§ 3. "That in lieu of the duties of Customs now payable on tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—
|Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.:—|
|Containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof—|
|Unstripped the lb.||3||8|
|Stripped the lb.||3||8½|
|Containing less than ten pounds of moisture in every|
|one hundred pounds weight thereof—|
|Unstripped the lb.||4||1|
|Stripped the lb.||4||1½|
|Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—|
|Cigars the lb.||7||0|
|Cigarettes the lb.||5||8|
|Cavendish or Negrohead the lb.||5||4|
|Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bondper lb.||4||8|
|Other manufactured tobacco the lb.||4||8|
|Snuff containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.||4||5|
|Snuff not containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.||5||4."|
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ Motion made and Question proposed: "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
moved to insert after the words "thereof" the words "if grown without the British Empire." The effect of the rather for able-looking series of Amendments which I have given notice is to give a preference of 25 per cent. to tobacco, whether manufactured or unmanufactured, imported into England from any part of the British Empire. It is quite true that it has not been possible exactly to adjust these figures without running into farthings, but I believe when they are worked out that will be, in round figures, the effect of my Amendment. When the question of Colonial Preference is raised in any form, two principal objections are usually made to any such proposal. It is said, in the first place, that to carry out the scheme of Colonial Preference will involve the creation of a tariff which will bear hardly upon the. home consumer. I may say at once that the effect of this proposal cannot be open to that objection, because the preference is only suggested upon the actual normal Home Tariff, imposed for purposes of revenue. The Government, it is true, propose an increase this year for purposes of revenue—an increase which I think is uncalled for and unjust; but it is purely a revenue duty which they have proposed, and I would suggest this preference even upon the old duties as well as on the new. So much for the first objection. Then the second objection that is raised is that to carry out Colonial Preference will be extremely destructive of the revenue at home. Here again, this proposal I venture to make is quite free from this objection. No doubt if a preference on tea were to be proposed it would have a very serious effect upon the home revenue; but upon tobacco it is not so. It is quite true that tobacco is grown in a great number of Colonies and Dependencies, but with one exception, which I shall allude to later, it is grown in comparatively small quantities, and the effect upon the revenue could not be serious, and even where it is grown 918 in large quantities hitherto it has not been imported into England in any very large quantities. As a matter of fact, I have been at some little pains to point out what the effect of this proposal on the revenue would be, and I find that it would result in a loss to the revenue of some £50,000 a year, taking the Board of Trade figures as the basis of calculation. The loss on unmanufactured would come to some £19,400, and the loss on manufactured tobacco, including all kinds of cigars, cigarettes, and snuff would come to £31,000, making a total of just over £50,000 in all.
This question, although it affects potentially at any rate many Colonies and Dependencies throughout the British Empire, is mainly an Indian and South African question. I was surprised on looking into the figures, and possibly the House may be surprised to know, that in our Indian possessions there. are no fewer than one million acres devoted to tobacco—in fact, rather more, and certainly more if Ceylon is included. It is not very easy to say what. exactly the production of these million acres may be. I believe the only case in which it has been worked out, as far as Government Returns show as to what is the production of tobacco to the acre, is the case of the Colony of Mauritius, and in that case it works out at some £1,500 an acre. I do not know how far that is applicable to India. If it is applicable to India, of course the normal annual production of India will amount to no less than 15,000,000 pounds of tobacco. You have to deal with the great existing capacity of production in India, which I submit under more favourable circumstances might result in a large export into this country, but, as a matter of fact, a very small quantity is exported. The amount on which Customs duties are at present payable in 1907, the last year available, came to some £28,000, a very, very small amount if we consider it in proportion to the amount produced in India. A case of this is not very far to seek. The existing duty on tobacco acts in practice as a preference against India. It is not an ad valorem duty, but a pure duty by weight quite irrespective of the quality of the tobacco, and in India cheaper qualities of tobacco are grown, and if it were possible to make the tobacco duty an ad valorem graduated duty a very substantial benefit would be given to India. How very wide the incidence of this duty is at present will be illustrated if I compare its effect upon various qualities of manufactured tobacco in the form of 919 cigars. A very high class cigar worth 2s. 6d. pays no more than 5 per cent., a 1s. cigar pays 10½ per cent., a 6d. cigar pays 16 per cent., and a 2d. cigar pays no less than 36 per cent.
§ Mr. HOPE
When tobacco is manufactured in cigarettes I am informed it pays 36 per cent. of cost. If we go into the cheaper kind of unmanufactured tobacco the rate becomes prodigious, running up to something like 650 per cent., a tax which I should not think could be justified on the principles of any rational fiscal system. The imports from India consist of the cheaper kinds of tobacco, and India is penalised accordingly. If the Secretary to the Treasury could see his way to promise at once an ad valorem duty no doubt the weight of the special Indian case would be very much taken away, but I plead that tobacco such as is grown in India, in the absence of an ad valorem duty, should at least be released from the very heavy adverse preference from which it at present suffers, and I think there will be sufficient ground for the suggestion I make on the Indian case alone.
