§ (1) The duties of customs payable on tobacco shall as from the day of the passing of this Act be reduced to the same duties as would have been leviable thereon if the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, had not been passed.
§ (2) The excise duties payable on tobacco grown in Great Britain or Ireland shall as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twelve, be reduced by one-third.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
In moving this new Clause I fully appreciate the difficulty of starting a discussion upon a new subject at this time of the night and at this season of the year, but I have a serious case to present and I am obliged to do it, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of others 3088 outside. I will endeavour to do it as shortly as I can. I protest against the Tobacco Duties in the first place because they are excessive and secondly because they are disastrous to the tobacco trade. I do not think there is any other article so highly taxed as the cheaper forms of tobacco. It is true that tobacco is not a necessity of life, but it is a luxury which is taxed upon no principle of graduation. It is true that there are luxury taxes on cigars and cigarettes, but tobacco, in comparison, is taxed heavily and without any reasonable graduation whatever.
The natural cost of tobacco is 4d. per pound. When you get to the best Turkish tobacco it rises to 10s., and the best Havannah goes up to 20s. If you work that out it means that the best Havannah pays 18 per cent., Turkish, 36 per cent., whilst the lowest quality pays 1,100 per cent. Surely that is quite an irrational method of taxation on any article whatever. If I were to go into details, it is still more in the case of cigars. The duty on the 3089 higher kinds of tobacco cannot be passed on. The profit on the more expensive kinds of tobacco, although the turnover is smaller, is greater, and the manufacturer, rather than lose his market for his special article, will cut some of his profit; but the tax on the cheaper kinds of tobacco which are consumed by the working men is, as a matter of fact, passed on. In the higher kinds a firm has a speciality, and it wants to keep its name, and will sacrifice something; but, when you get to the lower kinds of tobacco with the minimum profit, it is no use firms competing with one another, and they agree that the burden must be passed on to the consumer. The tobacco is very often sold in such small quantities that there is no coin equivalent to the extra amount of the duty, and the consequence is the whole of the duty is passed on to the consumer. On that ground, it is an inordinate tax, and it is an unjust tax because it falls on the comforts of the poor, and does not fall on the comforts of the rich.
Apart from that, it has a very serious effect on the tobacco trade. The number of manufacturers of tobacco has been very greatly reduced of late years. In 1907–8 it was 415; in 1909, when the new Tobacco Duty was introduced) there was a slight fall to 407, but in 1910, when the full effect of the duty was felt, it was reduced to 383, and in 1911 to 364. I know it is said this is all on account of the operations of the Imperial Tobacco Trust. I do not deny that the operations of the Trust have had a prejudicial effect on the workings of independent manufacturers, but the Trust has been in operation for a considerable number of years, and its natural effect seems to have touched bottom some years ago, because, although it was in operation for some time before 1907, in 1907–8–9 the number of manufacturers, licences was practically the same. There was a slight fall in 1909, and they were absolutely the same in 1907–8. What has happened is that the extra duties of 1909 have turned the scale, and the smaller manufacturers, working on a small margin, have not been able to hold their own. It has been the last straw which has broken their backs.
I do not say a word against the Imperial Tobacco Trust. It was started at a time of great emergency in the trade, and they took no doubt what was their only means of self-protection, but taxation cannot be right which in its effect operates in favour of a great trust like this, and which does not give the smaller manufacturers a chance, as the diminishing figures show, 3090 I ask for relief in this Amendment. I ask for relief because the yield of the extra Tobacco Duty has been greater than was estimated at the time. The estimated yield was £2,000,000; last year it was £3,346,000. I know part of that increase is automatic, owing to the increase of population. But suppose 2 per cent, is allowed for that growth of population that leaves over half a million sterling to be accounted for. I hope that that will be taken into account and some remission given. To ask that the whole of the extra duty be taken off is to ask a great deal, but if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to take 2d. off it would be a great assistance and would give breathing space to those smaller firms which by the double pressure of the competition of larger rivals and open competition are in danger of being squeezed out. The difficulty would not be so very great. The right hon. Gentleman has a much greater margin than he anticipated and I make an appeal to him on behalf of this section of the trade.
