Commons Sitting of 5 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE RILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely:—

  Latimer Road and Acton Railway Bill.

  Midland Railway Bill.

  Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill.

  Wolverhampton Gas Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 67 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 67 has been complied with, namely:—
  Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES) BILL.
    CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.

      CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
      JARROW AND HEBBURN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the United Presbyterian Synod on Disestablishment, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Standish; Grangetown; and South Skelton; to lie upon the Table.
  OWNERS' SITE VALUES.
  Petition from St. Leonard, Shoreditch, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
  Petition from Whitburn, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Tuxford Hall; Bradford; and Beeston; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Broomfield; London; and West Hartlepool; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Petition from Ramsbottom, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Middlesbrough (three); Honing; Broomfield; Southampton; Hartlepool; Sneinton; Ipswich; and Rusholme; to lie upon the Table.
  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS.
  Petition from West Bromwich, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th February; Mr. John Morley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]
  WESTERN AUSTRALIA (CONSTITUTION ACTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1899).
  Copy presented, of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act, 1899, of Western Australia [by Act] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 82.]
  WESTERN AUSTRALIA (ELECTORAL ACT, 1899).
  Copy presented, of the Electoral Act, 1899, of Western Australia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 83.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 5, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Procès-Verbal recording the accession of the Russian Empire to the Cape Spartel International Lighthouse Convention of 31st May, 1865. Signed at Tangier, 31st May, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 2386 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Report to accompany Statutes and Regulations made by the Commissioners appointed under the University of London Act, 1898, together with an Appendix of Correspondence [by Command];to lie upon the Table.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1900–1901).
  Copy ordered, "of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 84.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—USE OF EXPLOSIVE BULLETS.
  MR. ORR-EWING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Transvaal Republic became subsequently an acceding party to the Declaration signed at St. Petersburg on 11th December, 1868, between Great Britain, Austria, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Prussia and the North German Confederation, Russia, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and Würtemberg, by which the contracting parties engaged to renounce in case of war among themselves the employment

  23
  by their troops of explosive bullets; and, if not, whether, considering Great Britain has adhered to the above engagement, and that such Declaration is by its terms not binding in a war with a non-acceding Power, any protest can be made by the other signatories of the Declaration against the employment of explosive bullets by the Boers as officially reported.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have to say, in answer to my hon. friend, that Her Majesty's Government are not aware of the Transvaal Government having acceded to the Declaration of St. Petersburg, signed in 1868, on the subject of the use of explosive bullets in war. The Declaration does not provide for any protest on the part of the signatory Powers in the event referred to by my hon. friend.

  TRANSVAAL PROPERTY AND WAR TAXES.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the recent proclamation by the Government to the effect that any attempted dealings with property in the Transvaal for non-payment of war tax or otherwise to the prejudice of British subjects would not be recognised by our Government so far as regards such impositions made since the outbreak of the present hostilities, whether this proclamation or its principle would apply to any action taken by the Transvaal Government in respect of the non-payment of the war tax which was imposed on landowners prior to the outbreak of hostilities, but not paid by them in consequence of the Colonial Office having given the opinion in writing on 20th May last, that it was a breach of the London Convention of 1884; and whether British owners of land in the Transvaal, who have paid the war taxes under protest and under threats of forfeiture of such lands by the Transvaal Government, will have their rights to recover back such war taxes saved.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have received no representations that farms have been confiscated for non-payment of war tax prior to the outbreak of the war. Any confiscation subsequent to October 10th is
  24
  covered by the notice of 26th January. Her Majesty's Government were advised subsequent to the outbreak of the war that in view of the arguments put forward on behalf of the South African Republic their protest could not be maintained on the grounds originally taken, and they cannot therefore pledge themselves in the matter.

  ARMY COMMISSIONS—PROMOTIONS FROM THE RANKS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of appointments to first commissions in the Army made during the past six months, and how many of these were promotions from the ranks.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,) (for Mr. Wyndham): The total number of appointments to first commissions is 835, and of promotions from the ranks is eighty-four.

  PROBABLE FORCE NECESSARY TO GARRISON SOUTH AFRICA AFTER THE WAR.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the amount of the reduced force to be maintained in South Africa after the 30th September for which provision is made in the Estimates.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Estimates were framed on the basis of making full provision for the war charges up to the 30th September, and half provision for the remainder of the year; and not upon a calculation of the precise number of men likely to be present in South Africa after the 30th September.

  NICHOLSON'S NEK ENGAGEMENT—LIST OF PRISONERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can say if Private Francis Martin, No. 5108, Royal Irish Fusiliers, was amongst the number taken prisoners at Nicholson's Nek; and, if so, whether he can say where he is now; and when it is intended to publish the list of those taken prisoners in that battle.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): A list of the Royal Irish Fusiliers who were missing after Nicholson's Nek will be called for, now that Ladysmith has been relieved; and the hon. Member will be communicated with.

  MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AT THE FRONT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any objection to give the names of the hon. Members of this House who are alleged to be at the front, the regiments to which they are attached, and the capacities in which they are serving; and whether any of those hon. Members have been engaged in actual fighting; were any of them wounded or taken prisoners; and, if so, when or where were they in battle.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): A Return is now being prepared in the terms of the address moved by my hon. friend the Member for the Stratford-on-Avon Division of Warwickshire, which will give the hon. Member most of the information for which he asks. It will not be feasible to include the details referred to in the second paragraph of the question, but the hon. Member may rest assured that wherever the hon. Members referred to are serving, they are doing their duty.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the Return apply to the two hon. Members for Sheffield, who are missing, and whose whereabouts are unknown?

  TRANSPORT—HORSES—PROVISION OF VETERINARY SURGEONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state whether, at the beginning of the South African War, several ships containing large numbers of horses were sent out without a veterinary surgeon on board; and what was the result of this course; and whether any steps have been taken to provide each horse transport ship with a veterinary surgeon.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Eleven ships containing horses were despatched before the 16th November, without veterinary surgeons; the numbers of horses on board were not large and a specially selected farrier quartermaster-sergeant or sergeant farrier
  26
  was sent on each vessel. The percentage of deaths on board, excluding the "Ismore," which sank, was 4·54. Since the 16th November a veterinary surgeon has been placed on each horse transport leaving the United Kingdom with regular units or remounts.

  COST OF TRANSPORT.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why has a large proportion of the liabilities for sea transport incurred during the present financial year, as stated at page 6 of the Secretary of State's Memorandum, been placed on the Estimates of next year, instead of being inserted under that head in the recent Supplementary Army Estimate.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Payments for sea transport are made partly in advance as the ships are taken up, and partly in arrear. The Supplementary Estimate covers so much of the liabilities as we expect to discharge during the current financial year.

  ARTILLERY—DEFECTIVE FIELD GUNS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that some of the field artillery guns at the front in South Africa have recently been found defective from corrosion caused by the use of cordite; and whether any steps are being taken to rapidly replace these guns.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Spare guns have been sent out to replace any which may be found defective. It is not the case that cordite has a "corrosive" effect, although the constant use of the gun, whether with cordite or any other explosives, will in time wear out the tube.
  *MR. WEIR: Does not cordite cause erosion of the barrel of the gun?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I was asked if it had any corrosive effect, and my answer was "No."

  LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the muzzle velocity of the

  27
  Lee-Metford rifle is inferior to all rifles in the hands of European Powers; that the alleged irregular qualities of the cordite powder, the way in which the Lee-Metfords are sighted, and the complicated reloading, have been repeatedly evidenced in the course of the present war; whether the English rifle and ammunition are each heavier than the United States Navy, the German Mauser, and the Männlicher weapons and whether, as stated, it has the worst trajectory, the least penetration, the slowest fire once the magazine is emptied the weakest breech bolt, least rigid woodwork, the worst trigger-pull, and worst sights compared with the above-mentioned rifles; and if it is the most expensive of any service weapon.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The replies to paragraphs 1 and 3 of the question are in the negative. In regard to the second paragraph our rifle is heavier than some and lighter than other magazine rifles; there are many patterns of Männlichers and Mausers. Our ammunition is rather lighter than the average ammunition of other nations.

  YEOMANRY UNIFORMS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has received any complaints as to the inferior quality of the uniform supplied to the Yeomanry; whether the reason given by the contractor was that the price was cut too low, and what is the name of the contracting firm.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I am informed by the Yeomanry Committee that there has been little or no complaint as to the khaki and as to the greatcoats. There have been complaints as to the Bedford or velveteen cord. No contracts were made for these supplies. The firms employed by the Yeomanry Committee stated that it was virtually impossible to obtain the required quantities of the best material within the time specified. The difficulty seems to have been one of time rather than of price.

  VOLUNTEERS—EXPENSES OF TRAINING.
  MR. COLSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary
  28
  of State for War whether he is aware that Volunteer service companies, for whom there was no room in barracks during their period of training, were put to heavy expense to secure suitable lodgings; and whether he sees his way to put them on the same footing financially as those who had barrack accommodation provided for them.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): As Volunteer service companies are treated in the same way as Regular soldiers, no more than ordinary rates have been sanctioned. The Secretary of State for War is, however, prepared to consider any special cases in which it can be shown that the Volunteer corps have been put to expense.

  VOLUNTEERS—STATISTICS OF MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under secretary of State for War if he will state the number of Volunteers who have submitted themselves to medical examination prior to service in South Africa, the number rejected on account of bad teeth, and the number rejected for other reasons.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): No Returns on this matter are available.

  BEDFORD MOUNTED INFANTRY.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that the mounted company of the Bedford Regiment, 100 strong, were upon arrival in South Africa supplied with only fifteen horses, which horses were afterwards taken from them, and they were consequently obliged to march to the front in their riding kit; and what steps, if any, have since been taken to mount these men.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Secretary of State for War has no knowledge of the matter referred to. I may, however, explain that the clothing of mounted infantry has been designed so as to admit of the men being used as foot soldiers.

  SOLDIERS' MARRIAGES—MAINTENANCE OF FAMILIES—SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  29
  War whether he is aware that soldiers who marry without leave, when they fulfil the requirements of having £5 in the savings bank, seven years service, and two good conduct badges, which qualify to be placed on the marriage roll, cannot be put on it without the sanction of the general officer commanding, and provided there is a vacancy, and no qualified applicant for leave to marry exists; whether, in view of the exceptional trial the war has cast upon the wives of soldiers, he will inquire whether there are any who, having married without leave, now fulfil those requirements, and yet have not been able to be put on the roll owing to want of vacancies; and whether he can see his way to relax these conditions as regards the deposit in the savings bank, the length of service, and number of good conduct badges, so as to extend separation allowances to many deserving wives of soldiers now debarred by this regulation.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the distress which has been caused by the war to the wives and families of many soldiers married without leave, the Government will make an exception in favour of men married without leave who are on active service, and grant their wives separation allowances during the time their husbands are serving at the front.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): This question is engaging the attention of the Secretary of State, whose decision will not long be delayed. Meanwhile it is not likely that any deserving wives of the soldiers referred to will fail to obtain assistance from one or other of the funds existing for the purpose.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the weekly cost of housing and maintaining the families of officers and of soldiers married with and without leave; and what proof is required by the War Office from officers or soldiers of the sufficiency of their private means to maintain a family.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): It is not possible to state with accuracy the cost referred to in the
  30
  first paragraph of the question. No proof is required of sufficiency of private means in the case of officers or of non-commissioned officers including the rank of sergeant. In the case of ranks below that of sergeant, men admitted to the married establishment are required to show that they have to their credit a sum of £5 in the savings bank.

  REMOUNT DEPARTMENT—IRISH HORSES.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to procure serviceable horses for the Army, he will suggest to the War Office the desirability of employing local agents to purchase remounts in the south of Ireland.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): No, Sir. It is not considered expedient; the staff of the Remount Department is ample for the purpose.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the practice followed in the north of Ireland cannot be adopted in the south of Ireland—I mean the practice of employing local agents to purchase horses?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I always understood there was a great deal of difference between the north and south of Ireland.

  ARTILLERY—THE REDUCTION IN 1887.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, when the present Commander-in-Chief was Adjutant General at the War Office in 1887, he advised, recommended, or approved of the reduction of the Royal Horse Artillery in that year.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Lord Wolseley was Adjutant General in 1887, but I cannot admit the right of the hon. Member to demand information as to the advice tendered at that, or at any other time, by the members of the Headquarters Staff. The Secretary of State for the time being was responsible for the action taken.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Are we to understand that the War Office objects to tracing home any personal responsibility?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member is now arguing the question.

  FRENCH QUICK-FIRING FIELD GUNS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the new French quick-firing field gun, with hydro-pneumatic brake and spade trail; whether it is contended that twenty rounds per minute have been fired, with shrapnel and common shell; and if the gun is protected by a steel shield.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I do not think it would be desirable to make public the information received by the War Office upon such matters as this, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the attention of the Secretary of State for War is directed to all reported improvements in the artillery of other countries.

  ARTILLERY—INDIAN FIELD GUNS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the practice of making a 5½-in. howitzer for use in India and a 5-in. howitzer for use in the United Kingdom and the colonies is still persisted in; whether the military advisers of the War Office have sanctioned the use in two branches of Her Majesty's land service of two weapons differing in calibre by half an inch only, but the ammunition of which is not interchangeable; whether the War Office sanctioned the adoption of a different type of gun for Indian service; and whether there is any Minister of the Crown, officer, Committee, or other authority which has power to insist upon uniformity when the War Office and the India Office cannot agree.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): The British 5-in. howitzer and the Indian 5·4-in. howitzer are weapons intended for different purposes, the former being primarily a mobile field howitzer drawn by horses, and throwing a 50-lb. shell, the latter a siege howitzer drawn by oxen and throwing a 60-lb. shell. As the latter weapon is designed to meet special Indian requirements, the War Office sees no occasion to press the objections which might have been raised to the adoption of two different patterns
  32
  of howitzer. In the event of disagreement between the War Office and India Office the point in dispute would be referred to the Defence Committee of the Cabinet.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As a matter of fact, was there a disagreement at the time these guns were sanctioned between the India Office and the War Office?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I do not know that to be a fact, Sir.

  RIFLE PRACTICE.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether measures will be taken to further improve the rifle shooting of the Regular and Auxiliary infantry of the Army; whether the present system of training in drill and of military duties will be altered to enable the soldier to have more constant practice in combined rifle shooting and judging distance under as nearly as possible service conditions; and whether a military committee will be appointed to report on this subject.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): These questions are under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement with regard to them.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to the fact that while county councils have power to purchase land for rifle ranges they cannot hire land or spend their funds on erecting butts or screens or otherwise making ranges safe for shooting; and if he will consider the desirability of extending the provisions of the Military Lands Act so as to enable the local authorities to assist the Volunteer corps to procure ranges more effectually than they can do at present.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): A clause giving permission to county councils to erect butts or screens for the benefit of volunteer corps was originally contained in the Military Lands Bill, 1892, when introduced, but was opposed on the Second Reading and in Committee, and was dropped. The Secretary of State is considering whether

  33
  further legislation in this direction would be expedient.

