attorney-General on 10th August, but those speeches related not to the Budget as it left this House, or to the Budget that is now introduced, but to a different Budget.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I am sure the Prime Minister stated that the invariable intention from the first of the Government was to exempt agricultural land.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I have not his words by me, but I am sure that the Prime Minister has not referred to anything except to the Budget as it left this House, and when he said that it was the intention of the Government not to tax agricultural land, and that, in his opinion, the Bill did not tax agricultural land, he referred to the Bill after it had passed through Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will surely appreciate the point when I remind him that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Bill as originally introduced, and in that Bill the exemption as to agricultural land was in the following words:—''And in the case of agricultural land the value of which is due solely to its capacity for agricultural purposes.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The right hon. Gentleman cheers that, and no doubt if he had quoted those words he would have commented upon the absence of cheers from the benches opposite; but that was not the Bill which went through the House, that was not the Bill before the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going to leave the right hon. Gentleman on this point until he appreciates it.
§ Mr. McKENNA
No; my argument will remain the same. I have read the words 2126 of the Bill upon which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer founded his speech on 22nd June and the words to which the speech of the Attorney-General, which has been quoted, also related. The Bill as it passed this House was as follows:—
Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only.
§ Mr. McKENNA
No, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman is not going to ride off so easily. In support of his explanation of those words he read a speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on 22nd June, and from that speech he quoted the reference my right hon. Friend made to propinquity of markets, and he said—quoting a speech of 22nd June, and referring to the speech as relating to the clause of the Bill as it left this House—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to charge Increment Duty on increment value arising from propinquity of markets. My right hon. Friend intended that in his Bill as originally introduced, but not in his Bill as it left the House.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I will come to that in another moment, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he regards it as fair argument to quote words from a Bill in Parliament, and to explain those words by a reference to a speech which related to a different clause. With regard to the substance of the question, I will put a case to the right hon. Gentleman which will explain to him the difference between the intention of the Government and what he believes to be their intention. Suppose land is let at the rate of £15 an acre, as it very well might be close to a town. I mean agricultural land; and there are cases where close to a town land is let for market gardening purposes alone at £15 an acre.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The figure is not material, and I will take £10 if it is wished. Supposing land for market-gardening purposes is let close to a town for £10 an acre. The value of that land at that figure is determined by the value of the agricultural produce which can be raised from it, and that would be £10 an acre, which would be 2127 its agricultural value. Supposing that land had let for building purposes at £8 an acre. Then there would be no increment value payable upon it, because inasmuch as the agricultural value is in excess of any other value the exemption of agricultural land sets it free from taxation. Is that first point clear?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Now suppose some plot of land which is let for £10 an acre for agricultural purposes could, if let for building purposes, be let for £20 an acre. If that land is then sold Increment Value Duty will be payable upon it in respect of of its excess building value. Is there anything unreasonable in that, and is not that complete exemption of agricultural land? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Gentleman well knows, and I may remind him of the point, that the excess is reckoned from the datum line of valuation. You start from the original valuation, and no matter how much the agricultural value of the land may exceed that datum line no Increment Duty will be charged upon it, but if that building value goes up beyond the agricultural datum line the building value is greater than the agricultural value, and then Increment Value Duty will be charged. I appeal to the Committee whether in this explanation by the Government of their intention under the Bill—an intention which they have done their best to carry put in words—it is not manifest that a sincere, and, I believe, an effectual effort, has been made to distinguish between what my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has so correctly called the cabbage garden of the city, and really agricultural land. I do not suppose, if the principle of increment value is once accepted, that any one will deny that the mere fact that valuable land is being used for the purpose of growing cabbages, ought not to exempt the owner from increment value. No one denies that.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I do not think it is denied in Ireland for a moment. The hon. Members who represent Irish constituencies have from their own point of view, and from the public point of view, very rightly endeavoured to see that every precaution is taken in order to exempt 2128 genuine agricultural land. That, as the Prime Minister has said, has been the intention of the Government, and they believe still that that intention is sufficiently carried out by the words of the Bill as it stood when it left this House. It is quite true it was not sufficiently guarded by the words of the Bill when originally introduced, but all arguments drawn from the original Bill have no weight or validity now, and it was in the Bill as it left this House. Although, however, we do not think it was necessary, we have been willing to introduce further words which, by way of extra precaution make it manifest that no land which has an agricultural value in excess of the building or any other value shall be chargeable to Increment Duty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that if the building value is in excess of the agricultural value it ought to be charged, and as he agrees to that, he also recognises that where the agricultural value is in excess of the building value, it is not chargeable, and, therefore, agricultural land is now exempted.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Then I am bound to come back to my original statement that I do not quite see the purport of his speech. Let me turn for a moment to the question of contribution—the whole question of the contribution made by Ireland to this Budget. It has been said, and I think very widely believed in Ireland, that in one way or another Ireland was made to contribute to the extent of £2,000,000 to the total revenue of £12,000,000 or £13,000,000. That has been said and repeated again and again. If that were true I think every Irish Member would be bound to vote against the Budget and to resist the Budget in the most determined manner. If that were true, I do not think even if they got something else in exchange they would be justified in throwing such a burden upon the Irish taxpayer at the present time—a burden which would be out of all proportion to that borne by the British taxpayer, and which certainly on no principle of finance could be justified. If it were true that Ireland is charged to the extent of £2,000,000 the Government would be the first to recognise the great grievance of the unjustifiable burden which would be thereby imposed upon Ireland. But what are the facts? Let us get down to the actual facts. Last year the amount received for the year 1909–10 was approximately £13,000,000 from the 2129 whole of the United Kingdom, and so far from the contribution of Ireland being £2,000,000 to that amount, it was not half a million.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Assuming that all the taxes in this Budget have been raised and paid, the contribution of Ireland would be not half a million; it would, in fact, be £435,000.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
How much is included in that estimate of the yield of the 3s. 9d. tax on whisky?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I am coming to that. I am dealing now with the revenue raised last year. Assuming that all the taxes had been collected by this Budget, the actual contribution to the total of £13,000,000 raised in the United Kingdom would be £435,000. I think it will be agreed upon all hands that if that figure is correct the burden upon Ireland is not excessive. So far from its being excessive it is a smaller proportion than the existing proportion of the Irish contribution to the total of our revenue. Therefore, for the year 1910, the Irish under this Budget will pay a less percentage than they have ever paid before. In other words, so far from hitting them exceptionally hard it lets them off, that is, for the contribution for last year, assuming the taxes all to have been raised. It is quite true that in that estimate we take the actual amount of whisky on which duty has been paid during the last year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already explained that it would not be safe to take that estimate as likely to be true for future years, because stocks have been reduced to a minimum, and once the controversy over the Budget is settled there is no doubt a larger amount will again be taken out of bond for the re-supply of stocks than was taken last year. But what is the estimated increase of the revenue from Ireland under this head? I notice that the hon. Member (Mr. Maurice Healy) said the final contribution to this Budget from Ireland would be not £435,000, but £760,000 a year.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALY
No; what I said was that the yield from spirits on the basis of consumption in the year previous to this would have been £765,000 if the tax had been increased to 3s. 9d. The figures were taken from an answer by the Secretary to the Treasury.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALY
Not at all. The amount which would be produced by a 3s. 9d. tax on the basis that the consumption of whisky and spirits was the same as it had been.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I should accept without prejudice, for the sake of the argument the figures given by the hon. Member. I have not those figures here, but they certainly strike me as of doubtful value.
§ Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN
May I suggest that these figures are calculated not on the total consumption of whisky, but on the production of whisky?
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALY
Not at all. That is a most ridiculous statement. If the figures had been taken on the basis of the production of whisky they would be £2,000,000, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated. The figures are the figures of the consumption of whisky and spirits, and, if the First Lord of the Admiralty throws doubt on them, they were given last year in this House by his colleague the Secretary to the Treasury.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I have not the precise figures or the terms in which the answer was given. I do not contradict anything said by the hon. Gentleman, and, for the sake of the argument, I accept the figures he has given. Although the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that next year a larger revenue will be raised from whisky, owing to the depletion of stocks, he does not estimate that there is going to be an increase in the individual consumption of whisky.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALY
The right hon. Gentleman said, in originally discussing the question, that, while no doubt the increase in the tax would temporarily have the effect of lessening the consumption of whisky, that would only happen temporarily, and that ultimately the consumption would go back to its original figure.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I know, as a matter of fact, that my right hon. Friend has always anticipated that the effect of the duty would be to reduce the consumption of whisky permanently, and it is common ground that every increase in the duty does reduce the consumption of alcohol. 2131 We know that the effect of the duty has been to reduce the consumption of alcohol in Ireland. It may be said that Ireland in that way is a sufferer under the Budget, and that some of the Irish people who would like to have more whisky have to deny themselves, but I do not think that is a suffering which is put forward in this House as a ground for compensation. The only point we are considering is whether the Irish are unduly charged under the Budget either last year or in future years. I have shown that last year it will be £435,000 out of approximately £13,000,000. In future years I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman that Ireland will pay a larger amount on account of the larger payment in respect of whisky, because the duty-paid stocks have been reduced, and they will have to be made good again. But our estimate of that increase of revenue from Ireland is well under £100,000, and even if it amounted to such a sum as £100,000, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not expect, the proportion of the revenue from Ireland would not be above the average proportion of revenue paid by Ireland at present.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALY
Is it alleged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the Whisky Tax by 3s. 9d. with the object of reducing the revenue from Ireland by £200,000?
§ Mr. McKENNA
No. The hon. Gentleman has put to me a question of motive. We axe dealing now with the facts as to the revenue raised by the Whisky Tax.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALY
The right hon. Gentleman is not dealing with facts, but with estimates—a very different thing.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I am dealing with the estimates of facts. It is common ground that the effect of an increased duty is to reduce consumption. I do not think there is very much point in the hon. Member's question.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Assuming that the present decline, and no more than the present decline, in the consumption of whisky continues, Ireland, as I have said, will in future years not bear any burden under this Budget in excess of the proportion, which she has already been bearing in previous years. On the contrary, she will still continue to bear a less burden, 2132 and each year it will be a diminishing proportion which Ireland will have to pay.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I am endeavouring to deal with the argument that this Budget is costing the Irish taxpayers £2,000,000, and I am endeavouring to show that, so far from that being true, for last year the cost of the Budget for Ireland was well under £450,000, and we do not anticipate that ever in the future it will exceed half a million—a quarter of the alleged charge which it is supposed we are imposing upon the Irish taxpayer. But that is only one side of the picture. How are we spending the money?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Haulbowline, at any rate, is a Government dockyard on which we do spend money. What is the expenditure under the Budget upon old age pensions? No less than £2,460,000 goes to Ireland, and we only charge Ireland under the Budget under £500,000, and less than £460,000 in the last year. On that item alone there is an excess charge of £2,000,000 paid to Ireland. On other additional services of this Budget £400,000 is spent upon Ireland, so that whereas Ireland is receiving in new expenditure £2,860,000 directly allocated out of the Budget, she contributed last year £435,000, and in no future year will she contribute as much as half a million. Who, upon that statement of figures, is going to say that Ireland is being unfairly treated under the Budget? I do not say for a moment that Irish representatives are not fully justified in calling attention to every matter which affects them and endeavouring to get the best for themselves that they can and putting their case fairly and strongly before the House of Commons; but no one in Ireland is justified in alleging that the Budget costs the Irish taxpayer £2,000,000, and that they are being burdened with the Budget, when the facts show that it costs less than half a million and they are receiving close upon three millions out of it. I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will not mind if I observe that at any rate from one bench opposite no-cheers are being raised at this point. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) asked that a White Paper should be circulated, show- 2133 ing the effect of the taxes upon Ireland. It is a proposition to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer very readily agrees. The more information is spread upon this subject the better. No one is so anxious as the Government, not only for the sake of Ireland but for the sake of the taxpayers throughout this country, that every detail of the Budget should be thoroughly understood. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the Budget, and I do not think the course of the last few day's Debate has given us any reason for being ashamed. We have had complaints made of the decline in our credit and of the low price of Consols. Does the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banburf) really attribute the low price of Consols to the Budget?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I have always admired the hon. Baronet's courage, but never more than now. He has seen a decline in the price of Consols proceeding steadily for years. He has known Consols at 114, and he has seen them drop steadily year after year until they are down to close upon 80. The hon. Baronet is willing to draw a line from an imaginary point, and say that the drop down to that line was due to all sorts of causes, and not to the Budget, but that below that line the drop was due to the Budget. He has got such a nice appreciation of financial causes, and such an intelligent understanding of the reasons why Consols go up and down, that he says the drop of twenty-two points was due to a variety of causes, which it would take a long time to explain, and that the drop of the last two or three points is due to the Budget. Does he really allege that to be his opinion?
§ Sir F. BANBURY
Certainly I do. When the Budget was introduced Consols were at eighty-five, and there has been no war and no reason why Consols should drop, unless it is the introduction of the Budget. Having been challenged on this point, I would say that during that time all foreign Government securities have risen, and if they have risen since the Budget was introduced while money was cheap, what other reason can there be for the fall in Consols except the policy of the Government as exemplified by the Budget?
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Baronet when on this style of argument has forgotten the greatest reason of all. Tariff Reform 2134 has done it, or, rather, I should say the mere rumour of it. The hon. Baronet will have to find other reasons than that for the decline in the value of Consols. Another objection that has been raised to the Budget, almost as extraordinary as that regarding its effect upon Consols, was that the Land Taxes are going to lead to overcrowding. One hon. Gentleman yesterday raised a serious argument to the effect that the Undeveloped Land Tax will be to cause overcrowding. How is it going to cause overcrowding? The owner of land is taxed in respect of his land ½d. in the £ of its value so long as the land is not built upon, but the moment he builds upon it and relieves overcrowding he is free from the tax. Again, it is declared that the effect of the tax will be to increase overcrowding. It is obviously a tax which is going to promote building. You may raise objections to the Undeveloped Land Tax for an infinite variety of reasons, but the one argument you cannot bring against it is that it will cause overcrowding. One thing the Undeveloped Land Tax is certain to effect is that it will relieve overcrowding. There are critics of the Undeveloped Land Tax who say that its effect will not be to promote the development of land, and that after its first introduction no great results in the way anticipated will follow. Upon that argument I can only say, for my part, that in certain areas in the neighbourhood of growing towns—in fact, in those very areas for which the Land Tax is most appropriately applied— I think there is not a shadow of doubt that the effect must be to prevent land being unduly held up. I have not in my own mind the smallest doubt that when the Undeveloped Land Tax is in operation far greater care will be taken than is taken now to develop estates steadily and upon right lines, and that we shall not have some plots of land held up here and others there in order to await the increased speculative value of the land, while in the interval of time, of course, overcrowding exists on other parts of the land which have already been developed.