In the second part of my Amendment I ask that the Excise shall be reduced by one third. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will dissociate this particular case from the ordinary Tariff Reform case. Here we have a native industry and all I ask is that it shall not be strangled in its infancy. The ordinary objection to the difference between Customs and Excise is that it involves putting on a new Customs Duty. But here no such question arise, no revenue would be lost and it will be a long time before the tobacco growing industry can take anything like a firm hold if there is the actuality or even the prospect of a crushing Excise Duty, and there will never be any industry from which you can derive any Excise revenue. I want the Government to give it a chance in its babyhood; so to speak to gradually wean the tobacco until in the future it will be able to bear its fair share of taxation. I know there is a somewhat complicated system of grants and subsidies in the case of tobacco growing in Ireland. But that is not the best system. The tobacco growers want their industry to establish itself, and it is necessary, therefore, to give them confidence in the future, so that it may bear its fair burden of taxation and at the same time afford greater opportunities of employment. It is on these grounds that I move the Amendment.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND
I desire to say a few words on this Clause because db is a matter in which I have taken considerable interest for a great number of years. With what the hon. Gentleman said as to the advisability of encouraging the tobacco industry in Ireland, I am in thorough agreement. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be very glad to see an industry growing up in Ireland which would give considerable employment to the people. But I think the hon. Gentleman was hardly fair in not stating exactly the position with regard to Irish-grown tobacco at the present time. Listening to his speech one would imagine that nothing at all had been done.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I did say that there had been special concessions and abatements, but the point I urged was that these were provisional and might be done away with, and that there was no confidence in the future.
Mr. W. REDMOND
Listening to the hon. Member's speech one would imagine that, in spite of what he has just said, nothing had been done in recent times under the present Government to entourage this industry. That is not the case; something has been done. The hon. Gentleman, if he will forgive me for saying so, is somewhat late in the day in his advocacy of this industry in Ireland. His own party were in power for a great number of years when this industry was started, and yet they did not adopt the proposition which the hon. Gentleman now makes. I freely acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in response to a request made to him by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) and myself and others interested in Ireland, did something in this matter, but he did not do what the right hon. Gentleman is now asking the House to do. He did not reduce the duty on Irish grown tobacco, but he made what the hon. Member complains of now, a temporary arrangement whereby a rebate of something like 1s. in the pound was given to the growers of tobacco in Ireland. That was a temporary expedient, but at the time it undoubtedly encouraged this industry. When the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer he continued that system, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not say he did it himself, but he certainly recommended a more substantial encouragement to the industry than has yet been given.
3092 At present the rebate of Is. in the pound is to come to an end next year, and some time ago the tobacco growers were anxious to know what would happen when the number of years for which the rebate was given came to an end. An application was made by the tobacco growers in Ireland to the Development Commissioners, and a case was made to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to help in regard to the industry, with the result that the Commissioners have recommended the grant of a sum of £35,000 for the growers in Ireland, to be extended over five years, with the understanding that a similar amount will be given for another five years if the industry showed that it was benefiting from this provision. That would amount to more, almost than what the hon. Gentleman proposes, and it is only fair that that should be stated. I quite agree that this matter ought not to be placed altogether on the same basis as Protection, broadly considered. This is a very special thing in Ireland, and it has special claims which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has acknowledged. The special claim of this industry is that it was one of those industries which was deliberately stamped out by Act of Parliament. Of all the extraordinary things which were done in the repression of trade in Ireland nothing was more extraordinary than the action of the House, in defiance of the entire public opinion in Ireland, passing an Act in the year 1831 to make it illegal to grow tobacco in the country, although it had been grown with very considerable success up to that.