  VOLUNTEERS—RETIREMENT OF COMMANDING OFFICERS.
  MR.HARRY S. SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office to insist on the retirement of all Volunteer commanding officers appointed prior to 1896 during the present year, in accordance with the Order issued during 1896; and in the event of this order being relaxed, will they specially omit from any relaxation all officers who were in any way concerned with the buying and selling of honorary colonelcies, which occurred some three years ago.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): From the 1st November, 1896, all Volunteer commands were limited to four years, but general officers commanding districts have the power of recommending extensions which may not exceed four years. Such cases are very carefully investigated, and no entension is granted unless the officer is considered worthy of it.

  OBSOLETE WAR SHIPS.
  MR. MOON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state which of the older ships besides the "Warrior," the "Boadicea," the "Belle Isle," and the "Black Prince" are to be at once struck off the list.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I have no further statement to make on this matter at present.

  NAVAL CONTRACTS—SHIPBUILDING.
  MR. FIRBANK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the admitted inability of his Department to complete the authorised expenditure for the year for shipbuilding, and having regard to the fact that many shipbuilding firms of high standing are without any orders at the present time, he would consider the expediency of giving some of those firms an opportunity of carrying out a portion of the authorised work, in view of the fact of the efforts which foreign Powers are
  34
  making at the present time to increase their naval strength.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly they will have an opportunity. There are only two or three large shipbuilding firms capable of constructing battleships or armoured cruisers, which are without Admiralty orders at the present time; all the others have large orders. These firms will have the same opportunity as others to carry out a portion of the authorised work, and I shall be very glad if they will avail themselves of it.

  EASTERN EXTENSION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received protests from the Canadian and New Zealand Governments against the concessions recently granted to the Eastern Extension Company in Australia as being likely to militate seriously against the financial success of the Pacific Cable in which the Imperial, the Canadian, and the Australasian Governments are joint partners; whether, in view of these protests, it would still be possible to revoke the concessions and prevent any further complications of a like character; and whether he has received a reply to his message to the Australian Governments on the subject.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received protests of the nature described, from Canada and New Zealand. I am informed by the Government of New South Wales that no arrangement has yet been concluded with the Eastern Extension Company, though it is aware that the decision of the recent conference of Premiers was generally favourable to the proposals of the company.

  CHINA—TRADE ON THE WEST RIVER.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in China towards the full opening to trade of the West River, and of rivers generally.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): It is impossible within the limits of an answer to a question to give a complete account of the position; but the reports from Her

  35
  Majesty's Consuls included in the Papers now being prepared for Parliament contain full information on the subject. According to the latest information, trade is steadily increasing on the West River.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that Nanning-fu, which was declared to be open as a treaty port in February last year, still remains unopened; and whether the Government have taken any steps to secure the immediate opening of the port?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I must ask for notice.

  RUSSIA AND PERSIAN RAILWAYS— BUNDER ABBAS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have given attention to the statements to the effect that the Russian Government has already commenced the construction in Persia of the Zulfa-Tabriz-Hamadan line of railway, with a branch to Teheran, and which is to terminate at Bunder Abbas at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, and that several officers of the general staff have been instructed to watch over the works, having under their orders several regiments of Cossacks; whether Her Majesty's Government are informed that Persia will grant to Russia the port of Bunder Abbas on the same terms as those under which Port Arthur has been leased to Russia by China, and that it is the intention of Russia to construct a military port and a dockyard, fortified or otherwise, at Bunder Abbas; and whether Her Majesty's Government have made, or propose to make, any representations on this subject to the Government of Russia or of Persia.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have received no information tending to confirm these statements, and have no grounds for making representations to the Russian Government in regard to them.

  RUSSIA AND THE AMIR OF BOKHARA.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Amir of Bokhara has
  36
  ceded to Russia free of cost extensive tracts of land in the upper courses of the Oxus, to be used for farming settlements for colonists from European Russia, and has also given permission to Russia to construct military stations for its Central Asian troops, and the right to establish fortified stations on the frontier of Afghanistan.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have received no information to this effect, but it is within this competence of the Amir of Bokhara to make such arrangements as he may deem fit on these points.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the Government destitute of all information whatever?

  MAURITIUS GARRISON.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is intended that the two Native Indian regiments provided for the garrison of Mauritius are to form part of the permanent regimental establishment to be borne on the Army Estimates.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): It is impossible to say at present whether the arrangement will prove to be a permanent or only a temporary one.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to his statement on the 22nd ultimo* that the British Central African natives lately stationed in Mauritius were returning to Africa, whether they have by this time reached their own country; and, if not, whether they are still on board ship.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: They are still on board ship.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: Where are they going to?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I must ask for notice.

  INDIA—SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIANS AND THE USE OF THE CHURCHES.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxix., p. 900.

  37
  State for India whether he has come to any decision in regard to the claim of the Church of Scotland that Presbyterian soldiers in India shall share in the use of churches built at the public cost for Protestants, and that such use shall be regulated by some other authority than the Bishops of the Church of England.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD G. HAMILTON,): I have been in communication with the Government of India on the subject referred to in my right hon. friend's question, and propose to present papers to Parliament as soon as my despatch has reached the Viceroy.

  INEBRIATES' REFORMATORIES.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether county councils can combine for the management as well as the establishment of certified inebriate reformatories, and whether joint committees of such councils can be formed for the purpose of management; and if he proposes to make any regulations for boards of management.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The power conferred on county councils by Section 9, Sub-section (1) of the Inebriates Act, 1898, to combine for the establishment or maintenance of a certified reformatory seems to me to include management, and I think this would be a matter of common interest in respect of which county councils might appoint joint committees under Section 81 of the Local Government Act, 1888. The regulations which I have made prescribing the duties of managers would apply to boards of management, though in special circumstances they might need to be modified. I shall be ready to consider carefully any proposal for joint action by county councils, which is a thing to be encouraged.

  LONDON OMNIBUSES—TICKET EXAMINERS.
  *MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that annoyance is caused to omnibus passengers in London through ticket examiners mounting omnibuses and demanding to see the travellers' tickets;
  38
  and whether these examiners are legally entitled to enforce their demand; and, if not, would he see his say to issue regulations to put a stop to this practice.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The police have only received since 1892 four complaints of the practice referred to, which whether or not it could be legally enforced does not appear to me to be an unreasonable one when exercised in a proper manner. In any case I have no power to interfere with it.

  SCOTTISH PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any applications have been made under Section 1 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899; what is their number and nature; whether the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses have had occasion to take action under Section 2 of the same Act; and whether any action has been taken under Sections 4 and 5 as to the formation of extra Parliamentary or Parliamentary Panels; and in that case will he furnish the House with the names of such Commissioners.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. Graham): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Act does not come into effect for the purposes mentioned by the hon. Member until the end of the present session of Parliament, and no action in the matters dealt with in the question can be taken until then.

  COWDENBEATH COMMISSIONERS' ELECTION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received from ratepayers resident in the borough of Cowdenbeath, Fifeshire, complaints of irregularities in connection with the recent election of the Cowdenbeath Burgh Commissioners, and will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: A complaint alleging the commission of irregularities at the burgh elections at Cowdenbeath in 1899 was received by the Secretary for Scotland. The complainers were informed that the Secretary for Scotland had no jurisdiction, and that

  39
  their remedy was by petition to the court. It would be impossible to do away with irregularities by special legislation, nor do those alleged seem to call for it. It is not proposed to take any further action in the matter.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS.
  MR. A. G. H. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the delays which have occurred in the transmission of telegrams from Russia, Scandinavia, and Northern Europe generally, viâ Newcastle, during the last fortnight, as a result of which telegrams by this route have reached London mainly after business hours, a delay which has been the cause of loss and dislocation of business by this route, and what is the cause of this delay, and when it is expected the service will return to its normal condition.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): These delays were caused by the breakdown of the telegraph lines by the recent snowstorm, which was of an extremely severe character, and the effects of which were most seriously felt in the north-east of England and in Scotland. During the interruption of the ordinary routes telegrams for the north of Europe were, as far as practicable, transmitted viâGermany, the delay varying from twenty minutes to about two hours. The normal condition of the service has now been restored.

  CHIEF TELEGRAPH OFFICE, LONDON— CASE OF D. W. JONES.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether Mr. D. W. Jones, a telegraph clerk with twenty years service, stationed at the Chief Office, London, has been threatened with superannuation, the reason assigned by the official medical officer being five single day absences last year; whether he is aware that Dr. Farrar, of Putney, certified that Jones was suffering from nervous disorder, and that a complete change of air was necessary; and will he explain why the official doctor disregarded the certificate and ignored the recommendation of Dr. Farrar, although making no examination of the patient; and whether
  40
  the Postmaster General will investigate the case with a view of securing more lenient treatment to men of long and good records.
  MR. HANBURY: There has been no question of superannuating Jones. When Jones forwarded Dr. Farrar's certificate of the 23rd January, recommending a week's leave, he was allowed sick leave for the whole period so recommended. He stated that he did not see his way clear to act on the advice given by Dr. Farrar that he should take a change of air, but asked permission to do so later on when convenient to himself. He was instructed to see the medical officer of the Department before going away. He resumed duty, however, on February 1st.

  TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION WITH DUNDEE.
  *Sir J. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that there has been no telephonic communication between Dundee, Montrose, and Aberdeen for the last fortnight; whether this is consequent on the telephone wire being used for telegraph messages; whether contractors for the use of the telephone will be compensated for their loss of service; and when the telephonic communication in this district will be renewed.
  MR. HANBURY: On three days, the 16th, 17th, and 18th February, a section, between Montrose and Aberdeen, of the trunk telephone line from Dundee to Aberdeen was used in making up telegraph circuits from Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Dundee. The telephone line was at the time broken down south of Montrose; and if the uninjured section had not been used in the manner described, Aberdeen would have been entirely cut off from telegraphic communication with the south. There are no contracts or agreements to which the Postmaster General is a party for the general use of the trunk wire system. The acceptance of each message is a separate transaction as in the case of an ordinary postal telegram, and no person is entitled to compensation on account of an interruption of the service. The restoration of the Dundee-Aberdeen trunk line was completed and the line brought into use on the 2nd instant.

  MEMBERS' TELEGRAMS.
  MR.MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that telegrams arriving at the House of Commons directed to Members after 7.30 p.m. on Wednesdays are returned to the West Strand Office; that such telegrams are thus delayed in delivery about fourteen hours; and whether he could arrange that such telegrams, at least during the present anxiety for news from the front, should be accepted and redirected to Members' private addresses without delay.
  MR. HANBURY: After 7.30 p.m. on Wednesdays, telegrams in respect of which no special instructions have been given by Members to the Postmaster of the House of Commons are not sent to the House of Commons at all, but are dealt with at the West Strand Office, where measures are taken to have them posted to the private addresses of Members. Unfortunately these measures have sometimes failed to get the telegrams included in the first morning delivery, but the Postmaster General has now given instructions which will secure their inclusion in this delivery in future.

  DAIRY PRODUCE—"PRESUMPTIVE STANDARDS OF QUALITY."
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any and what steps have been taken by the Board of Agriculture, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, upon the Board, to set up presumptive standards of quality in respect of milk, cream, butter, and cheese.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): No regulations under the section referred to have as yet been made, but I have appointed a Departmental Committee, of which Lord Wenlock is the Chairman, to consider whether any such regulations can with advantage be made in respect of milk and cream, and upon the report of the Committee the further action to be taken will to a great extent depend.

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  42
  Agriculture whether he is now prepared to frame regulations for the purpose of meeting the case of small farmers and others who may require, as a matter of urgency, to send a cow to a neighbouring farm and back for stock purposes.
  *MR. LONG: By an order which comes into operation to-day facilities for the movement of stock for breeding purposes will be afforded in certain portions of the scheduled district, which will, I think, meet the case to which the hon. Member refers.

  EDUCATION—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can see his way to renew the instruction to Her Majesty's inspectors requiring records to be kept in the logbooks of elementary schools of all cases of the infliction of corporal punishment, which instruction was, as stated by him, withdrawn in 1891 without reason assigned or representations made; and whether he is aware that infants of three and four years of age have been caned in elementary schools.
  MR. GRAY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether in the opinion of the Education Department many objectionable forms of punishment which were encouraged by the rule in question have not been abandoned since the rule was withdrawn?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The statement made by me was that no record of the reasons and representations now exists, not that no reasons were ever assigned and no representations ever made. But the suggestion of the hon. Member shall receive careful consideration when the instructions to inspectors are issued, as they will be shortly. Canes are, I regret to say, used in some infant schools. In regard to the supplemental question, I cannot say that the Committee of Council are of opinion that any such beneficial results have followed from the dropping of the regulation.

  CHURCH COPPENHALL BOARD SCHOOL, CREWE.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state if the parish almanack containing announcements that confessions were received every Sunday evening, asserting the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession of the clergy of the Church of England, advocating prayers for the dead, and deprecating the use of the word Protestant as applied to the Church of England, still continues to be affixed to the wall inside of the board school of Church Coppenhall, Crewe; and whether certain board schools have been threatened with withdrawal of the grant if they used the Church Catechism; and if so, whether it is consistent with the rules of the Education Department for such an almanack to be openly displayed in the Church Coppenhall Board School.
  Sir J. GORST: I have been informed by the rector of the parish that (1) the almanack was never put up on school board premises; (2) it was put up for Sunday use only in premises leased to the board on five days in the week; (3) the rector publicly stated some days ago that as chairman of the board he had ordered its removal during day school hours. I can add nothing to the statement I have already made that the Committee of Council does not appear to have any jurisdiction over the almanack.

  EDUCATIONAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is proposed that the National Union of Teachers should be represented on the Consultative Committee about to be formed under Section 4 of the Education Act of 1899; and, if so, whether there will also be provided adequate representation for the National Society and the Associations of Voluntary Schools.
  SIR J. GORST: It is not intended that either the National Union of Teachers or any other outside association shall be expressly represented upon the Consultative Committee.

  "STOP THE WAR" MEETING AT EXETER HALL, 2nd MARCH, 1900.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to certain incitements to riot and breach of the peace; and whether he will call the attention of the Public Prosecutor to the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): My attention has not been called to any incitement to riot or breach of the peace, but the hon. Baronet has been good enough to send me an extract from the Sun newspaper. In my opinion the paragraph does not fall within that description, and certainly there was nothing that would justify my directing any action on the part of the Public Prosecutor.

  IRISH TRAIN SERVICE—IRREGULARITIES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the inconvenience caused to the public at large, particularly the people of Sligo and neighbouring towns, by the irregularities as to the trains belonging to the Midland Great Western, the Sligo, Leitrim, and Northern, and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Companies, those trains being often from ten to sixty minutes late on arrival at Sligo terminus.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I can only direct the attention of these railway companies to the complaint of inconvenience contained in the hon. Member's question, and this has been done.