I should have been glad if in the course of the Debate other matters had been raised for criticism with regard to the Budget. It would certainly have given me more opportunity for answering the criticism on those matters. In the main the whole of this Debate upon, the Budget, which has been such a bugbear, has turned upon the amount of the contribution from Ireland. Hon. and right hon. Gentleman 2135 who went up and down the country abusing this Budget have, I am glad to say, now with great philosophy accepted it. I have listened to the Debate, and I have been able, I think, to judge of the criticism raised upon the Budget, and I congratulated myself, and I thought I was justified in congratulating the House that it is generally recognised that this Budget is now an accomplished fact. We had very long discussions upon this Budget last year. There never was a measure which went through greater detailed criticism, and I am thankful that now, in one of the last stages of discussion on the measure, we can say that the criticism directed against it has no greater validity than such criticism as it has received during the last couple of days, and I think when the country has again to judge upon this Budget and upon the policy which it has made law, the country will endorse the action of the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman, in the closing portion of his speech, expressed regret that he had not more arguments to answer. That might have been a very natural wish if he had not been insisting that we should work under the guillotine. But as the right hon. Gentleman took nearly an hour out of the two hours that remain before the guillotine falls in attempting to answer the arguments adduced in the Debate I confess that I am extremely glad that there were no more arguments to answer, for I suppose he would have occupied the whole of the time which the Prime Minister has given us for discussion on this stage.
I admit I based my argument upon subjective feelings, and I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman is right in his estimate of the time he occupied by the clock. I admit it was not the clock that was inaccurate, but the subjective emotion which his speech aroused, and which induced me somewhat to overestimate its length. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need mourn that he had not other arguments to answer than those which were advanced in the course of the Debate. For in truth he has been singularly unsuccessful in dealing with the main contention against this Budget so far as the general com- 2136 munity is concerned. I am not going to enter into the particular quarrel with the Irish Members as to the benefit or the reverse which this Budget does to Ireland. I will only say that, as a British taxpayer, I began towards the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to tremble at the calculations he put before us, and began to wonder whether British Members would rise in their wrath and say they were cruelly ill-used. The whole calculation of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Ireland was based on the assumption that the Budget and the Old Age Pensions were one Bill. They are not one Bill. Old age pensions are among the things which the Budget has got to pay for. Irish police and "Dreadnoughts" are also some of the things which the Budget has got to pay for, and it is perfectly absurd to take a particular Bill passed on general grounds the year before and to say, "Ireland benefits so much by some of our previous legislation that they ought not to complain of this Budget." That may be a fair argument in surveying the finances of Ireland in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom, but it is no argument at all for the defence of the Budget itself regarded in its operation on this or that part of the United Kingdom.
I am going to deal with the argument which occupied the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he gave his version of what was meant by the Land Taxes and the exemption of agricultural land. I say boldly that he has utterly mistaken the defence which the Government themselves made on that part of the Bill last year, and he has completely misunderstood the argument addressed to him from these benches on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. and learned Friend quoted from speeches made in June and August, and that there were changes made after August which did exempt agricultural land and carried out the policy which the Government are constantly talking about in the House and shouting about on platforms, but which they always refused to put into their Bill. I will not' take speeches made in June or August. I will take the period when the Bill had practically taken its final form, and I will show perfectly conclusively that the Increment Duty does attack agricultural land. The very wording of Clause 7 shows that the Government intend, in certain circum- 2137 stances, to tax agricultural value. The words are:—Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only.In other words, you leave it open to charge agricultural land as soon as it gets beyond its agricultural value.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. McKENNA
If the agricultural value is the higher value you cannot charge, no matter what other value it has. It is only when the other value, the building value or otherwise, is higher than the agricultural value that you charge. It is not on the agricultural value.
§ Mr. McKENNA
No. Really the matter is too serious, because obviously it is going to be a subject of representation outside. It must be clearly understood that if the building value of the land is higher than the agricultural value, it is regarded as building value on which increment would be charged.
§ Mr. McKENNA
There is nothing charged on the agricultural value. The Noble Lord must remember that the increment value is the difference in the values, but if the agricultural value is higher than the building value, then no increment value is charged.
I traverse that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. We are dealing now only with land that has a value above its agricultural value, which has risen above its agricultural value either owing to competition or else because it is close to some building centre, or for some other cause. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We will only tax the increment above its agricultural value." I say that under the Bill, and under the defence of that Bill, made in October last, it is perfectly clear that they meant to charge upon the increased agricultural value. I will make the matter perfectly plain by merely reminding the House of 2138 what took place in the Debate, which will be found in the official record for 20th October. An hon. Member on that side of the House, who is a Member of the present House, the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division (Sir Luke White) put this illustration. He took land worth £50 an acre, agricultural value; that land increases to £80 an acre, still agricultural value. The increase is due either to a general rise in prices or to competition amongst small holders, or to intensive cultivation, or other causes of a purely agricultural character, £50 is the original datum line. It is the value of the land on 30th April, 1909. After it has risen to £80, purely agricultural value, then a new cause comes into operation which raises it to £100. The right hon. Gentleman says that under the Bill there will be increment value charged only on the difference between £80 and £100.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He distinctly said that there was to be no charge on any increase in agricultural value. If he did not say that he said nothing. I say that under the Bill they are going to charge increment value, not on the difference between £80 and £100, which is an increase due to non-agricultural causes, but they are going to charge it on the whole increase between £50 and £100, £30 of which is by hypothesis due, and due solely, to an increase in agricultural value.
That was the illustration given of a particular difficulty by an hon. Member opposite. Another hon. Gentleman, who is no longer a Member of the House, Mr. Everett, reinforced the same point later on. The Attorney-General explained the Bill exactly as I have explained it. He said:—The moment the land comes into a different category we treat it as building land, not as agricultural land, and of course we charge the Increment Value Duty upon the datum line of 30th April, 1909.And a little later he said:—The agricultural value is superseded. It is ignored the moment the land conies under the new category.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with his Attorney-General last year that that was the way the Bill left the House of Commons last year, and that is what happens with the Bill as introduced this year. How can anybody who takes that view of the Bill say that the increase of purely agricultural value is not taxed. It is taxed. I have a small holding, valued last April at £50. By intensive cultivation I make it worth £80. It then gets a building value of £100. I am taxed upon the increment. Upon what increment? Upon the increment between £80 and £100 which is due to the adjoining town? Not at all; but I am taxed on the whole increment of from £50 to £100, three-fifths of which is agricultural and only two-fifths of which is urban. I do not think that there is anything more to be added on this question of agricultural value. We fought in the last Parliament night after night. We at last got the thing clear, as I think I have shown by the extracts from the Attorney-General. On the explanation of the Attorney-General himself, it was manifest that the increase in agricultural value was being taxed. We said so in the country. We have been denounced for saying so in the country. It is perfectly plain to everybody who has been listening to the uncontradicted statements which I have made with regard to the policy of the Bill; it was perfectly plain then to the right hon. Gentleman, that the increments of agricultural value are taxed and axe intended to be taxed, and that no modification introduced by the Government in the present Session makes the smallest difference in that fact.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
moved in Resolution (1) after the word "land" ["in respect of land"] to insert the words: "Other than land used for agriculture."