But the Indian case is not the only one. There is the case of South Africa. The Board of Trade figures for the last year available, 1907, show that there were 317,000 lbs. of tobacco imported from South Africa. I do not understand the figures They show a prodigious increase. In the year before there were something like 10,000 lbs. But these are the Board of Trade figures, and unless they are given op by the representative of the Government we must argue upon them. This again, no doubt, is the rather cheaper kind of tobacco, and the value is not very great. I do not pretend that this at the present moment raises a very large case for the Treasury to deal with, but just because it does not raise a large case it is all the easier for the revenue to deal with it. I attach some importance to this matter, although the figures bulk somewhat small, because it was a point very strongly urged by the two representatives of South African Colonies at the Colonial Conference some two years ago. Dr. Jameson, speaking for Cape Colony, and Mr. Moore for Natal attached very considerable importance to this subject. They spoke of the loss Cape Colony 920 had sustained in regard to wine by the effect of the Cobden Treaty, which in practice resulted in putting a penalty on Cape wine from which it has never recovered. They asked for some relaxation in this respect, and they also asked that their new and growing industry of tobacco might, at any rate, not be discouraged in the English market. I would submit to the hon. Gentleman, when the result upon the consumer at home cannot but be infinitesimal, if it exists at all, and when the loss to the revenue can but be so slight, whether he cannot see his way to meet the representatives of South Africa in this matter. it is a very small thing for the revenue at home, but it is a very considerable thing to South Africa. Now just at the moment, when South Africa has been consolidated, and when a new era has been entered into, it would be a gracious thing from the South African point of view if the Government could make this very small concession. After all, the Customs Union of South Africa has already made a very considerable concession to us. It is true it does not seem large at first sight. It is a rebate of 3 per cent. of the duties which exist, but as the duties are low duties—on the average, I believe, not more than 10 per cent.—it really amounts already to a very valuable preference of something like 30 per cent. I believe, in fact, if anything, it is slightly over that. When they do so much for us, cannot we do something for them? If this concession be given, it will be an encouragement and a stimulus to a new industry in that country. It cannot affect, I should have thought, the fiscal principles of hon. Gentlemen whom I see before me and of the Government. They ale not asking us to make any new charge or to set up a new tariff; they are only asking us to give them something in return on a basis of the existing tariff, and I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give some reply more than it is against precedent. I would ask him to say in what way either the revenue or the consumer at home can be injured, and unless he can show that, I submit that the case, perfectly temperately put by the South African represenattives, and which applies also to the dependency of India, should be met in a fair and conciliatory spirit, and, if not, the whole of the 25 per cent. which I suggest, at any rate some substantial preference should be given by His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
In seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I should like to say that if the Government give way in this manner, it will be a very fitting date on which to do so. I am sure that we on this side of the House at least are aware that this is Empire Day, and, in granting this small concession to the Colonies who are interested in the tobacco- growing industry, we will be giving a con- cession which will be received by those Colonies all the more graciously in consideration of the celebrations which have taken place throughout the Empire during the whole of to-day. I think my hon. Friend has put his case as clearly, concisely, and yet as strongly as is possible. I would only like to remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who represents the Government at the moment, that if he gives a preference to those Colonies that are interested in the growing of tobacco he will be following the present Government's own precedent, because in the case of St. Helena they have given a preference to flax growing in the form of a substantial bounty, which amounts practically to the same thing as a remission of the duty charged on some of the imports into this country, and, secondly, the Government have already conceded a preference to Ire- land in the matter of tobacco growing. In the case of the bounty-fed industry of flax growing the Under-Secretary for the Colonies informed us that it had proved a great success, and in the case of the assisting of Irish-grown tobacco we are also assured that that is going to turn out a success. All that is asked by the Amend- ment is that this principle should be ex- tended to meet the great tobacco industry in South Africa and in India. I cannot speak myself from any personal knowledge about Indian tobacco, but I do think that the industry in South Africa deserves all the encouragement this country can give it. Those who are familiar with the manufacture of South African tobacco will be aware that it is a most important and growing industry in that country. It is looked upon by those engaged in it as a mainstay in certain parts of the country. The tobacco grown there is of a rather lower grade than we are accustomed to in this country, and consequently, with the import duties which are proposed to he imposed, it would be a ease of practically smoking all duty and very little tobacco. South African tobacco, especially in the summer time, smoked in this country is really quite refreshing as a change from the ordinary home manufacture.
922 It is only because of the extraordinary weight of duty on these lower class tobaccos that they are kept from becoming more popular in this country, and now over and above the duty to which they have been subjected, and which has kept. them out of the country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to place another 8d. per lb. I do hope that we will get some encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman this evening. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have both stated in this House and out of it that if we approach the matter in a business-like way, and not as politicians, we will receive from them the fairest possible consideration. So far in this Debate we have approached this matter with no political heat, but in as strictly a business way as we possibly could. My hon. Friend stopped a little short of where I should like to follow the argument in regard to this particular article imported from the Colonies. If we grant this concession we shall only reciprocate what has been done for us, and if we reciprocate in this small matter, it will be an encouragement to the Colonies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to get from this increase of 8d. per lb. all over £50,000. That is the sum involved by my hon. Friend's Amendment. But we cannot measure the benefit to the Colonies or the Empire by thousands of pounds. Not only would the concession mean a gracious recognition by this country of what we have received from the Colonies in the past in the way of preference, but it would also enable them, in my opinion, to obtain better-terms from foreign countries in regard to articles imported from them. Once we allow the principle that where the Colonies are giving us a preference in a matter which affects the trade of this country, and we immediately reciprocate, as the right, hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of doing this evening, the Colonies will be able to treat for better terms with those foreign countries with which they are in business negotiations.
The next point I should like to make is this. The representatives of the Government have so far shown no great encouragement. They at the last Colonial Conference, as has been stated rather curtly, "banged and barred the door." [Laughter.] I am only quoting what was said in regard to their action. Here is a chance for the right hon. Gentleman to place the key in the door and open it slightly, where he would be doing immense benefit not only to the two Colonies concerned, but to.
923 the whole of the British Empire. I do hope that he will not in this case hold out for the sake of only £15,000 a year against the appeal made by my hon. Friend. At all events, I feel confident that he will never regret on this Empire Day conceding what would be, though small, a very much appreciated benefit to the Colonies as a whole.
§ Mr. J. SEDDON
I wish to say a few words about this Tobacco Tax. I have an objection to it, but not for the reason given by the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. I give the Seconder of this Amendment credit for being sincere when he spoke of this as a very favourable method of recognising Empire Day in this House; but so far as I am opposing the tax I want Empire Day to be recognised on behalf of the class whom I represent in this House, and whom it has just been said we all represent. I heard a remark during the speech of the Mover of this Amendment when he made a slight slip with reference to what we have done for the Colonies, and asked us to do something more. The interjection was, "What have we done for the Colonies?" That is an astounding interjection, so far as I am concerned. The great burden of protection is on the back of the people of this country. I believe the figure is something like 30s. per head for the defence of the Empire. The Consular service is at the disposal of every member of the British Empire, and outside these islands there is no contribution, or at least it is infinitesimal.