  IRISH RAILWAY AMALGAMATION BILLS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to a letter addressed by the Irish Board of Works to the Limerick Harbour Board, warning that body not to incur any expense in connection with the opposition to the Great Southern and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill now before Parliament without the consent of the Board of Works, whether he is aware that the promoters of the Amalgamation Bill have been circu-

  45
  lating a report that the Board of Works is in favour of their Bill; whether he is aware that the Limerick Corporation, Limerick Harbour Board, and all other representative bodies in Limerick City, are representing the wishes of the citizens in opposing the proposed amalgamation; whether he is aware that the Limerick Harbour Board is a solvent body fully able to meet its liabilities; and whether he will see that no further action is taken in this matter by the Board of Works which might interfere in any way with the right of the Limerick Harbour Board to influence Parliament in opposition to a Bill now awaiting its consideration.
  *MR. HANBURY: I have no knowledge of any reports circulated by the promoters of the Amalgamation Bill, but the action of the Board of Works with regard to it has been confined to protecting its own interests, firstly as mortgagee, and secondly as the protector of certain State aided railways. I do not know whether all representative bodies are joining in this opposition, or how far their action either way represents the wishes of the citizens. The solvency of the Harbour Board is not questioned. The Board of Works have a considerable interest in the expenditure of the Harbour Board, because all its surplus revenue is applied to reducing the principal of one of their loans, and accordingly I do not propose to interfere with their action.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that only last session the Chief Secretary for Ireland met a deputation of all the representative bodies, who stated their views to him? And with regard to the question of solvency, is it not the fact that this Harbour Board has not only paid up all the instalments of interest due but has reduced its capital debt by £36,000? And if that be so, what is the special reason which called for this warning this year and not last?
  *MR. HANBURY: One reason is that they spent so much money last year that they cannot afford it this year.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I rise—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not persist in arguing.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I shall refer to the question again.

  TELEPHONES IN COUNTY CORK.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether steps will be taken by the postal authorities to provide telephonic communication between Macroom, Coachford, Crookstown, and Cork; and, if so, how soon will it be in working order, and by what route will it be laid.
  MR. HANBURY: There are no local telephone exchanges at Macroom, Coachford, and Crookstown, and no application has been made for trunk wire extensions. The very small amount of business which could be expected would not justify the Postmaster General in providing telephone trunk wire communication with these places expect under guarantee. There are already public telegraph offices in all three places.

  THE MURDER OF Mr. BIRD AT BANTRY.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a meeting of the United Irish League, held in Bantry on Sunday the 18th February, when, in the course of his speech, Mr. William O'Brien stated that alien landlordism has left the marks of its bloodstained fingers on the necks of an oppressed and suffering people, and that he advocated the destruction of landlordism and the ending of the rent office, and asked what had been gained by patience and quietness; whether he is aware that, on the Saturday of the same week, Mr. William Bird, J.P., a landowner and rent agent, was murdered in his office at Bantry; and whether it is the intention of the Government to take any action with respect to meetings of the United Irish League.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether he is aware that many of the Unionist Members are pledged to the abolition of landlordism on the terms advocated by Mr. William O'Brien—namely, by compulsory purchase—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My attention has been called

  47
  to the meeting referred to. According to the report published in the Freeman's Journal newspaper, dated February 19th, Mr. William O'Brien appears to have used language substantially to the purport and effect mentioned. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. A man has been arrested charged with the commission of the crime, and the investigation into his case is now proceeding. Under these circumstances I must abstain from expressing any opinion as to the alleged connection between the occurrences mentioned in the first paragraph and the crime. The Government have prevented, and will continue to prevent, meetings being held under the auspices of the United Irish League when there was, or in the future may be, reasonable ground for believing that the meetings, if held, would lead to intimidation or a breach of the peace.

  IRISH LAND SALES—RAE ESTATE, COUNTY KERRY.
  Sir T. G. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give the reason for the delay in carrying out the sale to the tenants of the Rae Estate at Keel, County Kerry, and when the sale will be completed.
  MR. ATKINSON: The delay arose owing to the fact that the owners and incumbrancers had entered into negotiations for the discharge of the Receiver and the dismissal of the petition for sale of the estate. The solicitor having carriage of the proceedings has informed the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that an arrangement has been arrived at in the matter, and that an application for the purpose mentioned will shortly be made to the Court.

  DUBLIN STUDENTS AND THE CIVIC FLAG.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of students in Dublin attacked the Mansion House and tore down the civic flag on 1st March; and that this is the second time in a few months that attacks of this kind have been made; and what steps are to be taken to protect the Mansion House of Dublin from such attacks.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that on the 1st instant a number of students obtained access to the Mansion House grounds by climbing over the garden wall, and that they then lowered the civic flag and threw it into the adjoining street. The police, however, quickly arrived on the scene and restored the flag to the Mansion House. Several arrests were made, and three of the prisoners, who were at once brought before the divisional magistrate, were fined 40s. each. With regard to the second paragraph, there was a constable on special duty in front of the Mansion House on the occasion in question. He did his utmost to prevent the students from entering the garden, but was overpowered and roughly handled. The occurrence was entirely unexpected and only lasted for a few minutes. I would refer to the statement made by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary in answer to a question put to him on the 2nd February in reference to the similar reprehensible proceedings which took place at the Mansion House in December last.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask if evidence was not given to the effect that one policeman was knocked down by those loyal students?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware of that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentlemen's attention was drawn to the report of the local police of that case, when it was stated that one police constable was knocked down and kicked?
  MR. ATKINSON: The only information I have upon the matter is that one constable had his uniform torn, and not that he was knocked down.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to a number of students climbing over the Castle wall and tearing down the Union Jack?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in cases where Nationalist disturbances—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! [After a pause, during which Mr. O'Brien remained standing]: The hon. Member is now repeating the practice to which I

  49
  have before called his attention—namely, continuing to stand after I have called him to order.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I only want to point a moral.

  RIOTS IN BELFAST.
  Dr. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the behaviour of an Orange party in Belfast, who wrecked the houses and places of business of Roman Catholics; whether he is aware that another Orange party, on last Wednesday night, singing "Soldiers of the Queen," broke the windows of the Christian Brothers' Schools, and the glass door and fanlight in the Roman Catholic Club, severely beat and illtreated two young girls who were coming out of St. Patrick's Church, besides doing much damage in Donegal Street, Divis Street, and York Street; and whether, seeing that the police were powerless to prevent rioting on Wednesday night, steps will be taken to prevent similar demonstrations against Roman Catholics on occasions of national excitement.
  MR. ATKINSON: As far as I can gather from the information before me, it appears that on Wednesday last large crowds of people, accompanied by several bands, marched through the streets of Belfast full of excitement and enthusiasm on account of the relief of Ladysmith. When passing through Donegal Street and York Street a few individuals in the procession, I regret to say, broke the windows in several houses, which, with three exceptions, were the property of Roman Catholics, including the Christian Brothers Schools and the Catholic Club. One girl who was standing in the porch of St. Patrick's Church was struck with a stone, accidentally it would appear. She was taken to the Royal Hospital, where it was found she was slightly injured on the cheek. The police are not aware that a second person was struck, as alleged. Subsequently, and in another part of the city, a Nationalist mob turned out, and by way of retaliation, broke windows in sixteen houses which, with one exception, were the property of Protestants. Owing to the prompt intervention of the police there was no serious rioting or disturbance of the public peace.
  50
  The police in Belfast are instructed to do their utmost to preserve the peace and to prevent collisions between the rival parties, and this difficult duty they have hitherto succeeded in performing with zeal and efficiency.
  Dr. TANNER: This question has been somewhat changed since I put it on the Paper. May I ask whether steps will be taken in case of defeat to secure the Catholics of Belfast from having their windows broken and their premises attacked. We have heard of the retreat of General Buller over and over again, and—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can answer my question of last Friday as to the occurrences at Portadown?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  IRISH PRISONS—EXERCISE YARDS.
  Dr. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in how many prisons in Ireland are there open air exercise yards with shelters in case of rain, and how do the ordinary prisons compare with convict prisons in Ireland. Is he aware that, owing to the humidity of climate, prisoners are frequently given their two hours daily exercise in the rain, and often no exercise in consequence of no sheltered yard being provided; and whether any steps will be taken to remedy this state of things.
  MR. ATKINSON: It will take a couple of days to collect the information necessary to enable me to answer this question, and I would ask the hon. Member to repeat it on Thursday next.

  MUNICIPAL TRADING COMMITTEE.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, pending the appointment of the Municipal Trading Committee recently promised by him, the Government will oppose, or cause to be deferred, any Bills or clauses in Bills promoted by municipal authorities seeking powers to trade or manufacture.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that no

  51
  general principle, I think, such as he suggests could be adopted. Each case must be considered on its merits, and undoubtedly the fact that a Committee is sitting, or is proposed to sit, upon the subject is a factor that will be taken into account.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he expects to appoint the Committee on Municipal Trading, which on the 19th February he informed the House he proposed should be appointed without delay.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The reference will be put on the Paper in a day or two.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, if the Committee be sitting at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."—(Mr. Balfour.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 274; Noes, 30. (Division List No. 51.)

AYES.

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Allison, Robert Andrew

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Gilliat, John Saunders

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Arnold, Alfred

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Gold, Charles

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Gl'sg'w)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Baird, John George Alexander

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St George's)

Baker, Sir John

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Baldwin, Alfred

Crombie, John William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch')

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

Banbury, Frederick George

Currie, Sir Donald

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Curzon, Viscount

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

Dalkeith, Earl of

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Bartley, George C. T.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Denny, Colonel

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Bethell, Commander

Dewar, Arthur

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Biddulph, Michael

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Bill, Charles

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Billson, Alfred

Donkin, Richard Sim

Hardy, Laurence

Birrell, Augustine

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Doughty, George

Hazell, Walter

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Heaton, John Henniker

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

Drage, Geoffrey

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Duckworth, James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dunn, Sir William

Henderson, Alexander

Brown, Alexander H.

Ellis, John Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Emmott, Alfred

Hobhouse, Henry

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'n)

Holland, William Henry

Brymer, William Ernest

Evershed, Sydney

Horniman, Frederick John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Faber, George Denison

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fardell, Sir T. George

Houston, R. P.

Caldwell, James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Howard, Joseph

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Fellowes, Hon. Dillwyn Edw.

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Finch, George H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Causton, Richard Knight

Fison, Frederick William

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Flower, Ernest

Keswick, William

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. (Birm.

Forster, Henry William

Kimber, Henry

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Channing, Francis Allston

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Kitson, Sir James

Charrington, Spencer

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Knowles, Lees

Chelsea, Viscount

Galloway, William Johnson

Lafone, Alfred

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Garfit, William

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gedge, Sydney

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.(City of L.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E.H.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Leighton, Stanley

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Spencer, Ernest

Leng, Sir John

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs S. W

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Stevenson, Francis S.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Strachey, Edward

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Lorne, Marquess of

Purvis, Robert

Tennant, Harold John

Lowe, Francis William

Pym, C. Guy

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Thornton, Percy M.

Macdona, John Cumming

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Rentoul, James Alexander

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Maclure, Sir John William

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

M'Crae, George

Rickett J. Compton

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

M'Ewan, William

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

M'Iver, Sir L. Edinburgh, W.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Warr, Augustus Frederick

M'Killop, James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Maddison, Fred.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Malcolm, Ian

Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

Weir, James Galloway

Marks, Henry Hananel

Robson, William Snowdon

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W.F.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Runciman, Walter

Wentworth, Bruce C.Vernon-

Milward, Colonel Victor

Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Monckton, Edward Philip

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Williams, J. Powell (B'ghm.)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Morrison, Walter

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Wilson, John (Govan)

Morton, Arthur H A.(Deptford)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

Morton, Ed. J. C.(Devonport)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E. R(Bath

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Myers, William Henry

Simeon, Sir Barrington

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Oldroyd, Mark

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hogan, James Francis

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Blake, Edward

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Malley, William

Carew, James Laurence

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Crilly, Daniel

Lloyd-George, David

Redmond, William (Clare)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Q.'sC.)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Dalziel, James, Henry

McDermott, Patrick

Doogan, P. C.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Engledew, Charles John

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

WAYS AND MEANS.

  THE BUDGET STATEMENT.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS): When in October last* I obtained the authority of Parliament for the issue of eight millions of Treasury bills towards the expenses of the war, I reminded the Committee that, although at that time it seemed justifiable to entertain hopes that the campaign might be brought to a successful issue by the 31st of the present month, no one could fore-
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxvii., page 509.

  55
  see either the duration or the total cost of such a war as that in which we were engaged. I did not ask at that time for any additional taxation towards the expenditure on the war, for reasons which I think were approved of by the great majority of the country. I stated that, in my judgment, it would be perfectly possible, and it would be right, that the debt proposed to be incurred should be paid off by the end of the financial year after next; and I think that the yield of the revenue since that date has shown that that expectation was absolutely justified. More than that—in my belief, if to that eight millions it had been necessary to add the thirteen millions which has since been voted by Parliament, I feel confident that, without any material increase of taxation, the debt might have been paid off by the date which I named, having regard to that of which I reminded the Committee last October, the capacity of the Transvaal to bear a reasonable share of the expenses of this war.
  With regard to that point I entirely adhere to the opinion I then expressed; but I am bound to say that the events which have occurred during the past five months, the claims which must undoubtedly be made for compensation by our loyal colonists in Natal for losses sustained at the hands of the Boers, and the enormous increase in the war expenditure compared with that of which we were then speaking, make me feel that the capacity of the Transvaal to bear the cost of this war is a less important factor—though still an important factor—than I estimated it to be in October last. We must recognise that since that time the whole financial situation has changed. It is not merely that we have had to add £13,000,000 to the £10,000,000 then voted. It is that, in spite of the happy turn which events have recently taken, we feel that there is still so much work before us that it has been our duty to lay on the Table Estimates involving an expenditure of not less than £38,000,000 in the year that is to come on account of the war in South Africa and in defensive preparations at
  56
  home, which are necessarily a part of the war. Therefore, we have to face a total estimated expenditure of six times as much as that with which we were dealing in October last.
  Now, it would have been necessary for me in any case to make an application to Parliament in the course of the present financial year to authorise a loan—for it must have been a loan—of some £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 towards defraying the war expenses to be incurred before the 1st of April, and the heavy payments which fall upon the Exchequer for other matters early in April, up to the date when the Budget is ordinarily introduced. But Her Majesty's Government have had to consider whether a partial proposal of that kind would have been consistent with an adequate performance of their duty to the House and to the country. In the first place, such a course would have been open to some financial objection. The issue of a small loan of that kind, when, from the Estimates presented to Parliament, it was perfectly obvious that a very much larger expenditure was required, a part of which might have to be met by a loan of much greater magnitude, would have been an operation which would have disturbed the money market and have been antagonistic generally to the public interest. Then, those astute persons who are large dealers in dutiable goods, and who have a very intelligent anticipation of future events, have already been taking measures during the existing quarter—measures which I am afraid have been intensified in the last few days—which are distinctly detrimental to the revenue of the country.
  But we had to consider not merely the financial aspect of this question. We felt that, having laid these enormous Estimates upon the Table, Parliament had a right to expect from us without delay a full explanation of the financial situation which they involved and a statement of the measures which we, in our belief, thought necessary to meet the exigencies of the public service. We thought, also, that the people on whose judgment and opinion the future course of this war must depend had a right to know what we were doing and to be informed how the grave circumstances with which we had to deal necessitate, in some form or another, an increase of the burdens of the