I rather anticipated there would be some ambiguity over this question, having a recollection of the Debates which took place on this subject during the last Parliament, and so I have put down, an Amendment which I think will have the effect of clearing up the intentions of the Government before we come to consider the Bill, so that we may see whether their intentions really coincide with the intentions which we on this side of the House are told the Government really have. I think that if that Amendment were carried it would, at all events, put beyond doubt the exemption of agricultural land from these taxes. I 2140 am quite ready to admit that this Amendment would go even further, and would also include land which would come under the Undeveloped Land Clause. As regards that there would be no objection, to my mind, if the Government will say that they will confine this Amendment to the Increment Tax Reversion Duty, to introduce in words to give effect to that, and, in that event, I shall be quite ready to withdraw my Amendment, so that the Undeveloped Land Duty exemptions should be as at the present moment. I do not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering this Amendment, to say that he is opposed to it, because it would also have reference to the Undeveloped Land Duties. I do not think anybody need argue the question of the already heavy burdens upon land. It was argued yesterday with great effect.
I imagine that with the exception of a few single taxers below the Gangway opposite the view generally taken in this House is that agriculture is far too heavily burdened as it is. Therefore, I may say, we are practically agreed that no additional burden ought to be put upon land. The question before us is whether or not there are any additional burdens imposed by these proposed taxes. It is a curious thing that a great many hon. Hembers who took part in the Debates in the last Parliament went from this House to the country without any real appreciation of the facts as regards this Land Tax. Because, in taking up the Debate on the day already mentioned, 20th October, I find that the hon. Member for Barnstaple, among others, seemed to share in the same delusion which the First Lord of the Admiralty appears still to have, according to the speech made a few minutes ago, because he says that the value of that land is:—owing to the people who are working around that land and who want it to build upon. Then that land is sold as building land. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought fit to do so, he could have said, ' I am going to put Increment Duty upon the whole of the building value.' He does not do that. He goes even further than anticipated. He gives the purchaser a boon. He says, 'You may take from that building value the agricultural value up to a. datum line.' That is in the nature of a boon. Therefore there can be no doubt whatever in my mind that agricultural value in every shape and in every form is excluded from this increment.He agreed with the First Lord of the Admiralty. There was the same erroneous view. He says, "You may take from that building value the agricultural value up to a datum line," but in doing that he is thinking of the Undeveloped 2141 Land Tax, which provides that in assessing the tax you subtract the value of the land for agricultural purposes from that of the land for building purposes, and you put the tax on the difference between the two, whereas in the case of Increment Duty you do nothing of the kind. The hon. Member who is now a Junior Lord of the Treasury, took the view, and I think it is a view that a great many hon. Members have shared, that in the Increment Tax you pay merely on the increased value due to the difference between agricultural value and building value. You do not. You pay, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition proved just now, on the agricultural value, which is included in the building value, and which may be due entirely to your own efforts, and no allowance whatever is made to the owner of this land for the money and the capital he has spent upon it. That money and that capital is indeed expressly excluded because if the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 25 of the old Bill, line 30, he will see that any improvement of the value of the land as building land, "or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry, other than agriculture," may be taken in order to get at the site value. Therefore, all expenditure on the land to improve it for agriculture is included in the Increment Duty which is payable, and it is absurd to say that agricultural land is not subject to this tax. Another hon. Member who took part in the Debate last year, but who is uo longer a Member of the House—Mr. Austin Taylor—made an interruption when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire was speaking about the Increment Duty. Mr. Austin Taylor said that surely, so long as the land was used for agricultural purposes, no Increment Duty would become due. A great many others on that side of the House at that time, and even as late as 20th October, were of opinion, and they have gone about the country saying so, that land used for agricultural purposes would not be subject to the Increment Duty. It is perfectly obvious, however, that the land is subject to Increment Duty. A great deal of land, now purely agricultural land, and which will be agricultural land for very many years to come, will have a large proportion of increase in value, and that increase will be taxed for the purpose of the Increment Duty. It is perfectly impossible, I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to disentangle the value for build- 2142 ing or the value for accommodation from agricultural purposes. Take the case of land worth £2 an acre for agricultural purposes only, and that is the datum line on 30th April, 1909. Then say that purely for accommodation purposes, or for a dairy or anything of that kind, or for facilities for a railway, or anything else, the land goes up in value until it is worth £8 an acre, and that at the same time somebody would be prepared to offer the sum of £8 per acre capitalised for building purposes. What happens? As long as those two values "of £8 are, in the opinion of the Government valuer, held to be exactly balanced, no increment is payable; but the moment a Government valuer says that the value for building purposes of that land might reach £8 10s., then there has to be paid, not the difference between £8 and £8 10s., but the difference between £8 10s. and £2. Yet the supporters of the Government go about the country saying agricultural land is exempted.
I say it is impossible to distinguish this difference in the value. It will pass the wit of any Government valuer to say exactly to what cause the increased value of the land is due. It may be due in some cases largely to the capital which has been sunk in it by the owner of the land, and in some cases to the demand for the land, which seems to refer more especially to Ireland, where, I gather, people are more keen to engage in farming operations than in England, or it may be due to the value given to the land by the fact of its being in the neighbourhood of large towns. No valuer can possibly disentangle those causes, and even if he does so in his own opinion satisfactorily, then the agricultural value will be subject to this tax. In moving this Amendment, I hope I shall have the support of the Nationalist Members who follow the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I say that because I notice that one of his followers, the hon. Member for East Tyrone, who spoke last evening, made it perfectly clear that he interpreted the Prime Minister's speech as one that would absolutely exclude agricultural land from this tax. The hon. Member said:—The undertaking has been given that agricultural land shall be exempt from this Increment Duty, and it will be our duty, I say quite frankly, to see that the promise is carried into statutory effect.I feel very certain that the remark of the hon. Member for East Tyrone will have far more effect upon the Government than any words which can fall from Members on this side of the House who are Members of the 2143 Unionist party. I am quite certain, they will have more effect up the Government, and on that ground I feel all the more encouraged in moving my Amendment than I should have been in the last Parliament. The hon. Members who follow the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford will have the opportunity now of showing whether they are going to keep the Government to their pledge to relieve agricultural land from this tax, and I only hope they will join me in the Lobby.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I think the Noble Lord who has just sat down may compose his mind on the question of whether he will receive any support from Irish Members on this subject. The Irish Members who will vote against him, I think, are taking up a logical position. They could have got many, a great many concessions on this Budget, but they intend to vote for it at all hazards. Therefore, it is idle to suppose that, having once taken the plunge, and committed, as we think, treason against their country, they will in any way retrace their steps. At all events, as they have gone wrong, let them be logical. I am going to support the Amendment. I give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the credit that he fully intended to relieve agricultural land from this burden. But is there any man in the House of Commons who can understand the language in which he proposes to do it except himself? How is it one can understand a fool, and seldom understand a learned man? Draftsmen and Privy Councillors do not express themselves in the language of plain people. The Irish peasantry make inquiry, and they are told agricultural land is protected. We all remember the Gilbert and Sullivan operas of thirty years ago, and in the play of "Patience" there are the lines:—And everyone will say. As he treads his flowery way. That this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me. Why what a particularly deep young man this deep young man must be !Here are the words, and you may put them to a prize competition or a guessing competition in any assembly in England, and I defy you to say that anyone could understand them, or would say that they bear, and bear only, the sense which the Government assert that they have. I will first read the old words:—Increment value shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes, only "—2144 Now these are the relieving words:—only if sold at the time in the open market.But remember, in this case we are not setting puzzles for judges with £5,000 or £6,000 a year, for the purpose of their answering our conundrums. We are setting puzzles in this case to gaugers and Revenue officers paid from £150 to £300 a year. Let me put this case. An Irish-American comes back from America and he sees a bit of land for sale adjoining his father's home. It is only ten acres, and if he paid a reasonable price upon it, say £20 an acre, it would cost £200. But, for one reason or another—and remember that you are largely responsible for this, for it is you, the English, that have made Irish land valuable, by destroying every other form of industry in the country: their mills are all gone, you have taken good care of that, and you have left no other industry in the country except agriculture—the returned American gives, not £200 for this bit of land, but £500, because he has no other form of investment in his native land. What happens then? The Revenue officer comes down and says, "I will assess this at 20 per cent.; I think it is under the £500, but I will take it off the £200; I will take £40 out of your pocket." What is to happen then? That is the next