§ Mr. SEDDON
I do not want to belittle what is being done by the Colonies, but I certainly want to have a just appreciation given to that which is done by the workers of this country. With reference to this Tobacco Tax I am not objecting personally. I am paying my share. It is costing me something like 10d. a month, which is 10s. a year. But what I object to is that when I buy a pound of tobacco I get 4s. 2d. in tax and I get 1s. 2d. in tobacco. If there is going to be any preference or alteration I think the alteration ought to he that the tax should be on value and not upon weight, and that the finished article should be the article taxed and not the raw product, because with the tax in its present condition the workmen pay out of all proportion to the tobacco they smoke. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment gave some interesting figures. The increase on my purchase is 924 17 per cent., but when I come to the amount I actually pay in taxes— and I buy a slightly better grade than the ordinary working man— I pay something like 170 per cent. The ordinary working man who buys 3d. twist— that is all he can afford with his low wages— pays about 400 per cent., but the gentleman who buys 1s. 6d. cigars pays considerably less in taxes than the ordinary working man. Every time the working man buys 1s. worth of tobacco he gets 10d. worth of tax and 2d. worth of tobacco. Every time a gentleman buys a 1s. 6d. cigar he gets 1s. 3d. worth of tobacco and 3d. worth of taxes. I do not think that is a fair way of taxing a commodity. This tax falls most heavily on the working man. I have no quarrel with this Budget. I believe it is a fine Budget and a just Budget; but I think that justice would have been more approximately secured if the right hon. Gentleman, in formulating his new duties, had put the tax on the finished article, and taxed it according to its value and not taxed according to weight. Another item, I regret, in dealing with the tobacco question, is that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to revise the charges of the manufacturer. If I am correctly informed, the licence paid by the tobacco manufacturer has not been revised since the year 1841.
§ The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott)
We are now discussing an Amendment which relates simply to preference. A general discussion of the Tobacco Tax ought to come in when I put the Question that this House agree with the Committee, but now we are confined to the Amendment.
§ Mr. SEDDON
I will content myself with making my protest against the tax being placed on bulk and not upon value. There is a rankling sense of injustice in the minds of the workers that they are being unfairly taxed by this tax. They do not object to pay for their share of the revenue, but they do feel that the situation would have been better met if, instead of paying 400 to 500 per cent. tax on the tobacco which they have to buy, on account of their small wages, the tax were put on according to value and not according to weight.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment moved it, no doubt, in view of raising the larger question of preference, but he also, at the same time, rather gave the House to 925 understand that the immediate effect on the revenue would be inconsiderable, and I think he mentioned the sum of £50,000, made up of £19,000 of unmanufactured tobacco and £31,000 for manufactured. I confess I have not worked this out. I did not know that his argument would take the particular form that it did; but I did ascertain the relative quantities of Colonial tobacco and of the rest of the tobacco coming into the country. I do not want in any way to suggest that there is any necessary relation between the quantity of tobacco coming in and the amount of duty paid as between Colonial and non-Colonial tobacco. But supposing they do— and I know of no particular reason at this moment why they do not— supposing they do, as a matter of fact, bear a true relation to each other, then the percentage on the quantity of tobacco would be represented by something like £460,000 of duty actually paid under the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I do not present it in any way to the House as being worth any more than I have just said. I have not had time to examine the figures carefully, but whether or not the revenue loss would be as small as the hon. Gentleman says, or as large as my calculations on the basis that I have suggested would result in, the hon. Gentleman himself realises fully that a very much larger question underlies his modest proposal than appears on the face of it. What was the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman? He said there is a certain amount of Colonial tobacco coming into this country from West Africa, West Indies, South Africa, and from India, and in one particular case— I think he mentioned the case of South Africa— there has been a large increase of the import into this country of South African tobacco; and he rather led the House to understand, if only you give a preference to this South African tobacco, that one of the results would be an enormous development of this trade, that there would be an extension of the bounds of empire and of the prosperity of empire, and that altogether a great impetus would be given to the trade in relation to the amount of trade done.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I think all I said was that Dr. Jameson and Mr. Moore attached great importance to it.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I do not see why he should interrupt me. That was the suggestion underlying it. If that suggestion was not underlying it, what was the use of the suggesting that Colonial tobacco should have this preference? What are the facts as regards the increased importation of Colonial tobacco? It consisted, so I am informed, of one shipment of tobacco from Rhodesia of the value of £7,000. It was of so poor a quality and was so perfectly unmarketable for any purpose whatever that the persons to whom it was sent refused to pay the duty upon it; it was never taken out of bond even, and the whole amount of stuff was allowed to perish. What is the good of giving any amount of preference to tobacco of that sort? The hon. Member who seconded this proposal admitted that in the case of most Colonial tobacco it was of very low grade indeed. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion suggested that we should make a gracious gift to South Africa in return for the rebate of 3 per cent. on tobacco which we import into this country. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has looked into the rates of duties which are levied upon British manufactured tobacco in South Africa? I think if he had done so he would have found that the advantage was greatly in favour of the producer of tobacca in South Africa and of Colonial tobacco generally as against the British manufacturer of tobacco in the Colonial market; and he would have seen further that there is no necessity, even from that point of view, for giving a further preference to the Colonial manufacturer in a market which is as free to him to-day as it is to every other manufacturer at home, and in which, while he not only gets equality with the foreigner, he also gets equality with our own manufacturer in our own market here. There is undoubtedly a difference between the Customs and the Excise duty on tobacco, but that difference was originally laid down by Mr. Gladstone in 1863, and has ever since been maintained at a difference which allows for the extra cost of manufacture in this country entailed by the strictness of the Excise regulations under which the tobacco is manufactured here.