The party opposite was in power for a great number of years, but they never thought it worth while to repeal that Act. I do not remember hearing a single member of the party express any interest in the matter until it was brought forward by the Irish Members who secured its repeal. If the industry was put down by Act of Parliament it is clearly the duty of Parliament to make reparation by giving some encouragement to the resuscitation of the industry. I am not going to be led into the question of Free Trade and Protection. The hon. Member has very cleverly laid a trap for me to fall into, but I am not going to fall into it. Protection of the tobacco industry or of other industries in Ireland is a thing which, other things being equal, I should certainly approve of, but I am not going to sacrifice other and larger issues in order to vote in the Lobby with the hon. Member. He must forgive me if I am inclined to look with 3093 some suspicion on this new born interest in the industry of Ireland evinced by the hon. Member in regard to tobacco.
The Development Commissioners, I hope, having taken this matter up, will see that it is properly dealt with and fair play given to the industry. What the hon Gentleman said about Irish tobacco growers does not at all tally with the information I have received. He says that tobacco growing in Ireland can never hope to compete with the foreign article and that it must always be subsidised. The growers have said over and over again that they can see their way quite clearly before them to build up this industry, upon its merits and make it succeed provided it is fairly started, and no one suggests that the industry is to continue in the future simply as a bounty fed industry. If it is once started, if Parliament undoes what it did when it suppressed this industry we believe it can be made to stand upon its own legs and it is upon that basis that we appeal to the Development Commissioners. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether it would not be possible in view of the trouble and expense caused to the growers by the Excise regulations to further extend the rebate which is given in respect to the Excise regulations already. The duty on tobacco in this country is 3s 8d. per lb., and in Ireland it is 3s. 6d., 2d. being allowed to growers in order to meet the expense that may be incurred by the regulations. It has been proved that this 2d. is not sufficient for the purpose, and while I do not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go the length of reducing the duty as suggested in the new Clause, I do say that, having regard to all the trouble, annoyance, cost and inconvenience of the Excise regulations, he should consider whether he cannot extend the rebate from 2d. to 4d. per lb., because really that is necessary if the growers are not to be put to extra expense by the regulations which have been made. Further I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue the good work he has done in this matter. The Development Commissioners, so far as I know, have done their part. Having heard the case, they have recommended that the demand made by the Board of Agriculture should be granted. They have recommended a grant of £35,000 for the first five years. The matter now rests entirely with the Treasury.
I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assure us that the recommendation 3094 of the Development Commissioners will be carried out, and that the Treasury will advance this money in order to enable the area of tobacco growing in Ireland to be extended as proposed. Many members of this House during last summer visited some of the tobacco farms and were immensely pleased with what they saw. They are impressed with the possibilities of this trade, and they are in favour of its encouragement. I say quite frankly to the House that I for one would not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do anything in this matter if I did not seriously believe that this industry, once it is fairly started, can stand on its own legs. We can produce tobacco in Ireland which, if not equal to that which comes from America, is of very good quality. There is no reason in the world why a large proportion of the rough tobacco consumed in Ireland and in this country should not be produced in Ireland by Irish labour. That is something which everybody would approve of, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he does not accept this Clause, to at any rate assure us that the Treasury will carry out the recommendation which the Development Commissioners made after full inquiry into the whole subject. This is a matter I have taken an interest in for a good many years.
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
This Amendment is interesting, particularly because of the object stated by the hon. Gentleman who proposed it. As in most cases of Amendments of this description it is alleged that it is really for the sake of the poor people of the country, and in order that their luxuries should not be subjected to unfair duties. That is very interesting, but it was only a few nights ago that the Opposition including the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment, allowed a Bill to go through applying to the Isle of Man, under which not only the duties in the Budget but additional duties are imposed. There is no member of this House representing any constituency in the Isle of Man, and therefore I take it for granted that is the real reason why additional duties are imposed in one part of His Majesty's dominions and reduced duties are proposed in others.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Is the hon. Member aware that the duties imposed under the Isle of Man Customs Bill had been approved of by the Isle of Man Legislature before they came here?