point. How is this question of whether that Revenue officer is right or wrong to be determined or settled? The officer of the court will not pass the conveyance unless it is stamped, I presume, though I do not pretend to be au fait with these matters. That is the first proposition. How, then, is the returned American to look after his £40? He has to start an action against the Crown, I presume; he has to get the fiat of the Attorney-General. So he goes to his solicitor in Ballydehob and says he wants to bring an action against the King. "You fool," says the solicitor, "is it not far better to pay the money than to embark in a lawsuit of this kind?" But let us suppose that the man goes to law with the Crown, and he gets the fiat of the Attorney-General for the fee of £10 10s. He starts his action, and the Irish judges, who are naturally against the Treasury— I give them the credit that whenever they can decide against the Treasury in any matter they always do so—decide that this £40 is not really payable to the Crown. What will the Crown do? They will take the case to the Court of Appeal, which includes, I will assume, the Irish Lord Chancellor, and that tribunal decides in favour of Paddy O'Rafferty and against the Revenue. What happens next? The 2145 Crown take the case to the House of Lords, and by this time this unfortunate man, for the sake of his £40, has incurred a bill of costs to the amount of something like £300 or £400. I say it would cost at least £300. The man is now gambling on a lawsuit, and the Crown go to the House of Lords; and heaven knows what the House of Lords will do. It would not be for me to speculate, but supposing they decide against him, what will the costs be? I venture to say that for the sake of the £40 this wretched man will have incurred either a loss or liability of close upon a thousand pounds. Therefore is it not reasonable at least that now, when this question is in the melting-pot in this House, that those who say that the words are not plain shall be heard, and that those who take up that position shall at least have the satisfaction of having their position made clear?
I do not for one moment accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer of anything like duplicity or a desire to throw dust in anybody's eyes. I believe he has been convinced by the arguments that have been addressed to him to assist agricultural land in this matter. All we ask is that it should be made clear. I know there are many English gentlemen opposite who are what are called single-taxers, and who think agricultural land should bear the burden with the rest of the land. One word on that, and especially as regards Ireland. Have you ever considered that a tax on the land in Ireland or in England, on agricultural land, is a tax on food? Have you ever considered that you are putting on the farmers in this country a burden which the Canadian or the Argentine or the American farmer has not to bear? Remember that to-day the only difference between Buenos Ayres and London, so far as agricultural products is concerned, is a difference of freights, and that is only a question of a very small amount of steam. Therefore are we not right in dealing with this miserable industry of agriculture, which is the real industry that is subject to dumping, to say that the man who is producing butter, or cows, or sheep, or anything in connection with the farm, shall not have a penny of burden upon him, any more than if he started a mill, or a cotton industry, or any other matter of that kind? Remember that the burdens of rates are becoming oppressive. There is no doubt about it. For instance, we never had such burdens as public health 2146 charges in Ireland until recently. We had to bring in water supplies and do a number of things which were absolutely necessary because the country until thirty years ago was in an absolutely insanitary state. In addition to that, I know that in fair rents fixed on land near towns as much a3 40 per cent, to be added for proximity value, all of which more or less goes to the landlord. Accordingly many of those farmers are top-rated in competition with the Canadian or American or Argentine farmers. Therefore, fully recognising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does desire to meet us in this matter, I think we are entitled to ask on this issue that he will not obscure it, but make it plain.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)
The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) has made an appeal to me on this subject to which I very willingly respond, but I think I am entitled to make another appeal to him. He must not imagine that the case he is putting is the case which is covered by the Amendment of the Noble Lord. His case is totally different, as I think I shall be able to demonstrate, and the words meet his case amply, and if they do not I am quite open to conviction on the question of whether words can more clearly and explicitly set forth the object of the Government. I have absolutely no doubt in the case he gave. It is a sort of case which happens very often in our part of the world. His case is that of an Irishman who has gone abroad, who made money, who goes down to his district and buys the old farm, or any other farm in the locality. Undoubtedly that has the effect of putting up the value of the land. I know that is the case in our part of the world. Welshmen go to Liverpool and Manchester, and make money, return to the old village, and buy a farm which is in the market at a price which is a purely fictitious value to that of the land in the district. That value is a purely agricultural value, and that is the real object of those words. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made merry over the matter, but I do think they carry out the object he had in his mind. The words are: "Increment Value Duty shall not be charged in respect of agricultural land while that land has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only." Then, I think, it was in Ireland the opinion of learned counsel was circulated throughout the Irish constituencies that there was a purely artificial value 2147 given to land in Ireland because of this competition, and therefore that value was not protected by those words. We introduce these words into the new Bill— "If sold at the time in the open market" —for the purpose of saying that the agricultural value shall be the value which it would fetch in the market if it were sold. That would mean if it were put up for sale by auction you would get from thirty to forty years' purchase purely and simply because you got this rich man who had returned to pay an extravagant price for the farm, not for building purposes, but purely for agricultural purposes. All that is completely protected by those words. I say this to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he can convince me that those words do not cover that case, or if he can submit to me, or anyone else in the House, words that more completely cover that I have not the slightest hesitation in saying I will accept them on behalf of the Government. Therefore I make an appeal to the hon. and learned Member not to mix up his case with another case which I must take my stand on if he persists. What is the case of the Noble Lord. His case is not the case of purely agricultural land. We all know what that means—the ordinary farm in the country—and I say that is completely protected from every penny of taxation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Members shout "No," and have argued it, and I am going to put the other side of the case. I am only laying down a proposition to begin with. What does the Amendment mean? The case the Noble Lord has in his mind is this—the case of land in the immediate vicinity of a growing town, which may be let for a cabbage garden or horticultural purposes, and fetches a very high price for that purpose possibly. It is sold for building land.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
If that is not the case the Noble Lord has in his mind, that is what is covered by the Amendment he has moved. His Amendment is, and I want the Committee to appreciate what it really means, "Other than land used for agriculture." If those words were introduced there is only one thing for the Government to do, and that is to knock off the whole of the Land Taxes. [An HON. MEMBER: ' Why."] I will say why. I asked the question with 2148 a view to answering it. It is for this reason—take building land. A builder comes along and buys an open field, and pays a thousand pounds an acre for it. I know many fields of that kind running from a thousand pounds to two or three thousand pounds per acre. That land is land used for agriculture presently. You may have cattle grazing on it the very moment when the conveyance is signed in the lawyer's office. The conveyance is signed, the solicitor's clerk takes it to the Inland Revenue Stamping Office, where, on being asked, "Is that land being used for agricultural purposes," the reply would be "Yes, there were cows on it when I left the neighbourhood," and so, although it is a thousand pounds an acre, or even five thousand pounds an acre paid for building land, not a penny will be paid under this marvellous Amendment of the Noble Lord.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite fairly put the position. Surely if that land was built upon, as I presume it would be, or the price would not be given for it, as the result of the sale, then it would be building land, and not agricultural land.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
The interruption of the Noble Lord simply bears out exactly what I say. The man buys for the one purpose of having it cut up into building lots. He may the very morning after the conveyance is signed and the stamp is paid, turn his men in to start digging foundations. He is buying land which is building land essentially. To call that agricultural land is a mockery and a sham. It is not intended for the purpose of agricultural land. Purely agricultural land is amply protected in every part of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is not the case which the hon. and learned Member has got in his mind. As far as I understand, the hon. and learned Member does not want to protect these valuable building plots purely and simply because for the moment you may have a cabbage or two on them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] If nobody does, why does everybody say so on the other side of the House? I think I am entitled to make this plain. Criticism may be directed against the words used by the Government, and they may say, "Why can you not frame something that expresses your meaning?" but here is an Amendment which expresses a meaning that nobody on the other side of the House intends it to bear, and yet they will all vote for it Let us have an Amendment that really ex- 2149 presses the intention of the Noble Lord. This does not.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
Does the Noble Lord really know what the Rules of the House are with regard to these Resolutions? Does he know, if these words are introduced, he could not introduce words to his Bill afterwards which would omit land? You may take a Resolution which covers actually more than you mean to charge, but the moment you extend to all agricultural land you cannot afterwards introduce an Amendment to charge some land. It shows how ill-considered these proposals are that come from the other side of the House, without even knowing the elementary rules of this House.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
I really must interrupt. I do not think his argument on that matter is correct. Otherwise, according to his own Resolution in the last Finance Bill, he would not have been able to move a single exemption.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