  57
  country. But, perhaps, most important of all, we felt that it was right that by the promptitude with which we met our liabilities we should afford proof to our adversaries and to our foreign critics of our earnestness in the work in which we are engaged—proof, perhaps, even more valuable than success in the field. Therefore, my duty to-night is not merely to make a temporary proposal for tiding over the few weeks that will elapse between now and the ordinary time for the introduction of the Budget, but to lay before the Committee an exposition of the measures by which we propose to provide for the expenditure of the coming year, the Estimates of which have been laid before Parliament.
  An early Budget is unusual, but it is not unprecedented; and I am sure the Committee will generally feel that those are times in which an early Budget is absolutely justified. But it is a matter of great inconvenience to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. It is no easy thing, in these times of great and rapid increases in our expenditure and revenue, for anyone to estimate eleven months beforehand what will be the revenue and expenditure of the coming year. But that difficulty is enormously increased when these Estimates have to be based, not on the facts of the preceding year, but on Estimates themselves. A great part of our expenditure now, unhappily, is on warlike operations in South Africa. We have, to the best of our power, made Estimates of the cost of those operations during the present year, and the House has voted them; but no one can tell us whether the actual expenditure will be accurately represented by those Estimates. It may be more; it may be much less. Again, I have the facts before me of the revenue for nearly eleven months of the year; but I have nothing but estimates of the revenue of the month which still remains. Therefore I need not detain the Committee by arguing how much the ordinary difficulty of estimating the finance of the coming year is added to by an early Budget. For this reason, in the Paper which is now in the hands of hon. Members, I have directed that it should be distinctly stated that the figures are but provisional figures. I do not think it is possible, with regard to details, to draw any comparison between those figures
  58
  and the figures of past or future years. But I shall take care that, as soon as possible after March 31st, accurate figures, with regard both to revenue and expenditure for the year 1899–1900, shall be placed before Parliament, by which such a comparison may be made. To-night I shall not trouble the Committee with the ordinary details of the revenue of the year 1899–1900. I will deal more with general figures.
  Last April* I estimated the Exchequer revenue of the present year at £111,157,000, that is, at £2,821,000 over the Exchequer revenue of the previous year. In October last I was able to inform the Committee that, in my judgment, that estimate would be largely exceeded; and now I am glad to be able to state that, in my belief the revenue of the present year will amount to at least £116,040,000. I base all those calculations upon figures arrived at before Saturday last. There have been some remarkable circumstances in regard to clearances of dutiable articles on Saturday and to-day by which these figures may be largely disturbed, but the effect of which will, of course, be shown when the full and accurate figures of the year are presented to Parliament.
  I estimated, last April, the expenditure of the year at £110,927,000. Since then the House has voted Supplementary Estimates of £745,000; and I had to deduct £1,132,000 of savings. So that the total Exchequer expenditure, but for the war, would have amounted this year to £110,540,000, showing a net surplus of £5,500,000. But, of course, I have to add to that £23,000,000 of Supplementary Army Estimates for the war, and also £270,000 for interest on the Treasury bills of £8,000,000 authorised last autumn. That makes a total Exchequer expenditure for the year of £133,810,000, showing a deficit of £17,770,000, of which £8,000,000 have been temporarily provided for by the issue of Treasury bills. In other words, we have provided towards the war expenditure £5,500,000 from the abounding revenue of the year.
  This is the one agreeable feature in my otherwise disagreeable task to-night, and I hope the Committee will pardon
  *See Budget Statement, April 13, 1899. (The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. lxix., page 993.)

  59
  me for dwelling for a few moments at this oasis in the desert. It bears remarkable testimony to the extraordinary industrial activity and commercial prosperity of the year 1899. It is one of a period—I hope of a long period—of prosperous years; but it has been by far the most prosperous of all. And the improvement in our trade has not been gained by any unwise speculation or undue excitement. I believe that it is due to a steady and substantial progress in business. Nor has it been due to the war. The stringency of the money market during some of the winter months; the withdrawal of many thousands of men from their ordinary occupations for military service; the military demands for coal and iron and others of our great staples, and for transport, which must necessarily have increased the cost of our foreign commerce; even the diminution among the wealthier classes of the ordinary festivities of the year—all these things, directly due to the war, cannot have been for the good of trade during the course of the year, and may, perhaps, have even a greater influence upon the year that is to come. But in spite of that the increase of our foreign trade both in exports and imports has been greater than in any previous year. The increase in the value and the volume of our foreign exports has been quite exceptional, and that not merely in coal or iron or textile manufactures, but in all the main articles of our trade, and it has been diffused over the whole area of our foreign commerce. This increase in foreign trade has not been gained at the expense of our home consumer, as it sometimes is in those countries whose manufacturers are enabled to sell cheaply abroad by artificially enhanced prices deliberately secured to them in their home markets. No; all the statistics show that the prosperity of our trade at home has been at least as great as the prosperity of our foreign trade. Prices have risen in almost everything excepting, I am sorry to add, in the important articles of agricultural produce. But the additional amount that we have had to pay for our imports has been far more than compensated by the gain to the nation in higher prices it has received for its exports. The value of what are known as "gilt-edged securities" has, no doubt, largely fallen. But this has not been due to any
  60
  want of confidence in the country. The simple reason is just this—everybody has found it easy to obtain a far more profitable employment for their capital than by investing it in Government or municipal securities, or railway debentures. Wages have risen considerably; employment has been plentiful; labour disputes have been few and unimportant; and the result of the whole year has been this—that the purchasing power of the working classes has been largely augmented, reacting, of course, on trade, and acting largely on the receipt of the revenue.
  The receipts in the Customs and the Inland Revenue from the great articles of beer, of spirits, and of tea have increased largely. No doubt, part of that increase is due to the premature withdrawals from bond to which I have already referred; but quite apart from that they have increased largely. Tobacco and wine have not done quite so well. I am free to admit that tobacco has disappointed my expectations. It may be that this is due to the fact that many thousands of our principal smokers are now in South Africa; but with regard to wine, we have had a considerable increase in the receipts from the wine duties. Of course that was expected, owing to the increase of the wine duties last year, but the increase has not been quite so large as I anticipated. I think, really, that is due to the absence of the ordinary festivities in the winter. But there is nothing in the receipts from tobacco or wine, or from the other heads of Customs and Inland Revenue, which in any way detracts from the evidence which all the returns afford of the general prosperity and comfort of the people.
  But a more remarkable increase than that under the head of Customs and Excise is to be found in the receipts from the death duties. The receipts from the death duties by the Exchequer during the present year will, I anticipate, amount to £13,300,000, as against £11,400,000 last year. To that you must add the receipts from death duties by the Local Taxation Fund—£4,171,000—making a total receipt from the death duties of £17,471,000. I think that the wildest dreams of the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire hardly anticipated that this taxation would produce this amount. But now I wish for a

  61
  moment, if I may, to detain the Committee in examining to what this large increase in this year is greatly due. A substantial part of it, I am glad to say, is due to receipts from estates under £250,000 in value. But I have to place before the Committee a case which, I think, affords a singular proof of the manner in which any estimates of the receipts from death duties in any year may be utterly upset by the mere accident of a single death of the owner of enormous property on whose property very high rates of duty would be charged. You can average the estates under £1,000,000 in value; you can take the receipts from over a period of years, and fairly estimate in that way what the probable receipts may be in the year to come; but when you come to estates over £1,000,000 it is absolutely impossible. In 1896–97 there were five estates of millionaires, which paid to the revenue £436,000; in 1897–98 there were nine such estates, which paid £1,212,000; in 1898–99 there were again nine such estates, paying £941,000—an average for the three years of £863,000. I suppose that if I had taken from that average an estimate of £950,000 from the year in which we stand I should not have been blamed for having taken an unfair estimate. But what has been the actual result? We have received during this year from the estates of millionaires close on two millions in Estate Duty, and the vast sum of £900,000 in Death Duties has come from the estate of one man, a foreigner, who, I am told, lived on 15s. a day in a West End London club. That one person, however unwillingly, has contributed to the Exchequer more than the cost of an iron clad. I am filled with patriotic sentiment at such a contribution to the death duties, but I hope my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will not make this a reason for asking for more, because the Committee will see that it is not within the reasonable bounds of expectation that such a windfall as this should occur in subsequent years.
  The stamp duties will probably produce £350,000 this year over the Budget estimate. The increase of stamp duties last year in certain points mainly related to dealings on the Stock Exchange. It has not been a very busy year on the Stock Exchange, but I am informed that
  62
  the increased duties will produce the amount which I estimated.
  It is too early to say with any certainty what the receipts from the income tax will be, because, as hon. Members know, the great bulk of the income tax is collected in this quarter, and we have still a month of the quarter before us. But so far the income tax is doing well. We expect to have an increase of revenue from the Post Office, and other sources of non-tax revenue, of £573,000 over the Budget Estimate. I do not think there is any head of revenue which has not contributed something to the surplus which I have described to the House.
  I stated that the total expenditure from the Exchequer in the year was estimated at £133,810,000. I have to add to that £9,599,000 to be paid to the local taxation account—an increase of £78,000 over last year—and the expenditure on capital account of £4,847,000, of which £1,861,000 is derived from the surpluses of previous years, on barracks, telephones, the Uganda Railway, naval and military works, and the acquisition of the territory of the Royal Niger Company. The total expenditure for which the State is responsible this year is estimated at £148,257,000, compared with £121,224,000 last year.
  The Exchequer balances on April 1, 1899, were £8,919,000. Of this £1,861,000 belongs to previous surpluses, and had been allotted by Parliament to naval and military works. That has been issued during the year, and the Exchequer balances on March 31 next will, I anticipate, be about £7,130,000 unless it be necessary to draw upon them to any extent for war expenditure, which I think should not be done beyond an amount, say, of £2,000,000.
  The total debt of the country on April 1 last year was £635,041,000. Of this £7,479,000 was reproductive debt outside the fixed debt charge, borrowed almost entirely on terminable annuities for thirty years, the principal and interest of which are annually repaid by Votes submitted to this House. That debt now amounts to £10,185,000. The total dead-weight debt on April 1st, 1890, amounted to £627,562,000. Of this £583,186,000 was Funded Debt, £36,243,000 the capital value of terminable annuities, and £8,133,000 floating debt in Treasury bills. Since that time we have cancelled £30,715,000 of

  63
  Funded Debt, of which 28 millions were cancelled by exchange for terminable annuities, the remaining £2,715,000 being reduced by the operation of the Life Annuities and new Sinking Fund. On the other hand, we have increased the capital value of the terminable annuities by £24,242,000, the operation being the result of the provisions of the Finance Act of last year, and we have, as the Committee are aware, borrowed £8,000,000 by Treasury bills since last October. The net result is that the total dead-weight debt has increased by £1,527,000. But for the war expenditure having to be provided for by the issue of these £8,000,000 of Treasury bills, the Debt during the year would have been decreased by about £6,500,000. That, I think, is not a very unfavourable record, but, unfortunately, I have to add to it that out of the anticipated deficit of the present year there remains a balance of £9,770,000 still unprovided for, and when we come to the year before us, I am afraid the prospect is even worse.
  Now, the Consolidated Fund services of 1900–1 are put at £26,000,000, an addition of £250,000, being the amount on account of interest on the £8,000,000 of Treasury bills already authorised. The Supply services amount to £128,082,000. As compared with last year's Estimates, the Navy has gone up by £928,000, the Civil Service Estimates by £659,000, Post Office and Telegraphs by £415,000, and, of course, the Army by the gigantic sum of £40,883,000. Of this, £37,797,000 is expenditure either directly on the war in South Africa, or connected with and due to the war—such, for example, as the embodiment of the militia in this country, the enrolment of veterans for temporary service, greater facilities and encouragement for the training of Volunteers and Yeomanry, and the provision of mobile guns for the Volunteers. The total estimated expenditure for the year is £154,082,000, an increase of £43,155,000 over the Estimate of last year.
  Now I turn to the estimated revenue to meet that expenditure. I take the existing basis of taxation. I estimate the Customs, after allowing something, though, I fear, hardly enough, for premature clearances, at £21,900,000, Excise £31,800,000, death duties £13,000,000, stamps £8,400,000, land tax £800,000,
  64
  house duty £1,650,000, income tax £18,800,000—a total tax revenue of £96,350,000. I estimate receipts from the Post Office at £13,800,000, telegraphs £3,550,000, Crown lands £450,000, Suez Canal shares and sundry loans £850,000, miscellaneous £1,900,000—the total non-tax revenue thus being £20,550,000. This makes a total revenue of £116,900,000, as against the expenditure which I have stated, leaving a deficit for the year of £37,182,000. But, in passing, I should like just to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact, that, out of the Army Estimates, to which, of course, that great deficit is due, £37,797,000 are distinctly War Estimates, and you have to add to that £250,000 for interest on the war debt, making altogether £38,047,000 for war services. That is £865,000 more than the deficit. Therefore, I think the Committee will see that the ordinary revenue of the country would well cover in the coming year the ordinary expenditure, including in that ordinary expenditure nearly £3,000,000 for various increases to the Army, such as the formation of twelve new battalions and forty-three new batteries of artillery.
  But, of course, it is clear from these figures that the question before the Committee and the Government really is not how the ordinary expenditure but how the war expenditure is to be provided for. Well, now, what is the amount we should consider in dealing with the war expenditure? We have made the best calculation in our power of what in our judgment it would be right for us to ask from Parliament with a view to the successful prosecution of the war. But it is impossible for us to be certain that the war will be concluded by September 30th next. All I can say is that we do not believe that it is probable that the war expenditure will in any case be less than the Estimate which we have laid on the Table of the House. It may be more, but, as against that, you have to consider the happy change in the military situation which has recently occurred, and the fact that the season is fast approaching which, I believe, all our authorities agree in considering is peculiarly unfavourable for the military operations of the Boers. We may be obliged in July or August next, unhappily, to ask Parliament for further provision,