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The fact of the matter is that Colonial tobacco, like any other tobacco, must for its market depend upon its goodness and its suitability to the taste of the persons who consume it. Tried by that standard, which, after all, is a reasonable standard, Colonial tobacco at the present moment unfortunately falls short of the standard which is expected by the tobacco-consuming people of this country. Take the well-known case of Borneo tobacco. That tobacco, I understand, at the present moment has no reason at all to complain of the market it finds in this country. But eight or 10 years ago it had a great deal to complain of. It has, however, gained its way in the British market, not by reason of any preference given to it over any other foreign tobacco, but because the manufacturers of Borneo tobacco have learned to suit their article to the taste of the consumer here, and having suited his taste, they find that the consumer takes a great deal of their tobacco. Thus, from our point of view, at all events, any tobacco product, whether Colonial or foreign, depends for its market in this country on its suitability to the requirements of the people of this country. I do not go into the large question of preference which might have been raised in connection with this Debate, but I confine myself merely to saying that if from what the Seconder of the Resolution said we are merely reciprocating the good offices of the Colonies, I think we have clone quite as much as one trading community, however closely bound to another by links of friendship and alliance, can be reasonably expected to do. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Seddon) objected to this tax, not because, he said, it was not fair to contribute to the expenses of the country, but because he felt that when he bought the cheaper kind of tobacco he contributed to this expenditure in a far greater ratio to his capacity for spending, than do those who purchase more expensive tobaccos and cigars. I would ask the House to remember that ever since the year 1898 there has been what is called a luxury tax upon cigars, and more particularly upon the more expensive class of cigars. On all the more expensive kinds of tobacco introduced into this country there has been a distinct luxury tax. That was imposed in this House by Lord St. Aldwyn in 1898, and it was increased again I think in 1900, certainly in 1904; and the proposals of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer are again to increase the luxury tax by putting up the tax on cigars to a 928 higher ratio than would be allowable if the strict relation was observed between the tax on tobacco which comes in for the purpose of anything but cigars and cigarettes, and which is for smoking in pipes, and so forth.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
It does not approximate, but there is a distinct luxury tax imposed by the present proposal, which is a continuation of the tax imposed formerly. In this case the difference is between 8d. and 1s., and therefore it does raise the luxury tax on this kind of tobacco to the extent of 1s. 4d. a pound. Even if the tax is not of the kind which the hon. Gentleman would desire, he must remember that a difference has been made in regard to the cheaper and more expensive tobaccos in respect of the duty which is respectively laid upon them.
Sir GILBERT PARKER
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having interrupted him. It is not, however, an uncommon thing in this House for a Member when he does not agree with the statement made by a Minister which he considers to be inaccurate to make objection.
Sir GILBERT PARKER
My interjection concerned a statement made by the hon. Gentleman behind me. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated that my hon. Friend said that the advantages would be "enormous." I objected to that because it was not the word my hon. Friend used in a speech which was extremely moderate. I do not, however, wish to pursue that point when we are engaged on such an extremely important matter, not by virtue of the sums of money involved, but by virtue of the principle. My hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope) suggested that the cost to the Treasury would be very small if some preference were given to Colonial tobacco and at the same time that the wishes of the Colonies who have shown their desire to give benefits to English work would be met. The Colonies have believed in the principle of preference, and they have put that principle into operation. I have only to quote from the words of the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Colonial Conference to show that they both regarded the preference which was given by the Colonies of great advantage — I do not exaggerate the adjective—to the British worker.
929 An hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Seddon) said that we have in this country done an immense deal for the Colonies. I admit that, and, of course, his reference is in particular to the cost of the Navy. I cannot enter into that question now, and I will say no more than this, that to preserve your present trade and commerce with all the world you could not lower the cost of your Navy by one penny if you had not a single Colony. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not contribute."] I will not be led into a further discussion on the subject, but they do contribute to the Navy and contribute to our mutual welfare by preference to British goods. Whether we can give preference to Colonial products or not is the question before us now, and the article under discussion is tobacco. I ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry if he can object to the principle of granting preference to Colonial tobacco when he grants a preference to Irish tobacco? There is at the present time a preference granted to Irish tobacco within the bounds of the United Kingdom, and a principle of preference has been accepted by the Government in other directions. Thus at the present time the Government give a concession to the growing of cotton in Nigeria by a free passage to cotton grown in that country over the Nigerian railways. The principle is also acknowledged by the practical subsidising of flax in St. Helena and the principle of subsidies which we have given in grants in aid to Jamaica, and which have thus assisted in the sugar industry. At the present time the Government have under consideration whether they should subsidise steamships to East Africa.
The principle has been acknowledged and accepted. What you give to Ireland you cannot refuse on principle to give to South Africa. What you give to Jamaica by grants in aid, you cannot refuse, in principle, to give to Rhodesia. What you have given by advantage on the railways of Nigeria, you cannot refuse to give to India. I think that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) made a very unsubstantial— as well as an extremely unsatisfactory— reply to my hon. Friend. He doubted the figures produced by my hon. Friend, and it is his duty, as representing the Treasury, to produce the Treasury figures and show that my hon. Friend was wrong. My hon. Friend suggested that at the present time the whole duty of 3s. 8d. in the pound on unmanufactured tobacco from British Possessions in 1907 was £77,000. He 930 asked on that a rebate of 25 per cent., which would correspond to the preference now given by South Africa to British productions. That rebate would amount to £19,425 on tobacco from British Possessions. That is a very small matter for this Government, which is throwing away millions, for a Government which calculates that they will receive £1,600,000 on a tax on whisky. Under such circumstances the consideration of £19,000 is really of not any importance. They think in millions, and we are thinking for the moment in thousands.