The Noble Lord evidently does not appreciate the point at all. He thinks that if you exempt the whole of agricultural land you can afterwards in the Bill introduce provisions enabling you to charge some of it. That is exactly what you cannot do. I cannot imagine that he will press an Amendment which, according to his own admission, will do something that he does not intend. Let hon. Gentlemen put their real propositions before the House, and I shall be perfectly willing to consider them. What exactly is the position? You have two categories of land. First, there is land which is purely agricultural, whose value is an agricultural value, and which has a larger value for agricultural purposes than for any other purpose. That land is completely exempted from all taxation under the Land Taxes of the Budget. The second class of land is what I call building land, winch has a higher value for building purposes than for any other purpose. That land we propose to charge. Unless that land is charged Increment Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty I do not see the object of the Land Taxes at all. That is their real purpose. How can you arrive at that position? I submit that there is only one way of doing it, and that is the way proposed in the Finance Bill—by determining whether land has a greater value for building than it has for agriculture. The moment it 2150 has a higher value for building than for agriculture it passes into the category of building land. What is the proposal that has been put forward? It is that we should exempt the whole of the agricultural value, even after the land has passed into the category of building land. What would that mean? All that a man would have to do in order to evade Increment Duty would be to let the land, even for a few months, for any sort of horticultural purpose, charging any rent he likes, and he could capitalise that rent and deduct it from the building value. There would be no use at all in proceeding with these Land Taxes if a loophole of that kind, through which half a dozen coaches and six could be driven were left. Therefore we have to make up our minds, and divide the land into two categories. The whole theory of land taxation is that these urban site values should be taxed. These site values have been created not by the exertions of the man himself, not by any intrinsic agricultural value of the soil, but purely and simply because you have a crowd of people living in one spot, who, by their own industry, exertion, and skill, have increased the value of the whole of the property in the neighbourhood. We propose that those values shall be taxed for public purposes, but that purely agricultural land shall be exempted. This is the real test. Let any hon. Member opposite think of his own property or any property with which he is familiar. Go to a rural district and pick out a farm, far removed from a town, and the value of which is purely agricultural. I venture to say that not a yard of that land would be charged for either Increment Value Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty. That applies even if the land is let for accommodation purposes. Sometimes when you are even two or three miles away from a village you get a very high rent for accommodation purposes. But that is not charged. Supposing a farmer is able to let his land as accommodation land he may get £4 or £5 an acre for it, whereas for the farm let as a whole he might get only £1 an acre. That £4 or £5 an acre is purely an agricultural value. It is not a building value at all, and therefore it is not charged. We do not propose to charge accommodation land, even if it runs up to £10 an acre. We do not propose to charge any agricultural value where a farm is let as a whole, but the moment land passes from being ordinary farm land, or even accommodation land, into the category of building land, we 2151 propose to charge in respect of the increment from the datum line upwards. I think I have made it quite clear why we cannot insert the words proposed, and the other case put by an hon. Member opposite is, in my Judgment, already exempted. The Noble Lord said further that a man might increase the value of his land by his own exertions. If the improvement is of a character that makes the land more valuable, not merely for agriculture, but for building, he is entitled to deduct it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
I will give a case in point. It depends entirely on the character of the building. For instance, you may have a large house with a garden of two or three acres. Surely manuring would make it more valuable for that purpose. If the land were cut up for cottages with hardly any gardens, the mere manuring of the land would make no difference at all. But the case I would rather take is that of drainage. Suppose you have land which is a pure swamp. If you drain that land, it has undoubtedly an improved value for agricultural purposes, but its value is improved for building purposes as well. Therefore the whole value created by that expenditure would be deducted from the increment for building purposes. When I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman yesterday it was hot to correct him about the datum lines, but purely on the question whether value created by a man's own exertions would be exempted.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
If the right hon. Gentleman's contention is that that value would be exempted, it is only true in so far as the value so created is useful, not only for agricultural purposes, but for building purposes as well. If it has purely an agricultural value the man is taxed on it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
I have been explaining the case put to me. I was asked what about manure, and I say that it depends entirely on the circumstances. If you have a two or three-acre garden in connection with a house, that is a value which you can deduct. But a much better case is that of draining. Draining would improve the value, not merely for agricultural purposes, but for building purposes as well. Take the case constantly put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman)—that of an embankment or a 2152 sea wall. An embankment undoubtedly improves the value for agricultural purposes, but it also improves it for building purposes, so that the whole cost of the embankment would be deducted.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN
Not one penny of the cost would be deducted. The deduction would be merely that part of the value which was due to the expenditure, and not the cost itself.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
We deduct not the cost, but the value which is created by it. As a matter of fact, you may spend £50,000 upon an embankment, and create a value of £100,000. What do we propose to deduct? Not the £50,000, but the £100,000. I will quote the actual words of the Bill: "Where any works executed or expenditure incurred for the purpose of improving the value of the land for agriculture have actually improved the value of the land as building land … the works or expenditure shall, for the purpose of this provision, be treated as having been executed or incurred also for the latter purpose." Therefore, to sum up, no agricultural land is charged at all, no accommodation land is charged; the only land charged is land which passes into the category of building land. That we intend to charge, and by that we shall stand.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has complained that my Noble Friend's Amendment is not in every respect complete. How can we deal with Amendments properly in the circumstances in which we have to discuss these proposals? We are not allowed to put down an Amendment to the Bill itself when it could be carefully guarded so as to exclude agricultural land, and only agricultural land, from the operation of the tax. That is the justification for my Noble Friend. The right hon. Gentleman has proved certain inconveniences which would accrue if you attempted to remedy the injustices of the tax, but he has not shown that there are not injustices. Take as an example a farm improved from a £30 to an £80 value. On purely agricultural grounds it is sold at the £80 value. It then goes up £1 or £5 more as building land, and 2153 when that happens the owner has to pay from the original datum line of £30, although with the exception of £1 or £5 it is entirely agricultural value. It is pure folly and misrepresentation to say that you do not tax agricultural value under the Bill, either as it left the House of
§ Commons last year, or as it is being re-introduced in the present Session.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 334.2157
|Division No. 49.]||AYES.||[7.1 p.m.|
|Adam, Major William A.||Duke, Henry Edward||Lawson, Hon. Harry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Duncannon, Viscount||Lee, Arthur Hamilton|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)||Lewisham, Viscount|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Llewelyn, Major Venables|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Faber, George D. (Clapham)||Lloyd, George Ambrose|
|Attenborough, Walter Annis||Falle, Bertram Godfray||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)|
|Bagot, Captain J.||Fell, Arthur||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Finlay, Sir Robert||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Baker, Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.)||Fisher, William Hayes||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo., Han. Sq.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)||Fleming, Valentine||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droftwich)|
|Banhury, Sir Frederick George||Fletcher, John Samuel||Mackinder, Halford J.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Forster, Henry William||Macmaster, Donald|
|Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor||Foster, John K. (Coventry)||M'Arthur, Charles|
|Barnston, Harry||Gardner, Ernest||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)||Gibbs, George Abraham||Wallaby-Deeley, Harry|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gilhooly, James||Mason, James F.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gilmour, Captain John||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Beckett, Hon. William Gervase||Goldsmith, Frank||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Gooch, Henry Cubitt||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mitchell, William Foot|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Grant, James Augustus||Moore, William|
|Bird, Alfred||Greene, Waiter Raymond||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Gulney, Patrick||Morrison, Captain James A.|
|Boyton, J.||Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.|
|Brackenbury, Henry Langton||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Mount, William Arthur|
|Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)||Haddock, George Baker||Newdegate, F. A. N.|
|Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Newman, John R. P.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Meld, Herbert|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hamilton, Marquis of (Londonderry)||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)|
|Burdett-Coutts, William||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Butcher, John George (York)||Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)||Harris, H. p. (Paddington, S.)||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)|