  65
  but I think we are fairly justified in the hope and expectation that the Estimate which we have placed on the Table will be sufficient to conduct this war to a successful termination.
  But I am obliged to add something to that statement. I do not know whether hon. Members have carefully studied the memorandum which was circulated by Lord Lansdowne.* If so, they will see that the Estimates do not include all the expenditure for military purposes which he thinks is probable in the year. An important war like this must necessarily be very costly to our reserves in all departments—to guns, to ammunition, to stores; and we are carefully investigating at the present time what provision should be asked from Parliament to place our reserves, both military and naval, in the state in which the country would desire them to be, and I am quite sure that Parliament will not grudge any necessary expenditure for that service. I feel myself justified in saying that, having regard to the probability of the expenditure before us in the coming year, and also to the provision that must be made for the interest upon any loan that Parliament may sanction towards the war expenditure, I think about 5 millions ought to be added to the 38 millions and the 17¾ millions to which I have already alluded, making in all a total amount of 60 millions, the provision of which we ought to consider with regard to the war.
  That is a very large sum, and the question is how can it be provided? I do not think anybody will suggest that it ought to be provided out of the revenue of the year. There are objections, of course, to a Government loan. A Government loan withdraws capital from the money market which might be better employed in reproductive works. But we are talking of £60,000,000. If it were a question of £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 we might fairly claim, as has been said in past years, that it was a matter to be provided out of the revenue of the year. But to impose taxes so high or so numerous as to provide an additional revenue of £60,000,000 would be to cripple industry and fetter the movement of capital and disturb it in its accustomed employment—a far worse evil to the country than
  *See Appendix to this Volume.
  66
  the issue of a Government loan. Therefore, I need not argue against the idea that such a sum as £60,000,000 should be provided from the revenue of the year.
  But I have seen this morning a suggestion that half of it should be so provided, that we should make this an occasion for an entirely new and extraordinary fiscal departure—that we should raise £30,000,000 in addition to our present taxation this year, partly from the income tax, but also from new indirect taxation—a sugar duty, a duty on corn, a duty on meat, a duty on all agricultural produce, and last but, perhaps, most extraordinary of all, in view of what we have done for many years past in cheapening postal communication, by adding £4,000,000 a year to the postal charges for the benefit of the revenue. Well, this is suggested not merely to pay for the war expenditure of the year, but because it is considered that when the war is happily over, in a time of peace, the standing Army of this country is to be increased by 150 per cent., and £20,000,000 a year is to be added to our Army Estimates. I have the greatest respect for the ability of the writer who has propounded these new fiscal doctrines I have no doubt he would be a much better Chancellor of the Exchequer than I am, but all the same I venture to characterise such proposals as these as in my judgment unwise and impracticable to the last degree.
  There is a more seductive and a more dangerous idea afloat of quite another kind. It is said, "Oh, this is war expenditure; you will get it all out of the Transvaal some day. Never mind the future; borrow it all now. Raise taxation if you like to pay the interest on your loans—possibly even a small sinking fund." The Sinking Fund which was established at the time of the Crimean War was abolished the first year after the Crimean War was over. There is nothing more comfortable or more agreeable or more easy for a Chancellor of the Exchequer than to adopt this policy of borrowing; but it is the duty of a Minister, and especially the duty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mind what is disagreeable or what is unpopular if he believes it to be right. And in my belief, and in the belief of all my colleagues, if we adopted such a course as

  67
  this we should be unworthy of this country and of those who have gone before us. We should be taking the first step on a path of systematic deception of the people, which, if followed, could but end in financial ruin. Let us look back to the history of the past.
  There have been two great occasions in the last 100 years in which serious additions have been made—though in very varying degrees—to the National Debt for war expenditure. The first was the great French war, and the second was the Crimean war. I believe that the increase of the Debt during the great French war was no less than £622,000,000. Now, what was the history of that war? In the earlier years of that war, from 1792 to 1798, Mr. Pitt pursued the fatal policy of borrowing each year what he required for war expenditure, and practically providing nothing by taxation except the interest on his loans. What was the result? He borrowed, and he increased the National Debt by £200,000,000. For that increase he got only £108,500,000 in cash. He began to borrow at a rate of interest a little over 4 per cent. By 1797 that rate of interest had increased to 6¼ per cent. and more; and I have no doubt it is true, as I think it was once said, that out of our National Debt there is no less than £250,000,000 for which the State has never received a single halfpenny—a mere sacrifice to capital, to induce it to lend, without reducing in any material degree the interest on the loans. Happily for us, happily for the country, in 1798 Mr. Pitt turned over a new leaf. He raised £10,000,000 by the income tax, and continuously from that time to the close of the great war the expenses of the war were met partly by loans no doubt, but also largely by taxation. Three hundred and ninety-one million pounds were raised during that time by our forefathers in taxation towards the expenditure on that war, and that at a time when the country was poor, when the population was small, when they were willing cheerfully to bear 2s. in the £of income tax for thirteen years of the war, besides indirect taxation of the heaviest kind upon every conceivable article, including the necessaries of life, because they were brave enough to save the country from financial ruin.
  68
  Then there were forty years of peace, and the country was again called upon for a special effort at the time of the Crimean War. Mr. Gladstone, at the commencement of that war, endeavoured to raise the whole war charges by increasing taxation. That was soon found to be impossible. In 1855 Sir George Cornewall Lewis budgetted for a war deficit of £23,000,000—much less than what I have to find. He proposed to raise of that £7,000,000 by taxation, and £16,000,000 by loans; and if hon. Members care to study the finance of the Crimean War they will find that out of £67,500,000 which that war cost the country, no less than £35,500,000 was met by additional taxation.
  And now, at the end of another fifty years—during which we have seen abatements of taxation in which our forefathers never would have believed, during which we have seen the country as a whole rise to a degree of wealth and prosperity and comfort which they never could have guessed—we are again face to face with a costly war. Sir, I do not compare the present war with the great French War; that was a struggle for life or death prolonged for years. I do not compare it even with the Crimean War. We have to fight a brave, a skilful, and a warlike foe, but the resources of the two Boer Republics are but as nothing compared with the resources of the great empire of Russia. But in proportion, in my humble belief, this war will prove more costly than the Crimean War; and I will tell you why. Because we have had to send to the other side of the world by far the greatest force that has ever left this country; and having sent it, in view of possibilities to which I need not do more than allude, we have felt it incumbent upon us to provide, at great expense, for the defence of the country during the absence of that force. Therefore, I think I may say that although we are perfectly justified by the constant practice and the uniform example of our forefathers in deriving a large part of the funds necessary for the prosecution of the war by the issue of a loan, yet we are also bound to call upon the taxpayers of this country for some immediate and substantial sacrifice, instead of mortgaging the industry of posterity for the whole cost of a

  69
  war, some part of which we, surely, in these days of prosperity are well able to bear.
  I think there are some things which, in considering this matter of taxation, we ought to bear in mind. In the first place, I have alluded to the probable duration of the war. I think we may reasonably anticipate that, however prolonged the resistance of the Boers may be, this war in its more acute and costly phase will not be along war. I think that is a reasonable anticipation. Therefore, our necessity being as it is—a temporary necessity for meeting war expenditure—I do not think it is wise, from a financial point of view, to meet a temporary necessity by permanent fiscal changes.
  Again, I think we should endeavour as far as possible to meet that temporary necessity by additions to existing taxation instead of by the imposition of new taxation, and certainly that we should endeavour to derive what we need of taxation rather from largely productive taxes than from imposing innumerable small charges here and there, such as many of my correspondents suggest to me, over all kinds of interests and classes in the country, which would raise really a very small total all put together, but which would create extraordinary vexation and worry in the operations and calculations of very many people.
  Well, but, Sir, there is another thing. During the last four years the proportions in which our revenue has been derived from direct and indirect taxation have not materially varied. The portion of it derived from direct taxation is rather less—a slightly increasing proportion—than that derived from indirect taxation, but there has been no material variation. I think those proportions are fair. I do not agree with those persons who would desire to upset them largely from either side, and I think that as the result of any fresh taxation we now propose, we should endeavour, as far as may be, that those proportions should not be materially varied. Now, having said this, I will proceed to what I feel the Committee is anxious to hear—namely, what are the precise taxes I am going to suggest.
  In the first place, I turn to the income tax. The income tax has always been considered a tax that might properly be augmented on the occasion of a war, and
  70
  that for the obvious reason that it can be dealt with either by way of raising it when required for a war, or by way of lowering it when the war is over without any practical disturbance, either of trade or commerce. The income tax was the main source from which the Ministers who were responsible for taxation at the time of the Crimean War drew the increased revenue they required; and since that time there has been occasion more than once on which, for our smaller wars or preparations for war, practically the whole of the increased taxation imposed has been drawn through the income tax. But I am bound to say that circumstances since that time have changed. The income tax was the main source in the time of the Crimean War of direct taxation. The great increase of the death duties in our time has made a considerable difference, to my mind, in that respect, and it must fairly be considered in dealing with this subject. On the other hand, since the Crimean War, the incidence of the income tax on certain classes who felt it heavily has been materially lightened. For example, in 1894 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire gave what I admitted then and always have admitted since to be a great boon to the owners of property, whether in houses or land assessed under Schedule A, by allowing them a considerable deduction from their assessments in calculating their income tax, which has made a material difference in the poundage of income tax on that class of income-tax payers. Then, again, at the time of the Crimean war all persons with incomes above £100 a year paid income tax. Since then it has been provided that nobody with an income not exceeding £160 shall pay income tax at all, while the lower classes, so to speak, of income tax payers have been materially relieved by the abatements in the income tax on incomes between £160 and £700 a year, which, again, deduct from their income tax some very material poundage, especially in the lower grades. And, therefore, while we have to consider, on the one hand, that the pressure of direct taxation as a whole is greater than it was in former years, so we have to consider, on the other hand, that the incidence of the income tax itself is lighter on those classes who are most heavily burdened. Well, at the time of the French war, as I have reminded the

  71
  Committee, there was an income tax of 2s. in the £ for thirteen years. I do not propose to impose that now. At the beginning of the Crimean war—before the war began—the income tax was 7d. in the £. It was at once raised to 1s. 2d. in the £, and in the second year of the war it was raised to 1s. 4d. in the £. I do not propose to impose either of those rates now, but I do ask the income-tax payers to make some sacrifice; and, having regard to the past, I do not think they can fairly complain of paying a very substantial contribution towards the cost of this war—namely, an increase of the tax by 4d. in the £ to 1s. in the £ for the coming year. That will produce in the year before us £6,500,000. In the year following there will be arrears to come in of £1,900,000.
  Next, Sir, I have a small addition, or rather what I may call a rectification of the law, with regard to direct taxation in the matter of stamp duties which I propose to make. At present, as the Committee are aware, there is a stamp duty of 1s. on what are called contract notes which are delivered by brokers to their clients in transactions on the Stock Exchange. Well, Sir, precisely similar transactions, in precisely the same form, are carried out by brokers in many produce exchanges throughout the country, and in other ways. I propose that the 1s. duty shall also be imposed upon those contracts, and I am told that these transactions are so numerous that the result is likely to be an increase to the revenue by £150,000 a year.
  I now turn to what will be more interesting to the Committee—indirect taxation. I said last October that I thought it would be grossly unfair to impose additional taxation upon the income-tax payers alone for the purposes of this war. I still entertain that opinion, and I think we are bound to make considerable increases also in indirect taxation. My principle is this—that so far as may be all should pay something towards the cost of this war, but the richest should pay the most.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Tax diamonds.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Now, last year we raised the wine duties with, I
  72
  think, satisfactory results. I naturally turn this year to beer. There has been a great increase during the past few years in the production and consumption of beer. In 1895–96 the duty on beet yielded £10,719,000. This year it is expected to yield more than £11,900,000. I propose to impose an additional 1s. a gallon on beer. I beg pardon for exciting the apprehensions of my hon. friends; of course, I mean 1s. a barrel of thirty-six gallons. I estimate that that will produce £1,752,000 in the course of the twelve months.
  Having increased the duty on beer, I next come to spirits. Now spirits have been somewhat favoured of late years as compared with beer. In 1894, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire imposed an additional 6d. a gallon on spirits and 6d. a barrel on beer. In the following year he took off the 6d. a gallon on spirits, but he retained the 6d. a barrel on beer, and that has remained on beer since. Therefore, so far I think I am right in saying that of late years spirits have been rather favoured. What is the position of spirits? The position of spirits at the time the right hon. Gentleman proposed his duty was a very bad one. The trade was bad, and by his having unfortunately selected too early a date for the cessation of the duty the dealers in spirits, with their natural cunning, were able to delay their clearances, and thus to deprive him of, I think, a very large part of the yield which he expected from the duty. Now, Sir, circumstances, I hope, are different. The production and consumption of spirits has enormously increased of late years. I find that the excise duty on spirits produced in 1895 was £15,603,000, while this year it is expected to produce £18,500,000. I think that, having regard to that fact, we may very properly impose another 6d. a gallon on spirits. I wish to say that, with regard to this as well as the rest of the indirect taxation which I am about to propose, I look upon it as a temporary addition to the existing taxation—I hope merely for the coming year; but I propose in all cases to enact now that the additional taxation shall last until the 1st of August, 1901—not, I hope, that it will be necessary to levy it so long, but that it may be dealt with at the ordinary time in the Budget of the year, and that the date of

  73
  its expiry may be fixed far enough beyond the Budget to prevent dealers in these dutiable articles from doing what they did in 1894, and keeping back their clearances until the Budget was introduced. I hope that will be clearly understood with regard to the date for which I propose this taxation. My estimates of the yield of it are solely for the twelve months. I estimate that 6d. a gallon additional on spirits will produce £1,015,000.
  Now, Sir, we have dealt with the income-tax payer and the consumers of alcohol. I think it will be felt generally that tobacco ought to bear some further burden. I confess it is with great regret that I find myself driven again, after so short an interval, to alter the duty on tobacco. I know the inconvenience to the trade, and I regret it, but I think it would not be fair that tobacco should be exempted from taxation. Now, Sir, what we did in 1898 was this: we reduced the tobacco duty by 6d. in the pound. We also reduced the legal limit of moisture from 35 to 30 per cent. I anticipated a very considerable increase in the consumption from that reduction. My anticipations, I have to admit, have not been realised. It may possibly be that a comparatively small reduction in the price of tobacco does not materially increase the consumption. It may be that the trade statistics, which certainly convinced me that the reduction had reached the consumer, were less accurate than I had supposed. I wish to be perfectly frank, and I have endeavoured to be so. But we have to consider whether we should merely put back the duty and the moisture to the same amount as two years ago, or whether we should do something else. Now, Sir, I confess I am reluctant to again increase the legal limit of moisture. The result of the reduction of the legal limit was this, that the smoker of the cheapest tobacco, which is most watered, got threepence worth more of tobacco in every pound. He bought more tobacco for his money than he did before in place of a similar weight of water. Well, if I restore the old limit of moisture the result would be that the smoker of the cheapest quality of tobacco would lose that tobacco and get water instead, and as water does not pay the tax the revenue would lose also. No doubt the dealer would gain, but I do not see why the dealer should gain at the cost
  74
  of the consumer and the revenue. What I think would be fair, after having gone somewhat fully into this matter, would be to retain the present limit of moisture and to increase the duty by 4d. in the pound. I would also propose to increase the duty on foreign cigars by 6d. in the pound. I anticipate that will yield altogether an addition of £1,100,000 to the revenue.
  We have now got the smokers on our list. But there is a very large population who do not pay income tax, who do not consume alcohol, and who do not smoke, and I think they ought to pay something towards the expense of this war. I look for an article which in our days is comparatively cheap, which is not the subject of any manufacture in this country, or ought not to be, and which is very largely consumed—I look to tea. At the time of the Crimean War the duty on tea was 1s. 6d. in the pound. It was promptly raised by threepence in the pound with practically, I think, no objection from anybody whatever. The duty on tea in 1889 was 6d. in the pound. My right hon. friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty reduced it by 2d. At that time the average wholesale price of the pound of tea was 10·79d., making altogether, with the 6d. duty, 16·79d. per pound. Now I am informed that the average wholesale price of tea is 8·87d. per pound. If I were to add 2d. to the duty, that would make altogether, with the duty, 14·87d. per pound—2d. per pound less than the price in 1889. I propose to add 2d. per pound to the duty on tea, and that will produce £1,800,000 in the course of twelve months, and I do not think that the population at large will have any very fair ground of complaint at the amount they will be called on to bear towards the cost of what the vast majority of them believe to be a necessary war. The total result of the additional taxation I propose will be an increase in the revenue of £12,317,000, besides the £1,900,000 arrears of in come tax which will fall into the future year.
  Then I propose to reduce the expenditure. In the year 1885 the country was called upon to find, I think, £11,000,000 towards preparations for war. On that occasion, with the unanimous consent of Parliament, it was agreed to stop the re-