The President of the Board of Trade is one of those who supported and strongly advocated while he was Member for Manchester the subsidising of cotton grow in Nigeria. By that subsidy over the Nigerian Railways he believed, as many in this House on both sides believe, that such a course would result in encouraging the cotton industry in that country. We gave help in that proposal. What is the difference between giving help by preference of duty and giving help by a grant in aid or by cheaper rates in railways or by any other form? Now we believe that if we were to give an advantage to Rhodesia on its tobacco, it would be of immense importance to that country in the future. Every country has its particular products, which are peculiarly its own, and which, naturally, will express in its future its prosperity. In the Transvaal you have gold and in the Cape you have wine. My hon. Friend sitting opposite knows as well as any man in the Empire that if we had not conferred the preference on French wines as against South African wines that to-day, instead of having about £1,000 in Cape wines we would have about a million imported. When the advantage was given to French wines over the products of our own Colonies by Mr. Gladstone by the Cobden Treaty we had an importation of over £100,000 worth of Cape wines to this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Does the hon. Gentleman dispute those figures? I have quoted them before in the House, and they have never been disputed. If we had not preferred French wines as against South African wines today we might have a million pounds worth of South African wines coming to this country.
Surely the hon. Gentleman opposite will not suggest that a good Cape wine to-day is not better than the cheap and nasty French wines which we get now, and which are largely composed of cheap Californian wines, cheap Algerian wines, and cheap 931 Spanish wines made in France. I am speaking of what we all know to be the truth, and I am giving Cape wines as an example of what the effect of preference would be on an industry of the kind, and how important it would be for a country like Rhodesia that we should give a preference to tobacco. You would thereby have the foundations laid of a great industry. I have visited Rhodesia, I have seen the beginning of the work of tobacco growing there, and I venture to say that the efforts being made in Ireland do not begin to compare with the scientific treatment of tobacco in Rhodesia to-day. They mean business there; they want help. We think a great deal of Canada and of Australia, but so far we have rather despised South Africa, because we think that the only thing she gives us is gold. The Trans vaal, Rhodesia, and India can, in the cheaper forms of tobacco, make us independent of foreign states and countries, which show us no favour, but which at every point of the compass treat us with what you may call commercial oppression. What we ask for is nothing that will lower the financial position of the Treasury, but something which from the sentimental side will give great encouragement to those who are endeavouring to build up industries in Australia and South Africa. [A laugh.] I ask hon. Members if it is a right thing to laugh at Rhodesia when she wants a preference—
Sir GILBERT PARKER
And the right thing to applaud when Ireland desires a preference? The hon. Gentleman who interrupted me gave his support to the Irish preference. Why prefer Ireland to Rhodesia? We are all citizens of the Crown; we are all under the same flag. I ask only for equality of treatment with Ireland. If we get that equality of treatment for the Colonies the Secretary of the Treasury will have the satisfaction of knowing that he has corrected one of the abuses belonging to the operation of the proposals of this Budget. He may say that it is an abuse which has existed under past Governments, and might have been corrected by past Governments. Certainly— I do not except any Government; I do not except my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). But we have come to a time in the development of our com 932 mercial relations with our Colonies when public opinion is behind us. It would. have been impossible for my right hon. Friend or his predecessor to have acted ten years ago with effect, because public opinion would not have been behind him. To-day, if you were to put it to the people of this country, if we were to have a referendum as to whether we should give Rhodesian and Indian tobacco, Cape wine, and other products of the Colonies an advantage of this kind, which does not touch the food of the people, according to the theories of hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite, they would say generously, broadly, "Give these industries in the Colonies a chance; it will cost us little." But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not yield an inch to the Colonies. When they yield they yield not to 12,000,000 or 14,000,000 of people outside this country, but to a handful of gentlemen sitting below the Gangway. They yield then fast enough; but they are not prepared to do the fair thing with our Colonies.
I have no doubt the Secretary to the Treasury has not been speaking to-night on his own responsibility. He has had the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I have no doubt would give the same reply as the hon. Gentleman has given to-night. But we on this side of the House believe that we are expressing the views of the majority of the people, not only of this Kingdom, but of this Empire, when we say that the principle which we have advocated would be a great advantage to the future of our commercial and industrial development. We think that to hesitate to grant this advantage is a short-sighted policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give in concession to the opinion of the Colonies an advantage in regard to fairer borrowings. I believe the provincial legislatures— this is the suggestion— are to be put in the same position as New Zealand and Australia in regard to borrowings. But if the Government gives that concession, what earthly excuse can they have for not giving this? If these provinces say, "It is a burden upon us to have to pay this tax, from which the Dominion or the Commonwealth is exempt, it is legislation against us, and a preference is given to the larger organisation," what excuse can the Government give except a purely theoretical and academic excuse for not granting to the Colonies the same advantages? As my hon. Friend, Mr. James Hope, has pointed out, Colonial and 933 Indian tobacco is at a disadvantage. There is practically a preference against it. But we want the Colonies to be put in a position of equality. The Secretary to the Treasury says that it is not possible. It does not matter if it is a subsidy; that is all right. It does not matter if it is a grant in aid: that is all right. But if you touch flat sacred word "duty" and propose any concession or rebate with regard to a duty or tax upon foreign or Colonial manufactured material, then you are touching the Ark of the Covenant, and they will not have it at any price. It is the policy of the high-and-dry theorist, and that is what is going to ruin this Government in the end. They will not be generous; they will not be just; and we are making a plea to-night more for justice than for generosity. I only regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. No doubt he would have smiled at our arguments, because he has been fascinated by the ferocity of his own finance. No doubt he would have smiled and smiled, as Shakespeare says, and still have been the financial villain. But, nevertheless, the policy which we advocate is a policy which is not represented by Members upon the Benches of this House, but it is represented by hundreds of thousands of people in the country, and by those who matter; who, when the time comes at the next election, will prove their faith by giving us an opportunity to do that which the present Government refuse to do.