|Calley, Col Thomas C. P.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Carlile Edward Hildred||Healy, Timothy Michael||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Heath, Col. Arthur Howard||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Helmsley, Viscount||Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Cator, John||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Peel, Hon. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Cave, George||Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Hills, John Walter (Durham)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Proby, Col. Douglas James|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Quilter, William Eley C.|
|Chambers, James||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Randies, Sir John Scurrah|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Rankin, Sir James|
|Clyde, James Avon||Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Coates, Major Edward F.||Homer, Andrew Long||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Colefax, Henry Arthur||Houston, Robert Paterson||Rawson, Col. Richard H.|
|Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)||Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)||Hunt, Rowland||Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)||Ridley, Samuel Forde|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Crean, Eugene||Kerry, Earl of||Royds, Edmund|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Keswick, William||Rutherford, William Watson|
|Croft, Henry Page||Kimber, Sir Henry||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Dairymple, Viscount||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)||Kirkwood. John H. M.||Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)|
|Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)||Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford||Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootie)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Knott, James||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)||Law, Andrew Sonar (Dulwich)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Stanier, Beville||Thynne, Lord Alexander||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)||Tryon, Capt. George Clement||Winterton, Earl|
|Starkey, John Ralph||Tullibardine, Marquess of||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)||Verrall, George Henry||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Steel-Maitland, A. D.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)||Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)|
|Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)||Wairond, Hon. Lionel||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Strauss, Arthur||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)||Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)|
|Sykes, Alan John||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Talbot, Lord Edmund||White, Major G. D. (Lane. Southport)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)||Williams, Cot. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Thompson, Robert||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude|
|Abraham, William||Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Davies, Ellis William (Elflon)||Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Agnew, George William||Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Hudson, Walter|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Dawes, James Arthur||Hughes, Spencer Leigh|
|Alden, Percy||Delany, William||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Allen, Charles Peter||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Devlin, Joseph||Johnson, William|
|Armitage, Robert||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Dillon, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.||Doris, William||Jowett, Frederick William|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Duffy, William J.||Joyce, Michael|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Kelly, Edward|
|Ballour, Robert (Lanark)||Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Barclay, Sir Thomas||Edwards, Enoch||Kettle, Thomas Michael|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Kilbride, Denis|
|Barnes, George N.||Elverston, Harold||King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lambert, George|
|Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Falconer, James||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Barton, William||Farrell, James Patrick||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis|
|Beale, William Phipson||Fenwick, Charles||Leach, Charles|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Ferens, Thomas Robinson||Lehmann, Rudolf, C.|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Ffrench, Peter||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.|
|Black, Arthur W.||France, Gerald Ashburner||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Boland, John Plus||Furness, Sir Christopher||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Bowerman, Charles W,||Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)|
|Bowles, Thomas Gibson||Gibson, James Puckering||Lundon, Thomas|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Gill, Alfred Henry||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Brace, William||Glanville, Harold James||Lynch, Arthur Alfred|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Glover, Thomas||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Brigg, Sir John||Greenwood, Granville George||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Greig, Colonel James William||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Grenfell, Cecil Alfred||MacVcagh, Jeremiah|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)||M'Callum, John M.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Gulland, John William||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Line., Spalding)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Hackett, John||Mallet, Charles Edward|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Manfield, Harry ^|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Marks, George Croydon|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hancock, John George||Martin, Joseph|
|Cameron, Robert||Harcourt. Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W. |||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Meagher, Michael|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Harwood, George||Middlebrook, William|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Millar, James Duncan|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Molloy, Michael|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Clough, William||Haworth, Arthur A.||Mond, Alfred Moritz|
|Clynes, John R.||Hayden, John Patrick||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Hazleton, Richard||Mooney, John J.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Hemmerde, Edward George||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Muldoon, John|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Henry, Charles Solomon||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||Muspratt, Max|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Higham, John Sharp||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Cowan, William Henry||Hindle, Frederick George||Nellton, Francis|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Hodge, John||Nolan, Joseph|
|Crossley, Sir William J.||Hogan, Michael||Norton, Capt. Cecil W.|
|Cullinan, John||Hooper, Arthur George||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Nussey, Sir Willans||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)||Verney, Frederick William|
|Nuttall, Harry||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Vivian, Henry|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Wadsworth, John|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Walsh, Stephen|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Walters, John Tudor|
|O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Walton, Joseph|
|O'Dowd, John||Roe, Sir Thomas||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Rowntree, Arnold||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Wardle, George J|
|O'Malley, William||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Waring, Walter|
|O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|O'Sullivan, Eugene||Scanian, Thomas||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Schwann, Sir Charles E.||Waterlow, David Sydney|
|Parker, James (Halilax)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Pearce, William||Seddon, James A.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Pearson, Weetman H. M.||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||Shackleton, David James||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Sheehy, David||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Shortt, Edward||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Simon, John Allsebrook||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Pirle, Duncan V.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Pointer, Joseph||Snowden, Philip||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Pollard, Sir George H.||Soares, Ernest Joseph||Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Spicer, Sir Albert||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Summers, James Wooley||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Sutherland, John E.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Pringle, William M. R.||Sutton, John E.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Radford, George Heynes||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Rattan, Peter Wilson||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Rainy, Adam Rolland||Tennant, Harold John||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Raphael, Herbert Henry||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Rea, Walter Russell||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Reddy, Michael||Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Thomas, James Henry (Derby)||Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)|
|Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Rees, John David||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Toulmin, George|
|Richards, Thomas||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Twist, Henry|
|Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
§ And, it being Seven of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th April, proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.2158
§ Main Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 335; Noes, 249.2161
|Division No. 50.]||AYES.||[7.13 p.m.|
|Abraham, William||Boland, John||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Bowerman, Charles W.||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Bowles, Thomas Gibson||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.|
|Agnew, George William||Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Brace, William||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Alden, Percy||Brady, Patrick Joseph||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Allen, Charles Peter||Brigg, Sir John||Cory, Sir Clifford John|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Brocklehurst, William B.||Cowan, William Henry|
|Armitage, Robert||Brunner, John F. L.||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Burke, E. Havlland-||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Crosfield, A. H.|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Crossley, Sir William J.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)||Cullinan, John|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)|
|Barclay, Sir Thomas||Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Davies, Ellis William (Ellton)|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott||Byles, William Pollard||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)|