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
All I hope is that when similar proposals come from another place which will soon have Home Rule, they will have the same facilities given. But the hon. Member for Sheffield has admitted that the Import Duties on articles consumed by the working people of the country are paid by the working people of the country. That is a very illuminating proposition from the hon. Member, who is a very ardent Tariff Reformer. I am reminded of a circular issued in my own Constituency by the Tariff Reformers, I think in 1908. It was called "A word to smokers," and it said:—Smokers, do you know how much tax you pay on every pipeful of tobacco you smoke? Suppose tobacco is 3d. an oz., you pay ½d. for the tobacco and 2½d. tax.That leaflet was issued to show how the foreigner pays Import Duties. I suggest to the hon. Member and his friends that lie will have to bring forward some other argument than that which he has given to-night to show that the duties do oppress the working people, or that the working people have clamoured for their removal. The hon. Member probably was right in suggesting that certain gentlemen engaged in the manipulation of this trade have made application to him and others for such reductions; but not with the intention of improving the working people or satisfying their grievances, because if the wealthy people are prepared to pay their share of the taxation of the country, the poor people are always prepared to pay theirs; and whether they are prepared or not, they will always have to pay the lion's share. At any rate, the argument of the hon. Member seems to me to be entirely wide of the mark. If it is admitted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite that those who consume an article do pay the Import Duties placed on that article, then we shall have made a very great step forward with the proposals that are considered as the first plank in the programme of hon. Gentlemen opposite, if ever they come into power. I should like to know what is the difference between a duty upon tobacco, or a duty on, say, fowl or bread, or anything else coming into the country? Is the economic effect different? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] And, if so, why? I mean so far as the consumer is concerned. I want to have some better illustration than the hon. Member has given that it is anyone else than the consumer who pays 3096 the Import Duties, and if the argument is correct in this case, why is it not correct in the others?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
I rather deprecate the discussion which my hon. Friend has entered upon on the ground that I cannot think that it is quite relevant to the Amendment before the House. I shall certainly not pursue that line of argument, and I think the occasion for it is inopportune. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member he himself is quite prepared to admit that the Government could not face the reduction of the Tobacco Duty by the amount involved in his Amendment. The loss would be something like £3,000,000 of revenue, which would be effected by the reduction. That I certainly could not face, and I do not think the Government would be justified in accepting a proposal of that character. After all, it is a tax upon a luxury, and if indirect taxes are to be imposed at all, I cannot conceive of any tax which would be fairer to impose on the industrial population of this country than the tax on tobacco. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it had the effect of damaging the business and the profits of the smaller tobacco manufacturers of this country. I have never been convinced that the contention was justified.