§ Mr. J. P. NANNETTI
The speech to which we have just listened seems to me more like a speech which should have been made by General Botha or some of the patriots in South Africa. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's appeal for preference for this great country of South Africa, while at the same time he drew a comparison with the preference grudgingly given by this House for the resuscitation of an industry which is doing something to fill up the gap of those industries which have been destroyed by your legislation. I have no objection to preference to South Africa or anywhere else, but as an Irish representative I must resent it when I hear any Member speak in jealous tones of any little concession which has been granted to my country. [Ail Rex. MEMBER: "Hear, bear."] I am glad to hear the hon. Member say that he approved of the concession. All I can say is that his approval has been greatly marred by the manner in which he compared Ireland with South 934 Africa. There is one portion of this question which I want to touch upon. That is to protest against the fact that the Government in this Budget have not given preference to Ireland in the protection of their tobacco. What is the result—
§ The DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Order, order. That comes on the Excise Resolution; the next Resolution, not the one we are discussing.
§ Mr. NANNETTI
Then I will not take up the time of the House. I will reserve what I have to say, but I hope and trust I will not have to listen to any Members of the Opposition in the House making speeches above the Gangway and finding fault with any concession made for the purpose of resuscitating the industries of my country.
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
I would not have risen, but evidently someone is required to fill the gap. I have sat here for a considerable time listening to speeches and quotations from the Leaders of the Opposition, in which it is intimated that the House is a seething cauldron where the Opposition are thirsting for an opportunity to attack the Budget, generally and in detail. If those who got that impression had been here for the last two hours they would have found the Opposition Benches occupied by three solitary figures. They then would have understood the difference between the imaginary and the real. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) must have thanked me for my interruption, for it afforded him the opportunity for the only really serious part of his speech which he has just delivered to us. It just inflamed his passion sufficiently to enable us to at least believe that it was real. With reference to this question which we are discussing now as to whether or not preference is to be given to the Colonies, I take it for granted that such has been suggested in the speeches already delivered from this side of the House, and that it is not so much a question of tobacco as the initiation of a principle with reference to the Colonies. It seems just as if it was a new principle which had never been tried. I was looking through the library to-day and glanced at the Old Almanac for 1832. I noticed that the identical preference on tobacco which was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman behind me as a new idea was adopted and carried into execution so early as the first part of the last century.
§ Mr. JOHN WARD
Then it is not new at all this question. I understood Tariff Reform Preference for the Colonies was an absolute invention from Birmingham or somewhere— [cries of "No, no"] — during the last two or three or half-dozen years. Evidently it is as old as the hills. We may take it for granted if our country adopted this policy in the early part of last century, and after a full trial discarded it, it is not worth while our taking it on again. However, it is peculiar to listen to the statements which have been made with reference to this subject, for it is an illustration of the difference between the general policy with reference to preference in other matters. For instance, we are informed by those who have advocated the proposal to-night that we are to give preference to Colonial tobacco, and especially Rhodesian tobacco. I understand there was many years ago— or whether it was recently the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary did not say— a cargo of Rhodesian tobacco which arrived in one of our ports. Those who were interested in the tobacco, or at least who were going to give it a trial, had a look at the stuff, and decided under no circumstances would it be useful except for a bonfire, and refused to pay any duty at all upon the article. If that is the kind of stuff we are going to give preference to; if this is the beginning of a Colonial preference policy, I should think that the policy, if it is to be gauged by the article to which the preference is to be given, is clearly shoddy from beginning to end. Then we are told at the present the Colonies are asking for this right. I do not think that any right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway has given us any information that Rhodesia wants this preference, or that any other part of the Colonies want it. Dr. Jameson — who is not South Africa, lucidly for South Africa— has had very little to do with it recently. When he had considerable power there South Africa was in a very bad way. Hence I shall want some official representative of the Governments of the Colonies, or any other State, to make a bar-gain of that description. The mere word of any important politician, however important he may be or whatever party he may belong to, would not be sufficient for the House of Commons to proceed to give preference to a Colony or any other part of the world. We should certainly, even if 936 we agreed to the principle, want to know something more than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend has been able to tell us with reference to this subject. I do not think that the suggestion has been made out or justified, or the policy suggested in this Amendment. There may be reasons— good reasons— for this policy, but clearly the hon. Gentleman who has spoken in favour of the Motion has not been able to discover them yet. Hence I certainly, unless I had some better reason than have been given this evening, certainly— even if I held their views on Colonial preference— would not be agreeable to adopt the policy without there was a more justifiable reason shown by hon. Members than has hitherto been shown. I think at present, as has already been suggested by the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire (Mr. J. R. Seddon), we give our Colonies fair preference by the general defence of the Empire— except for a recent suggestion or two of a "Dreadnought," this country has borne the general burden of Imperial defence. The British taxpayer is taxed quite enough for the maintenance of the Empire, which Gentlemen above the Gangway are celebrating to-day, and evidently somewhere this evening, but not in the House.
Secondly, I do not think we ought to be asked to support this unless there is some reason far better than has been shown hitherto on this subject. So far as I am concerned, I am going to support the Government in the Tobacco Tax, because that is part of the Budget. And I am in favour of the Budget, taken as a whole. I am not going to support guerilla attacks, from whatever direction they come. I am going to take it for granted that the Government are going to stick to their policy. Until they desert it I, as a supporter of the principles involved in the Budget, am not going to desert it. There have been arguments put forward in the Debate. arguments that are serious and that were real, and that really added something to them that required explanation, and required being dealt with. But certainly there has not been an argument advanced in favour of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway that will weigh with anyone for five minutes. For that reason alone I shall vote against the Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The hon. Member who has just sat down has told us that he is going to support the Government because he approved of the Budget as a whole.
