The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1909-06-12

In the House of Commons on May
"a, Mr.. James Hopes amendment on
the Irish grown tobacco duty to leave
out SIS Cd and insert Is Sd. which was
supported by Mr.. l'cll, Mr.. William
Redmond pointed out that he had ali
SIS cd and insert "s l0d, and that if
Mr.. Hope went on with his amend
mcnt he (Mr. RcdmonD would not pc
able to move his amendment lie
therefore asked Mr.. Hope to withdraw
SO as to leave the way clear for him.
Mr.. Hope said he only desired to
protest against the increased duty, aml
he was willing to withdraw.
Leave was given to MIR. Hope 10
Withdraw his amendment.
Mr. William Redmond then moved
his own amendment as above, saying
he had asked MIR. Hope to withdraw.
not because he thought hc went too
far by seeking to reduce tho tax on
Irish grown TOBACCO by one-half. but
because he thought it would he pos
sible to make out a moro reasonable
case for his own amendment Oaugh-
tcr.) He meant no disraragemcnt to
the honorable member (Mr. Hopc). and
thanked him for his kindness, but all
would admit that Mr. Hopes proposal
was a rather large ono Chcar. hcar).
His own amendment simply asked that
the additional Sd should not be levied
upon this young industry i'm Ireland
(chccrs.) If they left the tax as it
was upon irish grown tobacco. at 2s
1Od, the growers would endcavOr 20
pay it. but they objected to this ad-
ditional Sd upon an industry which WAS
only a few years in cXiStcncc. lie hop
cd the chancellor OF the cXchequ"r
would cndcavor to meet him in this
matter. lie knew that the party op-
positc was welded to free trade, but
might be an exception made to the
most rigid rule. He submitted to- the
chancellor OF the cxchequer that really
tho principle OF free trade or prOtcc-
tion did not arise in this small matter
of Irish grown tobacco at all (hcar.
hear). 1t was nonscnsical to pretend
that this was a. question of large COM
mercial concern. or that the treasury
was in danger OF losing any consider
him in this matter. The Irish tobacco
industry had not yet assumed COM
mercial proportions worth speaking Of
The chancellor of the cxchcqucr would
not pretend that this tax was to 5n
put upon Irish grown tobacco for the
purposes Of revenue. The amount OF
revenue from it would hardly be worth
consideration. On the other hand, by
this proposal. the chancellor OF the eX-
a trade which might be a. fruitful and
considerable source of revenue in the
future (chccrs.) Many Irish industries
had been deliberately voted out of ex-
istcncc in the past by tho House. No
body, nowadays, defended that policy
(cheers) One of these industries was
Irish tobacco growing and manufac-
ture. An honorable member had re-
ferred to having smoked some Irish to-
bacco and the House seemed to regard
the reference rs a joke. But if those
who laughed would look in the records
of that House at the evidence given
before the parliamentary committee,
presided over by Sir Henry Parnell,
they would see that early in the last
century, the tobacco industry in Ire
land was considerable Industry, CIV
ing a large amount Of employment to
! men, women and children, and in the
County of Wexford between 500 to 1000
acres were planted with tobacco. When
in the early thirties there was almost
famine in Ireland the districts in
which there were these tobacco plan
tstions had no distress (cheers.) That