As a matter of fact, those powerful companies with capital at their disposal, with machinery at their command, with better arrangements, and with agencies established in every part of the world, and who are very powerful competitors, are bound sooner or later to affect a good many of their rivals who have not the capital to enable them to compete with them. After all the duty paid on tobacco is a duty which is paid by those great combinations as well as by the smaller traders. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, I think it will be admitted that the Government have done a great deal, and I think my hon. Friend will admit that. Up to the present a real advance has been made in Ireland. I stated last year, or the previous year, in answer to a Question or in Debate in the House, that if a real and genuine attempt is made in England or Scotland of the character that has been made in Ireland, it will be the duty of the Government to treat those experiments exactly in the same way as the Irish experiment has been treated. I still adhere to that pledge which was then 3097 given. I can only say to my hon. Friend that if the same demand is made for England or Scotland, I feel sure that the Development Commissioners would treat it in a generous spirit. I may also add that the hon. Member for Devizes has got an Amendment down in reference to tobacco grown in this country for agricultural purposes. I will accept an Amendment. I have already handed it to the hon. Member, and if he moves it in that form I hope I shall be able to accept it. That will be, I hope, some encouragement to the growth of tobacco, and with that assurance I trust the hon. Member for Sheffield will see that we are dealing with the matter in a sympathetic spirit, and have gone as far as we possibly can go.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I had no intention of taking part in this Debate until the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) rose and made the speech which he delivered just now. I will not pursue that subject. I refrain with some difficulty, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give me credit for doing so. If I do not answer the observations of the hon. Member it is merely because of the arrangement come to between the two sides of the House last night, when in consequence of certain concessions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made, I promised I would do my best to facilitate the passage of the Bill. Under these circumstances I will confine my reply to the hon. Member to a single sentence, to say
§ that he has shown himself as ignorant of the elements of economics as he has of the Constitution of the Isle of Man.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to make an attack on. my hon. Friend without a word of protest. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), was perfectly clear. He said, why, if you are Tariff Reformers at all, do you now ask to reduce the duty on tobacco in order that the consumer may get it cheaper, when you say that if we put a duty on goods the consumer will not pay the tax? That is a perfectly simple conundrum, and one which they have never been able to answer.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On a point of Order. I submit that a discussion upon tariffs and upon the effect of tariffs is not relevant to the proposal which is before the House.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I will not pursue the subject. I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, who made an absolutely unfounded attack on my hon. Friend.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 201.3099
|Division No. 209.]||AYES.||[12.0 m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Fleming, Valentine||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Fletcher, John Samuel||Newman, John R. P.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Gibbs, G. A.||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Baird, J. L.||Goldsmith, Frank||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Grant, J. A.||Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gretton, John||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Barnston, H.||Hamersley, A. St. George||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Rawson, Colonel R. H.|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Boyton, J.||Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)||Royds, Edmund|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Cassel, Felix||Kerry, Earl of||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Cator, John||Knight, Captain E. A.||Sandys, G. J.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Stanier, Beville|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Larmor, Sir J.||Starkey, John R.|
|Chambers, James||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Lewisham, Viscount||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Lloyd, G. A.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Dalziel, D. (Brixton)||Mackinder, H. J.||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Macmaster, Donald||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Malcolm, Ian||Touche, George Alexander|
|Falle, B. G.||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Wheler, Granville C. H.||Wood, John (Stalybrldge)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud||Worthlngton-Evans, L.||James Hope and Major D. White.|
|Winterton, Earl||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Wolmer, Viscount||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Malley, William|
|Adamson, William||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Armitage, Robert||Hayward, Evan||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)||O'Shee, James John|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Henry, Sir Charles||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Higham, John Sharp||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hodge, John||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Hogge, James Myles||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Pointer, Joseph|
|Black, Arthur W.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Boland, John Plus||Hudson, Walter||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||John, Edward Thomas||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Brady, P. J.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Jowett, Frederick William||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)||Joyce, Michael||Reddy, Michael|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Keating, M.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Richards, Thomas|
|Clough, William||Kilbride, Denis||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Clynes, J. R.||King, J.||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Leach, Charles||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Crooks, William||Lewis, John Herbert||Rowlands, James|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lundon, Thomas||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Cuillnan, John||Lyeil, Charles Henry||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Lynch, A. A.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Dawes, J. A.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Sheehy, David|
|De Forest, Baron||Maclean, Donald||Shortt, E.|
|Delany, William||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Macpherson, James Ian||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Dickinson, W. H.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Dillon, John||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Sutton, John E.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Duffy, William J.||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Tennant, Harold John|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Molloy, M.||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Ffrench, Peter||Mooney, J. J.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Field, William||Morgan, George Hay||Webb, H.|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Morison, Hector||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Muldoon, John||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Munro, R.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Gill, A. H.||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Glanville, H. J.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Greig, Colonel J. W.||Nolan, Joseph||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Norman, Sir Henry||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Hackett, J.||Nuttall, Harry||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Hancock, J. G.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||O'Doherty, Philip||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||OGrady, James|