  75
  payment of capital wrapped up in the terminable annuities belonging to the various Government Departments, and included, of course, in the fixed debt charge for the year. I propose to do the same thing now. That will reduce the expenditure of the year by £4,640,000. I think it would be perfectly absurd that, while we have with one hand largely increased our debt we should be paying off old debt with the other.
  Now, Sir, I come to the final balance-sheet. I stated that the public expenditure of the coming year would be £154,082,000. I deduct from that £4,640,000 owing to the procedure I have just stated, leaving the total expenditure £149,442,000. Against that I anticipate a revenue from Customs, £25,017,000; Excise, £34,350,000; death duties, £13,000,000; stamps, £8,550,000; land tax, £800,000; house duty, £1,650,000; income tax, £25,300,000; making a total tax revenue of £108,667,000, and a non-tax revenue of £20,550,000, or a total revenue of £129,217,000, as against an expenditure of £149,442,000, thus leaving a deficit for the year of £20,225,000.
  Add to that the expected deficit on this year of £17,770,000, and £5,000,000 which I have stated must be added for the contingencies I have named, and you will find a total of, say, £43,000,000, which I must ask permission to borrow. Part of that will be provided to the extent of £8,000,000 by renewing the Treasury Bills which were issued under the authority of the House given in October last. Therefore there is £35,000,000 of new debt to be incurred.
  Now I do not think I need argue that such a sum as this is too large to be added to our floating debt. It would be practically impossible, I think, to deal with it in that way. On the other hand, I confess that in my opinion it would be a mistake to raise it by a new issue of Consols. Of course there are arguments in favour of such a course. Consols are a very large stock. They are very well known, and therefore command a better price in the market, comparatively, than other Government securities. Therefore an issue of Consols might possibly be done at a cheaper rate at the moment than another form of issue. But an issue of Consols would be an issue of permanent debt which this country would be unable to
  76
  pay off until 1923. Well now, what have we seen lately? A few years ago I was redeeming Consols at the price of 14 per cent. premium. A few years hence, when peace is concluded, the length of the term for which Consols cannot be paid off at par, will, I anticipate, have a great effect in producing a rise in their present value. If I borrow Consols now I should have to borrow, at a rate governed by the present market price of, I think, less than 101, the same debt which a few years ago I paid off at a 14 per cent. premium, and which we may hope in a few years may again be paid off and would have to be paid off at a premium though possibly not so high.
  For these reasons I do not think it would be advisable that we should look to an issue of Consols. I think it would be better that part of this £35,000,000 should be reserved—I think probably a sum not exceeding £5,000,000—for a further issue of Treasury bills if required. The rest I should propose to raise by bonds or stock issued for a term of years not exceeding ten. I have reason to believe that it would be possible to place such an issue on very reasonable terms, and I should hope to be able to do it in a way which would not ensure profit merely to a few great and wealthy persons but would bring the whole public into what I may call a war loan and enable them to come forward to the assistance of the country. I would ask the Committee to pass a resolution enabling me to borrow in the manner I have described to the extent of £35,000,000 without fettering me as to the precise terms and conditions of the issue. At the time of the Crimean war, and before it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day used to come down to Parliament on such an occasion and tell them he had contracted with certain parties for an issue of Consols, or whatever the stock might be, at a certain price, and all that Parliament had to do was to confirm the contract when made. I have not deemed such a course desirable now. I ask Parliament to give me authority to borrow, but in my belief it would be contrary to the public interest to specify beforehand the precise terms and conditions of the loan. I will do my best for the State, and then I will come to Parliament and insert in the Bill whatever

  77
  terms and conditions may have been decided upon.
  I do not propose at present to make any special provision for paying on this loan. It ought, in my judgment, to be done at the close of the war, but it would be premature to do so before we know our total liabilities, and how much can be properly exacted from the Transvaal. But I may point out that between now and 1910 we have ample means in prospect to meet whatever may fall upon ourselves. Between 1902 and 1904 the fixed debt charge will be relieved of the converted annuities to the amount of £684,000 a year, and of the great Chancery annuities to the amount of £2,943,000 a year, and, further, in 1903, of ¼ per cent. on Consols to the extent of £1,300,000 a year. I think the Committee will see, without my saying anything further on this point, that ample means are before us to be utilised to any extent that may be right and necessary in the matter of the repayment of the loan now to be borrowed.
  I have now finished my task, and I have to thank the Committee for the patience with which they have heard me. We have thought it right on this occasion to endeavour, though it is a time of war, to adhere to the old practice of one financial statement in the year. It is better, and it is fairer to Parliament. We have asked for no more than we believe will be required. We may have to ask for more, but even if in July or August next we should have to ask for more it will be better to have made this large request at once than to annoy the House of Commons with repeated requests, whether for additional taxation or whether for additional loans, none of them adequate to the real emergency of the situation. My proposals may or may not commend themselves to the Committee, but I hope the Committee will feel that, at any rate, I have placed before them, to the best of my power, a plain and honest statement—endeavouring to conceal nothing and to extenuate nothing, however disagreeable the facts or the proposals may be.
  But I hope the Committee will agree to my proposals, for I think they are justified by the circumstances of the time, and they are based upon the
  78
  best financial traditions of the country. This is not a time, disagreeable as increased taxation may be, at which we should shrink from showing our confidence in the resources a four country, or in the self-denial of our people. Foreign nations are watching us, sometimes, I fear, with no friendly eye, to see whether years of comfort, of peace, of increasing wealth, have softened the fibre or diminished the courage and the tenacity of purpose of our race. Our soldiers in the field, from whatever part of the Empire they have come, have shown that they are equal to their forefathers. Our great colonies, though perhaps at first sight not so directly interested in this war as ourselves, have eagerly taxed themselves in men and money for the cause of the Empire. Shall we, who sit at home at ease, show ourselves at such a moment financial cowards? Shall we confess to the world that the cost of a few months of war frightens us out of a financial policy which we know to be sound? No, Sir, I do not believe it. We have placed before this House, during days and weeks, our views as to the policy and conduct of this war. We have defended ourselves, I hope not unsuccessfully, against the imputations and charges that have been made. Opinions on these subjects may differ, but there is one thing on which the great majority of this nation has made up its mind, and that is that, at whatever cost, this war shall be prosecuted to a successful termination. To-day we ask you to provide means to fulfil that mandate of the people. We leave the request in your hands with confidence, feeling sure that the House of Commons will grudge no effort and shrink from no sacrifice which the honour of our country and our duty to the Empire demand. I beg now to move the first Resolution, namely, that with regard to the duty on tea.

  TEA.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in lieu of the duty of customs now payable on tea, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on and after the 6th day of March, 1900, and until the 1st day of August, 1901, the following duty (that is to say):—Tea, the pound, 6d."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the established Parliamentary practice, sanctioned by the highest financial authority whose weight is acknowledged in all parts of the House, that on this occasion the Committee should not engage in any full and exhaustive criticism or examination of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is absolutely necessary that the Committee should pass certain resolutions for the purpose of saving the revenue and preventing the forestalment and evasion of the law. In the passing of those resolutions we shall, of course, be disposed to give every facility to Her Majesty's Government, but this is done on the distinct understanding that, by so doing, the House of Commons is not in the least degree committed to any part of the policy espoused by the right hon. Gentleman, and that we shall have a better opportunity on future occasions, when the Bill is before us, for expressing our opinions. I remember that, in October, when the right hon. Gentleman stated the manner in which he was going to deal with the expenditure which had been incurred for the war, I said of him that he had made a speech embodying a great deal of sound doctrine. I think the same thing may be said to-night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in many parts of his speech, given expression, with a fervour and sincerity which showed how deeply he was convinced of their truth, to doctrines which, I am sure, no one on this side of the House or on that, who has studied the great principles which govern our finance, will find fault with for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, understand that we cannot but look upon him with a certain degree of doubt owing to certain incidents in his financial history. There are some episodes in the last three or four years of which we have not yet been able to bring ourselves to approve. There was last year the occasion when the Government, with a lack of courage which I think did them very little credit, broke in on the established custom of relieving the burden of debt for very inadequate reasons, and, at the same time, broke in also upon that reserve of strength which was provided precisely, so far as it went, for emergencies such as this. Then we also recall the strange dealings of the right hon. Gentleman with the tobacco duty, which he has acknowledged to-night
  80
  not to have been altogether successful. Of that I would merely say that it never appeared to have realised any advantage to the consumer, or at all events, if I may use the word in this other sense, the consumer has never been able to realise it in the sense of discovering and appreciating that advantage. Then—I will not renew the old controversy—the right hon. Gentleman, having been provided by the fiscal reforms of my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire with a bulwark of financial strength such as no Finance Minister has ever had the advantage of before, proceeded to fritter away a large part of that strength by a series of doles to particular classes of the community who certainly were not amongst the most necessitous classes, and has given the money not even to the most necessitous within those classes, and in that way, so far as the money goes, amounting to, I think, about £4,000,000 a year, he has weakened his position for an occasion such as this. But this is not the time to go into these matters. We are very glad indeed to recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has to-night dealt not only in a straightforward but in a statesmanlike and discreet way with the difficulty before him, and with a courage that from his natural temperament we were willing to ascribe to and expect from him. The first great question in a case such as this is what part of this great burden shall be dealt with by way of taxation and what part by way of future obligation in the shape of debt. The right hon. Gentleman has described the different nature of the advice which he has received. He has resisted extreme advice in both directions, and it is my impression that he has made an apportionment which is fair and equitable as between those two methods of dealing with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has very properly put a considerable part of the expenditure—not very far from the same proportion as was proposed in the case of the Crimean War—upon the shoulders of the taxpayers. I, for one, could never believe for a moment—I would never do my countrymen the discredit and dishonour to believe—that they would shirk an obligation of this kind. We have all been proud of the patriotic spirit exhibited within the last few weeks. If that patriotism is anything but the merest smoke and bluster, surely the British people are willing to bear a burden of

  81
  this kind to support those whom they have so readily sent to sacrifice their comfort, their safety, and sometimes their lives on the battlefield. There may be, of course, to individuals inconvenience and hardship, and even deprivation, but I do not think that anyone in this House has any fear that the taxpayer will not be ready cheerfully to do his duty. As to the details of the proposals, it will, as I have said, be wiser and more convenient to the House that our opinion should be reserved. I, however, may say, in my particular capacity as a Scotch Member, I think that something will be said as to the increase of the spirit duty from a national point of view on the part of both the Irish and the Scotch. There is a strong belief in Scotland and Ireland, apart from all the financial arguments which may be used by experts in the public offices and in this House, that the taxation put upon the general drink of the masses is heavier by a great deal than that which is laid on the general drink of the English community, and I think they would have been glad if they had been spared somewhat in this respect. I merely forecast that as a line of argument likely to be used in the course of the debates. It is quite understood that the House will at future stages give its decision on each of these proposals. What we must satisfy ourselves of is that the proposals are the least burdensome, the least inconvenient, and the most fair and most advantageous to the Exchequer which can be devised. In giving our assistance to the right hon. Gentleman, and in endeavouring to help him in coming to a conclusion, we shall, at all events, be guided by this feeling—that in hardly any quarter of the House is there any disposition, as the Votes in Supply have already shown, to display any grudging spirit in prosecuting the financial proposals of the Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not think this occasion should be allowed to pass without some expression of opinion from this quarter of the House. We have now reached a period when the Government of the so-called United Kingdom are obliged to bring in a Budget of over £150,000,000. In other words, we have to find in one year an amount equal to one fourth of the National Debt. At the time the disastrous Union was accomplished the total National Debt of Ireland
  82
  was under £8,000,000, and now we are asked in one single year to bear a proportion of expenditure amounting to over £150,000,000, in addition to the charge of the ordinary standing National Debt. I wonder what the statesmen who made such promises to Ireland at the time of the Union would have thought if they had been told that 100 years hence this appalling and crushing burden would be placed upon us. I should like to say a word in reference to the unhappy position in which Ireland is situated. The right hon. Gentlemen gave a very glowing account of how England and Scotland are advancing by leaps and bounds; he spoke of there being higher wages, greater prosperity, and larger incomes than ever before. The only industry which had not gained in prosperity was that of agriculture. In other words, the country which alone has not progressed is bound to bear with you pari passu this extravagant expenditure. At the time of the Union we had a number of industries; they have since disappeared. Our country was richer to an enormous degree, both in flocks and herds, as well as in population and purse, than she is now; and yet, whereas your taxable capacity has increased a hundredfold while ours has decreased in a similar degree, we have to bear with you a burden equal to your own. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded calmly to treat the two cases—on the one side a living body and on the other a corpse; he proceeded to administer to them the same physic, and to prescribe the same treatment. One would have thought that, as Minister for this Empire, he would have taken note of the difference between the two countries, and have made some difference in the treatment. Throughout his speech there is not a trace of the necessity for dissimilarity of treatment; there is not a trace of any intention on his part to fulfil the pledges given by the statesmen of the Union to grant Ireland exceptional exemptions and abatements suited to her case and position. Does the right hon. Gentleman think himself an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, or does he regard himself as a British Chancellor of the Exchequer? So far as the shepherding of the separate interests of Ireland is concerned, I can see no indication. We are told we have the honour and glory of forming a portion of this Empire. I would like to ask how much of this war