937 Then he has told us that the arguments which have been advanced towards the Amendment were of no particular consequence. There had been some arguments advanced earlier in the discussion which demanded answers and consideration. These latter arguments do not seem to have weighed much with the hon. Member, because the only result of them has been that he tells us that he is going to vote for the Government. We all know perfectly well that the hon. Member for Stoke and other hon. Members below the Gangway intend to vote for this Socialistic Budget, and that whatever argument is brought forward will not matter for them, because they know perfectly well this is the beginning of the end. Further argument with these hon. Gentlemen would be useless; they have made up their minds before now. The hon. Member was very witty on the subject of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House above the Gangway celebrating Empire Day. Does the hon. Member mean to say that it is only Members above the Gangway on the Opposition side who celebrate Empire Day? I was not aware, but I am very glad to hear from such an authority as he is that that is the case. The hon. Member said there were very few Members in the house for the last few hours, but I would remind him that it was only 20 minutes past eight— an hour and 10 minutes ago— that the last division took place, and that then the House was filled, and that the Opposition sent 123 Members into the Lobby. Even Members of Parliament must dine, and I do not think the hon. Member has much to complain of, if between 8.30 and 9 o'clock the House is not as full as it generally is, but even now its emptiness is not conspicuous on the Opposition side of the House, but is on the Ministerial side. At the present moment above the Gangway opposite there are only five members and on the Front Treasury Bench there is only one hon. Member and another who is sitting far away behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. It is that which the hon. Member should deplore, and not the absence of hon. Members upon this side. Members of the Government are paid to be present; we are not. Now the question before us is, I think, an extremely simple one. The hon. Member for Stoke talked a good deal about South Africa and Rhodesia, but I believe that one of the objects of this Amendment would be to exclude India from the payment of the increased taxation. 938 I do not suppose the hon. Member is against India, and I do not suppose that even hon. Members will deny that a large amount of tobacco is grown in India, and if the working classes can get their tobacco from India without paying the increased duty I should be extremely surprised if these working classes would thank the hon. Member for his intervention this afternoon.
I understand the only effect of this Amendment would be that trade within the Empire would have a certain preference. All that is asked is that the increased duty should not be levied on tobacco from India and Ceylon, and these are the principal countries, and incidentally South Africa and other countries belonging to the British Crown where tobacco is grown. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Mr. James Hope), who moved the Amendment, said that the loss of this if carried to the Exchequer would not be more than £50,000. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said he had not gone into the figures, but he believed the loss would be £400,000. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is on the paper. What right has the Financial Secretary to say that he has not taken the trouble to go into the figures, and that he does not know what the result would be? The hon. Member ought to be able to say "I cannot accept this Amendment, because it means a loss of such and such a description and amounting to such and such a figure to the Treasury." I venture to say that if any hon. Gentleman sitting on this side of the House when we go over to the Treasury Bench were to make such a statement he would be assailed by hon. Members opposite who would then be sitting on this side with great invective because he had not taken the trouble to estimate what the actual result would be of the proposal of my hon. Friend which has been on the Paper for the last couple of days.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURY
For a fortnight, and that should have given the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury plenty of time to find out what the actual result in loss would be to the Treasury. I had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member the Financial Secretary before dinner, and I took down a few words of his, because I thought them worthy of consideration. He told us the object of these indirect taxes were to get at people who did not contribute in other 939 ways to the revenue. Now, what way will he avoid getting at those people who he desires to get at if the Amendment of my hon. Friend is carried. There would still be an increase in the price of tobacco and all those who smoke tobacco would have to pay a certain increased price. The result would be that the trade in India and the other parts of the Empire would be increased and that manufacturers here who deal directly with India and other parts of the Empire where tobacco is grown would not be hit. I think I am right in saying that I have seen statements in the newspapers. I do not always believe everything I read in the newspapers— and I hope Gentlemen in the Gallery will not take that in any offensive sense— but I have seen the statement that tobacco manufacturers have closed their establishments in Bristol and elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] Am I wrong then? —[An HON. MEMBER "Absolutely."] Well, I was not sure, but I thought they closed in Bristol. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Northampton."] I saw it. in certain newspapers that in certain towns in England certain factories had been closed. I do not want to press that point. Here is an opportunity for altering that state of things, and giving a preference to India and some other of our dependencies. If that was done it would not be necessary to close these particular works. The hon. Member for Stoke talked about South Africa, but the Amendment includes India, where a large quantity of first-class tobacco is grown, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester, says it would also include Jamaica, where the very best tobacco is grown.
I think this is an extremely important question. and as far as I can ascertain— and I am bound to take the figures given by my hon Friend the Member for Sheffield— the loss to the revenue would be
§ extremely slight. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the statement which he made, and which is to be had in the Vote Office showed that the increase next year will be very much larger than this year, £4,000,000, I think, he estimates on the whole of the taxation. My point is that if next year there is going to be an increase of four millions it will be perfectly easy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even supposing the figures of the hon. Member the Financial Secretary were correct, that there would be a loss of £400,000, it would be perfectly easy to grant this preference to India and our Colonies in order to increase the trade of the Empire.