|Barnes, George N.||Cameron, Robert||Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dawes, James Arthur|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Delany, William|
|Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)||Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)||Denman, Han. Richard Douglas|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Chancellor, Henry George||Devlin, Joseph|
|Barton, William||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Beale, William Phipson||Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Dillon, John|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Doris, William|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Clancy, John Joseph||Duffy, William J.|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Clough, William||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Clynes, John R.||Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Edwards, Enoch|
|Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Elverston, Harold||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Esslemont, George Birnle||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Falconer, James||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Powntree, Arnold|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Callum, John M.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Fenwick, Charles||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Ferens, Thomas Robinson||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)||Samuel, J- (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Ferguson, Ronald C. Munre||Mallet, Charles Edward||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Manfield, Harry||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Marks, George Croydon||Schwann, Sir Charles E.|
|France, Gerald Ashburner||Martin, Joseph||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Masterman, C. F. G.||Seddon, James A.|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Meagher, Michael||Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. B.|
|Gibson, James Puckering||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Shackleton, David James|
|Gill, Alfred Henry||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)||Sheeny, David|
|Glanville, Harold James||Menzies, Sir Walter||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Glover, Thomas||Middlebrook, William||Shortt, Edward|
|Greenwood, Granville George||Millar, James Duncan||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Molloy, Michael||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Grenfell, Cecil Alfred||Molteno, Percy Alport||Snowden, Philip|
|Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)||Mond, Alfred Moritz||Soares, Ernest Joseph|
|Gulland, John William||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Mooney, John J.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Hackett, John||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Summers, James Woolley|
|Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Sutherland, John E.|
|Hancock, John George||Muldoon, John||Sutton, John E.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Muspratt, Max||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Neilson, Francis||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Harwood, George||Nolan, Joseph||Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Norton, Capt. Cecil W.||Thomas, James Henry (Derby)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Nussey, Sir T. Wilians||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Nuttall, Harry||Toulmin, George|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Hazleton, Richard||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Twist, Henry|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Doherty, Philip||Verney, Frederick William|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)||Vivian, Henry|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Dowd, John||Wadsworth, John|
|Henry, Charles Solomon||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Malley, William||Walters, John Tudor|
|Hindle, Frederick George||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Walton, Joseph|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Hodge, John||O'Sullivan, Eugene||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Hogan, Michael||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Wardle, George J.|
|Hooper, Arthur George||Parker, James (Halifax)||Waring, Walter|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Pearce, William||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Pearson, Weettnan H. M.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Hudson, Walter||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Waterlow, David Sydney|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Johnson, William||Pirie, Duncan V.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Pointer, Joseph||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Pollard, Sir George H.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Power, Patrick Joseph||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Jowett, Frederick William||Price, C. E (Edinburgh, Central)||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Joyce, Michael||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Kelly, Edward||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Kemp, Sir George||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pringle, William M. R.||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Kettle, Thomas Michael||Radford, George Heynes||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)||Rainy, Adam Rolland||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Lambert, George||Raphael, Herbert Henry||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Rea, Walter Russell||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Reddy, Michael||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Leach, Charles||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lehmann, Rudolf C.||Rees, J. D.||Winfrey, Richard|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Rendall, Athelstan||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Richards, Thomas||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)|
|Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)|
|Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.|
|Lundon, Thomas||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Foster, John K. (Coventry)||Mount, William Arthur|
|Adam, Major William A.||Gardner, Ernest||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Newman, John R. p.|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Gibbs, George Abraham||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gilhooly, James||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Gilmour, Captain John||Nield, Herbert|
|Attenborough, Walter Annis||Goldsmith, Frank||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)|
|Bagot, Captain J.||Gooch, Henry Cubitt||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Goulding, Edward Alfred||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Grant, James Augustus||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Greene, Walter Raymond||Orde-Powlett, Hon. w. G. A.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)||Guiney, Patrick||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor||Haddock, George Baker||Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Barnston, Harry||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Peel, Hon. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth, E.)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Beckett, Hon. William Gervase||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Proby, Col. Douglas James|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)||Quilter, William Eley C.|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rankin, Sir James|
|Bird, Alfred||Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Healy, Timothy Michael||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Boyton, James||Heath, Col. Arthur Howard||Rawson, Col. Richard H.|
|Brackenbury, Henry Langton||Helmsley, Viscount||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan|
|Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Ridley, Samuel Fordo|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon||Hills, John Walter (Durham)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Burdett-Coutts, William||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Royds, Edmund|
|Butcher, John George (York)||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Rutherford, Watson|
|Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge University)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.||Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Homer, Andrew Long||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Carlile, Edward Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis||Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootie)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hunt, Rowland||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cater, John||Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, w.,|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cave, George||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Stanier, Seville|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Kerry, Earl of||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Keswick, William||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Chambers, James||Kimber, Sir Henry||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Clive, Percy Archer||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)|
|Clyde, James Avon||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)|
|Coates, Major Edward F.||Kirkwood, John H. M.||Strauss, Arthur|
|Colefax, Henry Arthur||Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford||Sykes, Alan John|
|Cooper, Capt. Bryan R (Dublin, S.)||Knott, James||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)||Lane-Fox, G. R||Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Thompson, Robert|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lawson, Hon. Harry||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lee, Arthur Hamilton||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Lewisham, Viscount||Tryon, Capt. George Clement|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Llewelyn, Venables||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Crean, Eugene||Lloyd, George Ambrose||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)||Verrall, George Henry|
|Croft, Henry Page||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Dalziel, D. (Brixton)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo., Han. Sq.)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droftwich)||White, Major G. D. (Lanes, Southport)|
|Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)||Mackinder, Halford J.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)||Macmaster, Donald||Willouahby, Major Hon. Claude|
|Duke, Henry Edward||M'Arthur, Charles||Willouyhby de Eresby, Lord|
|Duncannon, Viscount||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Winterton, Earl|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Mallaby-Decley, Harry||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Faber, George D. (Clapham)||Mason, James F.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Meysey, Thompson, E. C.||Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)|
|Fell, Arthur||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Finlay, Sir Robert||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Mitchell, William Foot||Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Moore, William|
|Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Morpeth, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.|
|Fleming, Valentine||Morrison, Captain James A.|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.|