  83
  expenditure has been spent in Ireland. I will take him upon that issue alone. You have spent upon your exceptional war operations something like £50,000,000, in round figures. Of that amount you have spent about five pence in Ireland. England has benefited by the engagement of ships, the casting of cannon, the making of munitions of war, saddlery, and the thousand and one necessary articles for such an undertaking, but only a few horses have been bought in Ireland, and even those would not have been purchased there if you could have got them cheaper or better elsewhere. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that everything else has been bought in England and Scotland. Of course Germany has not been forgotten; Brazil has not been forgotten; you have bought mules in Brazil. America has not been forgotten; you have bought saddlery there. Austria has not been forgotten; you have obtained underclothing in some of the central European States. What do we gain by the war? Nothing, except that a few Orangemen have desecrated Catholic churches in Belfast and broken the heads of Catholic workmen in Portadown. What do we lose by it? When the legless and armless men of the Dublin Fusiliers return, we shall have to put them up in our workhouses and bear the expense on the local taxation. In Drumcondra alone, a little suburb of Dublin, there are forty widows. In one miserable little street in Dublin, Cook Street, there are eight widows as the result of this war. The wearing of black by the people of the poorer classes is distinctly noticeable in the streets of Dublin. I do not say that you have not done your duty in this respect. I believe you have. It is but fair to admit the magnificent manner in which the aristocracy as well as the working classes have gone to the assistance of their country. But, at all events, you will have the gold mines at the finish; you will have the Transvaal at the end. You will have an asset; what shall we have, except graves and dead? That is our position, to which the right hon. Gentleman in bringing in his £150,000,000 Budget, does not even think it worth his while to make any reference. These facts have not even excited a passing remark upon them. Let me refer to the question of tobacco. If anyone reads the history of Ireland, they will find it stated that between Dublin and the
  84
  county of Cork, for a distance of 150 miles, heaps of tobacco were being burned in the fields, and tobacco growing was once an important branch of the Irish agricultural industry. Ireland can grow tobacco, and she has grown it successfully in the past; and you have now throughout Ireland a revenue and police system which would give you full warning of smuggling, and by which it would be easy to prevent illicit growth and manufacture of tobacco. While the right hon. Gentleman proposes to enhance the tobacco duty, he does not even suggest the relaxation of the restrictions which would enable the tobacco industry to thrive in Ireland. What he has said is from an English point of view, and I do not suppose any Englishman can fairly complain of the Budget. But the position of Ireland is entirely different. It is said that the burden has been put upon all classes; that incomes have been taxed, as well as the tobacco user and the beer consumer. Even the teetotaler, it is claimed, has not been left out, and accordingly the right hon. Gentleman taxes tea. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman taxes the three great articles consumed by the poor, because a man may drink tea who is also a tobacco smoker and a beer or whisky drinker. The right hon. Gentleman has dived into the pockets of the poor in Ireland. It is not enough for Ireland to have to provide brave soldiers, but the poor have to provide their wages as well out of their poverty. I would make a claim that now, at all events, if he is going to increase the tax upon tobacco, he should take this opportunity of relieving the Irish people from the restrictions on growing tobacco. It is the merest matter of arrangement. In the old days when the tobacco industry flourished there was no such thing as the revenue and police system as it exists at the present moment. The Royal Irish Constabulary had not then been established. Smuggling was rife, and it was impossible to collect the duty. You have in every village in Ireland ten policemen, costing the country, with a sergeant, £1,000 a year; you have a schoolmaster and schoolmistress, costing £150 a year; and you also make us pay a large contribution every year for education—and what do we get out of this glorious system? You say you cannot reduce the number of police, but why not turn them to some good account, and make them do some-

  85
  thing for their wages? At present they are simply engaged in the collection of rents for landlords, and they take part in an occasional eviction, and in the North of Ireland the police are utilised to prevent Orangemen from shooting down the Catholics. Therefore you have in every village the means of providing that if tobacco is grown the tax upon it shall be fairly paid and assessed. When there was a Vice-Chancellor of Ireland we had somebody to look after Irish industries, but no one seems to care for the interests of Ireland now. Much as I respect the right hon. Gentleman, he has a British skin, and he cannot, therefore, have an Irish heart, but he knows a great deal more about our country than he pretends to do. How is it that he never casts upon that country a pitying glance? If we have to pay this extra tobacco duty the restrictions upon the growth of that article ought to be removed in Ireland. According to the English view, when you put a tax on whisky its fiscal nature disappears, and it assumes a position of benevolence. You tax Irish peasants not to carry on wars, but to prevent them getting drunk; you say it is for our own benefit, for fear we should relapse into the position of the savage. When Mr. Gladstone put the increased tax on whisky the result was that he wiped out seventy distilleries in Ireland. You say it does not matter what taxes you impose on whisky, but there is not one of you will examine the state of things in Ireland and look at it from an Irish point of view. You are all chock full of the war in South Africa, or of your policy in China or Madagascar, and there is hardly a subject which you are not full of. The only thing you care about in Ireland is how much revenue you can get out of her, and Ireland is looked upon solely as a taxable commodity. Your conduct towards Ireland is heartless and callous. This tax upon whisky is undoubtedly an additional burden. There was great laughter when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned gallons instead of barrels in the case of the beer tax, and I suppose if he put one shilling a gallon on beer there would be a revolution in Whitechapel. But when the right hon. Gentleman comes to deal with whisky it is not in barrels he measures at all. He puts only one shilling on thirty-six gallons of beer, but there is to be sixpence put upon each gallon of whisky. I say this war has been got up by Mr. Cecil Rhodes,
  86
  and the extra taxes should have been put on diamonds. I do not see why stockbrokers should not pay an enormous tax as well as barristers and solicitors. Why not make those pay more who make enormous fortunes on the Stock Exchange? You do not propose that because they are all Tories; and they find that nothing is more delightful than to read in the newspapers, when the news of great victories is to hand, that they have been singing "God save the Queen" on the Stock Exchange. I do not think they would be in such a splendid state of jollification if they had to pay a tax of £500 a year. Irishmen have got both to fight your battles and to pay for them out of their miserable incomes. There is before the House the Tithe Rent-charge Bill for Ireland, by which the landlords are to be relieved to the extent of £50,000 a year in order to enable them to pay their war taxes. For my part I do not at all see the objection to the raising of this large sum by way of a loan. Why should the people of the present time bear all the burden? The people who gain by this war should be the people to pay for it. No doubt the English people would cheerfully provide the taxes for the right hon. Gentleman purely out of public spirit and patriotism. The right hon. Gentleman went on to remark that the colonies were providing enormous sums towards this war, and I should like to know how much they were providing. I read the other day the telegram sent by the Colonial Secretary to Australia asking for more men, and he told them that the Imperial Treasury would pay the bill. Those men have to be paid by the unfortunate people of Ireland, and it is untrue to say that the colonies are paying for this war. They are paying these men 5s. per day. If I had not anything to do myself I should have regarded at one time such an offer and a trip to a foreign country as very satisfactory. It is unfair to suggest that Australia is bearing any of these burdens. And why should not our colonies pay? They are very keen on the war. And why should Canada not contribute, for she gets a great deal of kudos out of it? When the Canadians in battle are praised they are put in the newspapers in big letters, but when the Irish troops score at the front this is not done. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Why not make the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands contribute to this splendid

  87
  Imperial saturnalia of generosity? The only country which is made to pay is the very one which is protected by treaty from paying. With regard to the income tax, as far as England is concerned, it is a fair item, but is it fair in regard to Ireland? It was understood at the time of the Union that the income tax would not be charged. It was never dreamt of, and we did not pay income tax for fifty years after the Union was established. It was put on as a temporary expedient after the time of the Crimean War, and now, in spite of our protest on this financial question and the finding of the Royal Commission that we are paying £3,000,000 a year too much, you propose to increase our income tax by 4d. in the £. I think that imposition might, at least, be left alone as regards Ireland, whose income is very limited, for there are no large businesses in Ireland. Is it fair to tax limited incomes with no chance of extension in the same way as those enormous incomes in this country? I emphatically protest against this system of taxing Ireland for military purposes, while you keep her hampered and deny her her liberties. We do not desire to go abroad to kill Dutchmen, but we desire to leave them alone in the enjoyment of the country which they have acquired. Having denied us Home Rule, that ought to make you keener and more zealous not to pile upon us those burdens which the denial of Home Rule involves. I beg of you, as fair-minded men, to cast aside political prejudice and to look at the impoverished condition of the Irish people. If you will do so you will see that you ought to arrange your fiscal system so as not to place any additional burden upon the people of Ireland.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I only rise to-night to add my tribute of admiration for the speech the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has addressed to the Committee—a speech, if I may be permitted to say so, distinguished by soundness of financial principles and still more valuable on account of the political courage with which those principles were expressed. It is not the first time I have congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his financial ability, and I have had also to congratulate him on his financial good fortune in times of peace. He has had the advantage of extremely prosperous times; he has spoken of the
  88
  great prosperity of the country, and we all join in rejoicing and hope it may be as lasting as it is great. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his courage, but I think he is rather in the position in which Solon found himself when he said—
  "I did not always give the best laws, but the best laws the people would bear."
  When the right hon. Gentleman referred to history and the courage of our ancestors in respect to taxation, I thought the boldness he had shown was hardly equal to the example. I will not go further back than the Crimean War, but in relation to that war when the question arose of distribution of cost between borrowing and taxation—I have a note here I took from Sir Stafford Northcote's book on financial policy—at the time the accounts were made up, the cost of the war was calculated at £76,400,000. Well, that was a two years war, and we have run up nearly that bill in less than six months, and how much more it will prove of course no man can tell. But, in dealing with that war a generation, I may say two generations ago, out of the £76,000,000, £40,000,000 was raised by additional taxation, or more than half, and £32,000,000 was added to the Debt of the country. These amounts do not make up the total, but at the conclusion of peace the balance was made up by increases in the productiveness of taxes, so that at the end of the war when accounts were made up £40,000,000 had been raised by additional taxation and £32,000,000 only was added to the Debt. I adhere so completely to the principles which the right hon. Gentleman has stated that I do not wish to be captious in my criticisms, but there is one very interesting question upon which I should be extremely glad to have some further information from the right hon. Gentleman. I observed a passage in his speech which was received with considerable approbation, not only from this side of the House, but from the opposite side also; and it was that the Transvaal ultimately was to pay for the cost of the war. I should very much like to know how he expects to get the money? We know that we are waging this war partly in order that Johannesburg should be a self-governing and self-taxing community. I presume after this war has been brought to a successful issue Johannesburg in

  89
  some form or other will tax itself. But then we have the prospect that these millionaires—Mr. Beit, Mr. Rhodes, and others—will have the taxation of the Transvaal at their own disposal. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] Ah! that is exactly what I want to hear. That is the point on which I should like some fuller explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. They will say, "We are fighting for liberty, for self-government; you are never going to oppress the people of Johannesburg by centralised taxation dictated from England? We are a free and independent community, who are to tax ourselves." We know the political and economical creed and the principles of patriotism which are professed by the ruling spirits and the governing classes of the future Johannesburg. To them the British flag is not emancipation, it is not freedom; no, it is a "commercial asset." But I should like to know the principles of finance of the persons who regard the British flag as a commercial asset, and it would interest the country very much to be informed how we are going to get at the money in the reformed Transvaal. We had one of these financial statements the other day, I think from Mr. Robinson; and he calculated that the result of the war would be to increase the value of the ore from 6s. or 8s. to 10s. a ton, and that the war would work out to an advantage of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000. These are the golden prospects he held out to his shareholders. That sum would be extremely useful to the taxpayers of this country. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to reveal his secrets to-night; but when we are taxing the people of this country, and adding many millions to the National Debt with the vague and misty expectation that those gentlemen who are going to put millions into their pockets as the result of the war, will contribute their proper proportion to that expenditure that is a point on which, I think, the taxpayers of the country would like to be informed. I confess that I do not expect much from the munificence or generosity of these gentlemen. Is the Transvaal hereafter going to be a free, independent community to tax itself? In these circumstances I do not think you would get the money. But if it is going to be, as some people desire it to be, a Crown colony, how are you going to get
  90
  the money then? You will, I suppose, have a council or some other body with power to tax that community. You generally pay the Crown colony the compliment of allowing it to elect part of that council. But there are colonies where it is necessary always to keep in your hands a majority of nominated members. Just conceive the future of this emancipated Johannesburg with a majority of nominated members taxing according to the views of Downing Street, and not of Johannesburg! That is one view. Before we impose all these burdens, whether by borrowing or by taxation, we should take some security for getting a charge on these funds which would relieve the taxpayers of Great Britain. I hope, therefore, either now or at some future stage of these financial discussions, we shall have some security by some sort of arrangement. I do not think it would be impossible, and if secured there will be very great satisfaction in the country generally. I entirely support the general principles of finance as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we reserve to ourselves the right on a future occasion to discuss the details and the application of these principles.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the right hon. Gentleman is premature in requiring the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a charge upon the Transvaal at this moment. We have not captured the Transvaal yet, neither have we any authority there. When we have it will be time enough—
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It may be too late.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If you want apples you go to an orchard, and if you want gold you cannot go to a better place than to a gold mine. I, of course, anticipate that there will be the greatest readiness on the part of the millionaires, who have incurred a debt to this country by being released from the grinding tyranny of the Transvaal, to contribute to the expenses of the war. They were subjected to a financial tyranny, which, perhaps, is the tyranny of all others which millionaires would be most anxious to be relieved of. I have no doubt that means will be found, if we do get to Pretoria, to levy a contribution on the millionaires referred to by the

  91
  right hon. Gentleman. I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer displays a great want of imagination in his Budgets—especially in this Budget. He has kept to the old ground, and has invented nothing new. Last year I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman a tax on diamonds. We import 4½ millions worth of diamonds every year from one of the places which should be most grateful to us for being rescued from the rule of the Boers. That release has been effected through Her Majesty's Government, and I think it is well worth the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instead of taxing tobacco 300 per cent. and tea 60 per cent., and making the general average of the duty on four or five articles 100 per cent., he should not tax diamonds at something like 100 per cent. also. That would give him £4,500,000, in addition to which there could be a licence for sale and, indeed, a licence for wear. The officials of the Treasury, to whose ability—especially the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Prime Minister testified in another place, should have no difficulty whatever in getting an adequate tax out of diamonds. The only general remark I desire to make is that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer and every other financier have constantly denounced our fiscal system as being extremely unsound, the right hon. Gentleman has at this moment of extremity adopted and intensified all the unsoundness of that system. Complaint has been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, by the First Lord of the Treasury, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself that the objects of taxation in articles of consumption are much too few, but the right hon. Gentleman has kept them as few as they were, and has largely increased the duty upon them. I think this is very unfortunate. It has also been pointed out again and again that the exemptions and abatements in connection with direct taxation are very much abused, and are more than they ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman has kept on all the abatements, while increasing the income tax by 50 per cent. The First Lord of the Treasury has pointed out that although the total income of this country is 1,500 millions, only 700 millions are assessed, but instead of getting income tax either from the 1,500 millions or the 700 millions, it is taken only from incomes
  92
  which are over £160 a year. But even as it is the exemptions and abatements are such that instead of getting 40 millions the Chancellor of the Exchequer only gets 25 millions. These abatements and exemptions ought not to be given, because if an abatement is given to one man another man has to be taxed for it. If there is to be any such thing at all it ought to be by annual grant of this House, which would be considered every year, and renewed or not renewed as the case might be. Then the right hon. Gentleman extends abatements to a man with £700 a year. He is not a poor man; he is well able to maintain his station in life without any outside assistance, and he ought to pay his small and infinitesimal share of the income tax as well as anyone else. I quite understand that a man with £100 a year should get a special exemption, but if a man with £1,000 a year is now required to pay 1s. income tax the man with £700 a year ought to be required to pay it also. If not, the latter is paying less than his share and the former more, and every addition to the income tax intensifies the inequality. The right hon. Gentleman objects to diamonds. Will he take furs or feathers or musical instruments? I have made out an interesting list which shows that we import lace to the value of 1½millions, embroidery one million, artificial flowers £600,000, feathers 1¼ millions, musical instruments, including, I suppose, the instruments brought over by the German bands, £1,100,000, and diamonds 4¼ millions. These give a total of £11,000,000, which altogether escape taxation. If a customs duty were put on them on the same scale as on spirits, tea, tobacco, and wine, they would realise £11,000,000 of revenue. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has completely abandoned the principles of the First Lord of the Treasury and himself, and has given the go-by to what he told us a few years ago was a pressing necessity, namely, to find further sources of taxation. I have presented him with half a dozen sources, and I hope he will consider them. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, has had an enormously increased expenditure to meet. I have made a calculation whereby I find that if he had been able to adhere to the precedent of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