§ We have heard a great deal about unemployment, and there is no one sitting on this side of the House who regrets more than I do the fact that there is a great deal of unemployment in the country. Here is an opportunity of increasing the trade within the Empire, without doing any harm to anybody, and why not try it? If the Secretary to the Treasury was able to say that the carrying out of this Amendment would cause a great loss to the Revenue, and that the Government would not be able to make both ends meet, it would be quite a different thing. I might have replied that, after all, we have to meet this deficit although we on this side of the House did not create it. [Cries of "Yes," and "Old Age Pensions."] It was created by old age pensions, but I voted against the Old Age Pensions Bill both on the second and the third reading. But, even if the Opposition are responsible that is no answer, and the Secretary to the Treasury cannot say that this particular Amendment is going to cause any great. loss to the Exchequer. Therefore, I shall have very great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 185.941
|Pretyman, E. G.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Tuke, Sir John Batt'y|
|Rateliff, Major R. F.||Rutherford W. W. (Liverpool)||Walrond Hon Lionel|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Wortiey, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Renwick, George||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)||TELLER FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Staveley-Hill, (Staffordshire)||James Hope and Captain Craig.|
|Division No. 129.]||AYES.||[9.50 p. m|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim)||Kavanagh, Walter M.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Cralk, Sir Henry||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fell, Arthur||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Ffrench, Peter||Lyttelton, Rt Hon Alfred|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Fletcher, J. S.||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Bull, Sir William James||Forester, Henry William||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M||Foster, P. S.||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Gardner, Ernest||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Cave, George||Gordon, J.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Oddy, John James|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Helmsey Viscount||Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Hill, Sir Clement||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Hazel Dr. A. E. W.||Pointer. J.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Alden, Percy||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Henry, Charles S.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Higham, John Sharp||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Hobart, Sir Robert||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)|
|Barker, Sir John||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Richards, T. F. (Wolerhampton, W.)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Hodge, John||Ridsdale, E. A|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Hopper, A. G.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Beale, W. P.||Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Hornlman, Emstle John||Robertsons, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Robinsons, S.|
|Bell, Richard||Hudson, Walter||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Hyde, Clarendon G||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Black, Arthur W.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Rogers, F E Newman|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Jackson, Sir J||Rose, Charles Day|
|Branch, James||Jardine, Sir J||Rowlands, J|
|Brigg, John||Jenkins, J||Russell, Rt. Hon T. W|
|Brodie, H. C.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L (Cleveland)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Sears, J. E.|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Jowett, F. W.||Seddon, J.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Joyce, Michael||Shackleton, David James|
|Cameron, Robert||Kekewich, Sir. George||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Laidlaw, Robert||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Lamb Edmund G.(Leominster)||Slicock, Thomas Ball|
|Cleland, J. W.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Clough, William||Lambert, George||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Levy, Sir Maurice||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyuiph (Cheshire)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon David||Steadman, W. C|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Stewart-Smith, Sir Edward|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Macdonald, J R. (Leister)||Summerbell, T.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Maclean, Donald||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Cox, Harold||MacVeagh, Jermiah (Down, s)||Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E)|
|Crocks, William||Macveigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Crosfield, A. H.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||M'Micking, major G.||Tomkinson, James|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)||Maddison, Frederick||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Mallet, Charles E.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Marnham, F. J||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Masterman, C. F. G||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Watson, Rt Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Mond, A||Watt, Henry A|
|Essex, R. W.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Essiemont, George Birnle||Morrell, Philip||White, J Dundas (Dumbertonshire)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Morse, L.L.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C (Kincard.)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E)||Wiles, Alexander|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Glover, Thomas||Newness, F (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Norman, Sir Henry||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Nortan, Captain Cecil William||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Nuttall, Harry||Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||O'Connor, John (kildare, N)||Winfrey, R.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O, Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Wood, T. 'M'Kinnon|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Parker, James (Hailfax)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Partington, Oswald||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
§ Question put: "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Re-solution."942
§ The House divided; Ayes, 169; Noes, 75943
|Division No. 130.]||AYES.||[9.58 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Beale, W. P.|
|Agnew, George William||Barker, Sir John||Beauchamp, E.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Beck, A. Cecil|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Bell, Richard|
|Bennett, E. N.||Higham, John Sharp||Richard, Thomas (W. Monmouth)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Richard, T.F.(Wolverhampton, W)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Ridsdale, E. A|
|Branch, James||Hodge, John||Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)|
|Bilge, John||Hooper, A. G.||Roberts, Sir J. H.(Denbighs)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Brunner, J. F. L (Lancs., Leigh)||Hornlman, Emslie John||Robinson, S.|
|Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Roch, Walter F. (Perbroke)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Illingworth, Percy H.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cameron, Robert||Jackson, R. S.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Jardine, Sir J.||Rose, Charles Day|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Jenkins, J.||Rowlands, J.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Clough, William||Johnson, W.(Nuneaton)||Rutherford, V.H. (Brentford)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thorniey||Kekewich, Sir Georage||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Laidlaw, Robert||Sears, J. E.|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J. S||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Shackleton, David James|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Shaw, Sir Charles E.(Stafford)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Lambert, George||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Sllock, Thomas Ball|
|Cox, Harold||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Crooks, William||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Maclean, Donald||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford W)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||M'Micking, Major G.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Maddison, Frederick||Tomkinson, James|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Marnham, F. J||Ure, Rt. Hon Alexander|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)||Massie, J||Ward, W. Dudley (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Masterman, C. F. G||Ward, W Dudley (Southampton)|
|Essex, R. W.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Waring, Walter|
|Esslemont, George Birnle||Molteno, Percy Alport||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Mond, A||Wasson, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Ferens, T. R.||Morrell, Phillip||Watt, Henry A.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Morse, L. L.||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R)(|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Nicholson, Charies N.(Doncaster)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Harcourt, fit. Hon. L. (Rosendale)||Norman, Sir Henry||Wiles, Thomas|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Norton, Capt. Cell William||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||Nuttall, Harry||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Partington, Oswald||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Pearce, William (Oswald)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras S.)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Winfrey, R.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Priestly, W.E.B.(Bradford, E)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Radford, G. H.|
|Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Henry, Charles S.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Joseph Peace and Mr. Herbert Lewis|
|Herbert T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Abraham, W (Cork, N.E.)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pointer, J.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Hazleton, Richard||Pretyman, E. G.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Heimsley, Viscount||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Hills, Sir Clement||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hudson, Walter||Renwick, George|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Joyce, Michael||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kennaway. Rt. Hon. Sir john H.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cave, George||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A.R||Salter, Arthur Claveil|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A (Worc'r.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Seddon, J.|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Macveigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Smith, F. E, (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Straveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Steadman, W. C.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Summerbell, T|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Douglas, fit. Hon. A. Akers-||Morpeth, Viscount||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Fell, Arthur||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nannetti, Joseph P||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Fletcher, J. S.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Foster, P. S.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Gardner, Ernest||Oddy, John James|
|Glover, Thomas||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||TELLER FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Gordon, J.||Parker, James (Halifax)||H.W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.|
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put and agreed to.
§ Resolution reported.