  93
  West Monmouthshire, and not have allowed the expenditure to exceed the Estimates, the country would have saved £100,000,000. It has fallen to his unhappy lot since 1896 to have added the sum of not less than £100,000,000 to taxation. I do not say it is his fault; but he has colleagues. As to the very large decrease in expenditure as compared with the Estimates, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not plume himself on that fact. A surplus of £5,000,000 over the Estimates is only a mistake of £5,000,000. So long as that is understood, and credit is not taken for it, I will pass away from it. What I wish to point out is that £2,000,000 out of that £5,000,000 come from the death duties. It is entirely due to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it has become absolutely impossible to calculate the returns from the death duties. The result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never made a mistake of less than a million, and this year he has made a mistake of two millions.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Always in excess.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What does that matter? The effect is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been given a million or two to divert from ordinary courses. He has always used his surpluses for his own purposes. Previous to the Finance Act of 1894 no duties were calculated with more certainty than the death duties, but after the extraordinary graduations introduced by that Act it is now impossible to estimate them with precision. The death duties amounted to 17½ millions this year, but if the old system had remained they would have amounted to 15 millions, and be on a much sounder foundation and be capable of being accurately estimated. Therefore I do not think that the increase in the death duties is entirely a matter for approval. They are now more uncertain than they were formerly. With reference to the loan which the right hon. Gentleman proposes, whether it should be terminable in ten years or whether it should be added to the permanent debt depends on the purpose to which it is to be put. I do not know what he may have in his mind, but evidently we are to give him carte blanche. I suspect he is going to offer
  94
  some inducements to the people in the Savings Bank to take some of it. I do not know, but I presume we shall all be asked to take shares in it. I think, however, that the purpose to which this loan is to be put is of the most permanent character. If we fail in the South African campaign, we will not only lose South Africa, but we will certainly, or probably, lose India; we shall imperil the whole of the Empire, and bring these islands themselves into increased danger. On the other hand, if we succeed, we will avoid all that risk, and we will endow posterity with an increased Empire on a more solid foundation. If that be so, posterity should bear its share. If it be that we are about to do a permanent work in South Africa, not for South Africa alone, but also for the Empire and for these islands, surely it is not right to expect us to pay in ten years a loan contracted in order to give a permanent benefit to posterity. I think that the argument for making the loan a permanent addition to the debt from that point of view is very strong. If, on the other hand, instead of improving the position of the Empire we make it worse, then we ought to pay. But assuming, as I do, that we are certain to achieve great benefits for posterity, posterity should pay its share. This is a very severe Budget. The taxpayer will severely feel it, not only the income-tax payer, but also the consumer of dutiable commodities. As to income-tax, I entirely fail to see why a man with an income of over £700 a year has to pay the entire tax, whereas a man with an income under that amount gets an exemption. It is unfortunate that this large addition should be made to the income tax without making any attempt to remove the inequalities caused by the abatements and exemptions which apply to it. My objection to the Budget is not one of principle, so much as that it leaves the imperfections of our fiscal system where they are, and intensifies them to a very considerable extent. With regard to the loan, I am not at all clear that instead of being a loan for a temporary period it ought not to be permanently added to the Debt.
  MR. HALDANE: I wish humbly to join with the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who have congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a thoroughly straight-

  95
  forward, courageous, and sound Budget. He has had at least as much applause from this side of the House as he has had from his own side. Whatever may be the supposed divisions in the Liberal Opposition, we shall all unite in praising the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are one or two points in connection with the Budget on which I would wish to say something. I am wholly unable to agree with my hon. friend opposite in his proposition that the loan to be raised should be a permanent addition to the debt. I do not take up that ground on the footing that the benefits from this war will be merely temporary. No doubt the war will very much strengthen our position at the Cape, and if the objects of the war are realised it will confer a permanent benefit on the Empire, but I feel very much that we ought to be reducing, not increasing, the National Debt. The National Debt constitutes our war chest, and is the one way by which we can put the Empire into a position of permanent defence. That brings me to the question of the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to treat the Sinking Fund. I entirely agree that it would be absurd to pay off with one hand when we are borrowing with the other. The ground which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took last year for the suspension of the Sinking Fund was that it was wasteful to go on redeeming Consols at a large premium. But they are not at a great premium now, and it is probable they will go down further, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to put thirty-five millions of comparatively short securities on the market, with the result that holders of Consols will sell in order to buy the new securities. In that state of things I should have thought that of all times when the purchase of Consols was convenient and useful for the purposes of the Sinking Fund this was the very best opportunity. It is not a case of redeeming them at 111, but at 101, or maybe, less. I am certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered this very carefully, and no doubt he thinks that in the main he is taking the best course, but I should like to be satisfied that it would not have been a better course to have borrowed more largely on these new short securities, the shortness of which is likely to keep them from going to a premium, and purchased Consols at their present low
  96
  rate. One thing I was very glad to hear, and that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to take the issue of those new securities into his own hands. We have too much experience of loans issued by the nation getting into the hands of contractors, who speedily realise the premiums which should belong to the nation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown great wisdom in taking the rather unusual course of keeping the issue in his own hands, and I hope he will be rewarded by securing for the nation a full premium. The real interest in this Budget will arise when we know the period within which this loan is to be redeemed. I infer it is to be redeemed within ten years; I hope a good deal within ten years. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it would be premature to announce the determination of the Government in regard to the period of the redemption before the conclusion of the war; but if he takes that course he will have added another feature to the courageous and straightforward policy which characterises this Budget. There will be a permanent advantage in this. It is right that posterity should pay something, but I look upon the policy of reducing the National Debt as the true source of our material strength in the future. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addition to taking the step of laying a large part of the cost of war on taxation, will still further reassure the Committee by announcing his determination to pay off the new loan within a comparatively short time. I am not in the position to weigh the matter with the expert knowledge he has, but it seems to me he has come to a sound decision in issuing the new loan in the form of short securities which will not go to a large premium; and it will put his successor in a position of much greater strength than if a different course had been taken. On the whole hon. Members ought to congratulate themselves in the course the Government have adopted; and the country is under a debt of gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the straightforward and courageous way in which he has faced the financial emergency.
  *SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I have listened with great interest to the clear

  97
  statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I must express my admiration for the firmness of his finance. I think the way in which the country will take his Budget proposals will depend a good deal on their knowledge of what will be the full result of the issue of the short loans. There is no doubt that the feeling of the country is very strongly in favour of the Transvaal being made to pay, after the war is brought to a successful conclusion, for what it has cost this country. If the country has that assurance, it will produce a great effect. When the Transvaal was taken over by this country in 1877, there was half a crown in the Treasury. When it was handed back, the income was £200,000; while the last return of the Transvaal Government showed a Budget of nearly five millions of money. It has been stated by many Uitlanders, who know very well what they are saying, that they paid no less than 89 per cent. of the taxes of the Transvaal; but suppose they only paid 80 per cent., that would have amounted to four millions a year paid by the Uitlanders. We know what was done with that money. Mr. Kruger and his oligarchy devoted what they did not take for themselves to the purchase of guns, ammunition, and all warlike stores, to be used against this country. Now, when we have freed the Transvaal from the Boer tyranny, that money will be free for more legitimate purposes. We have heard that it is our intention to bring this war to a definite conclusion, we don't care at what cost; and therefore I do think that the country has a right to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in taking these short loans, intends that they shall be redeemed from the resources of the Transvaal. If we take a loan of fifty millions and put it into a sinking fund for fifty years at 3½ per cent., the amount that would have to be paid by the Transvaal would be £1,045,000 a year. I was talking the other day to one of the African millionaires, and he said to me—
  "We shall be only too happy if you tax us for a short number of years, to enable the cost of the war to be liquidated. We should be only too glad to pay for the feeling of security and justice which we should enjoy under the British Government, but which we never felt under President Kruger and his oligarchy. We never knew what would happen to us; what would be commandeered, or what new monopolies for dynamite and what railway scandals would be perpetrated by the Hol-
  98
  landers. We are willing to pay if we only get justice, and know where we are."
  I think it will be found when we have conquered that country, and when we make our reforms, that we have a perfect right to place taxes upon it for a certain time, sufficient to pay the cost of the war—a cost which ought certainly not to be paid by the people of this country. We pay enough in the lives we have lost. That cannot be repaired; but there is no reason why the money should go into the pockets of the millionaires. That point is one which I think will very much strengthen the feeling of the country in regard to the Budget.
  *MR. HOLLAND: I would be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would kindly give to the House a little more explanation in regard to the stamps which it is his intention to impose on contracts other than those entered into on the Stock Exchange. Does he propose to levy these contract stamps also on contracts entered into on the Corn Exchange, the Iron Exchange, the Coal Exchange, or the Cotton Exchange?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No; only brokers' contract notes of the same description as brokers' contract notes on the Stock Exchange.
  *MR. HOLLAND: I do not know whether that covers ordinary trade contracts.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Oh, no.
  *MR. HOLLAND: If the stamp duties are not to be levied on trade contracts, I have nothing more to say on that point. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not receding from the firm and sound principle which he announced last autumn, that the gold mines of the Transvaal should pay a fair share of the cost of the campaign.* I was rather afraid, from his observation that there would be very heavy charges to be paid for compensation in Natal and the Cape, and that they would have the effect of increasing the burdens on the mines, that he was modifying his opinion, and that he did not now consider that the mines could pay the large contributions at first expected for
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxvii, p. 515–16.

  99
  the cost of the war. I trust, however, that the owners of these mines will not escape from any fair obligations which can clearly be shown to be their due, because undoubtedly the value of their properties will be largely enhanced as the result of a successful campaign. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn in his regret that there should be abatements and exemptions in the income-tax in regard to certain incomes. I understand the hon. Member is against the principle of the graduation of the income tax; but, for my part, I am heartily in favour of it, so far as it can be carried out, and indeed I would do what I could to extend the principle further. I should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have seen his way to exempt incomes of £700 and under from the increased taxation. Nor can I share the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Louth that Irishmen are, as he said, to be taxed so much more than Englishmen on their national drink. The hon. Member protested that for every gallon of whisky an Irishman drank he would be called upon to pay 6d. extra, whereas an Englishman would have to drink eighteen gallons of beer to pay the same sum. But I presume that an Irishman does not always drink his whisky neat, and if he dilutes it with sufficient water the duty on the whisky would not work out at a very much heavier ratio of taxation in proportion to the amount of liquid imbibed than in the case of the Englishman's beer. I think that in view of the very serious deficit of thirty-seven millions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must now regret that a year ago he did anything to tamper with the Sinking Fund, for if he had not so tampered with it, he would have found that his present financial position would have been stronger than it is.
  *MR. HENDERSON: I wish to give expression to the feeling of satisfaction with which I listened to the statement of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the mode in which he proposes to raise the large sum he requires. The course he intends to take in the issue of terminable bonds is a wise one, and must commend itself to every business mind. It will be not only economical but sound finance. If issued in the form of Consols, in times of pressure the necessity for the redemption of the debt now in-
  100
  curred might be overlooked, but the redemption of these securities must be provided for, because of the fact of the date of their redemption being stamped on the face of them. One remark of the right hon. Gentleman gave me a great deal of pleasure, namely, that he did not propose to adopt the common course of issuing these securities—whatever form they may ultimately assume—by tender, but to issue them at a fixed price to the general public, so that both the small and large investor may be able to acquire them on the same terms. If that is done I feel sure that the response will be very large indeed. For these reasons I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as I know, the commercial community will hail with acclamation the proposals he has brought before the House this evening.
  MR. BROADHURST: I am glad to know that to-night the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises the errors of his ways in his Budgets of the past two years. If the right hon. Gentleman happens to remember—which I cannot hope that he did in the case of so humble an individual as myself—[Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I do.]—then I feel highly honoured—I pointed out at the time that there would be no benefit from the reduction in the tobacco duty to the half-ounce man; that unless the Chancellor took £2,000,000 off, instead of £1,000,000, the amount would, be so lost in the transfer of business that the poor man would get no benefit from it whatever. I was quite prepared for the Chancellor of the Exchequer reimposing that duty, though I do not agree with it. On the whole the Budget comes up to what was generally expected by those who take an interest in taxation. But I do wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the many great abilities which we all admit he possesses in financial matters, would consider the readjustment of the tobacco, duty. The man who at present pays 4s. a pound for his tobacco will have to pay this increased tax of 4d. in the pound just the same as the man who pays 10s. a pound. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will see how very unjustly the burden of that taxation falls on different classes. The man who pays 10s. a pound for his tobacco could very well afford to pay the extra 4d. of duty, or, indeed, an extra 1s.; it would not hurt him, because he must be a man of substance and large

  101
  income; but it is an unjust allotment of taxation to compel the poor labouring man with only 12s. a week wages to pay the same increase in taxation on his cheap tobacco—which has become almost a necessary of life—as the rich man on his 10s. a pound tobacco. In the case of the income tax the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has done some good service in further scaling that burden. Now, why should he not scale the burden in the case of tobacco? I think I have made my case clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that if he cannot do it in this Budget he will give us a promise that he will examine into the matter. It will be remembered that on a previous Budget I voted for a further reduction of the tea duty. Now, that tax is to be increased 50 per cent., and the poor labouring community, both in the towns and rural districts, will pay as much per pound for their common tea as the rich man pays for tea carefully selected and specially picked for his consumption. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not drink tea, he must know that there is an enormous difference between the pleasure obtained in drinking common tea and in drinking the best tea. Now, why should the agricultural labourer on twelve shillings a week pay exactly the same sum to the revenue per pound for his common tea as the man who has an income of £1,000 a year, and can well afford to pay a large price for his high-class tea? It is monstrous, because in many cases tea is the only drink, especially of our peasants and agricultural labourers. I was delighted to hear the appeal which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Uxbridge Division made to his own party and to the Government to see that, while the country intended to continue this war to a successful issue, we should not have to bear the cost of it, not only in the slaughter of our fellow countrymen, but in gold in addition. That is an appeal which will reach the hearts of all classes, whether they are in favour of the war or against it. I was pleased to hear that declaration, because it gives me the opportunity of appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that the poor people are not taxed to the same extent as the rich for their tea and tobacco, which are now distinct necessaries of their existence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a melancholy duty to perform to-night in announcing the large cost
  102
  of the war, and the necessity of providing for it in these times of marvellous increase of revenue. He discharged that duty with marked success, and with satisfaction to those who sit opposite him, although I noticed a marked silence prevailing on many benches behind him. I regret the cause of this vastly increased expenditure; but our house, so to speak, is on fire, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have the necessary materials to put the fire out, which we hope he will be able to do as soon as possible, and return to the ways of his youth. In the meantime, I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some hope that he will entertain the subject I have put before him.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITthought the House and the country were indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only for the proposals he had made, but also for the able speech in which they were explained. A permanent feature of all modern budgets was the death duties, which he had actively supported, although when they were first introduced by the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire there was a great deal of feeling expressed against them by the party with which he was associated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had propounded the principle, which underlay the death duties, that the richest should pay most, and that was a principle which on this occasion might have been carried much further by a graduated system of income tax, which would meet some of the objections which had been raised from Ireland. Limited exemptions and graduation were introduced by Sir Stafford Northcote, and the latter might, on the Chancellor's principle, well be carried much further. The only objection which he, as a business man, took to those proposals was that the right hon. Gentleman sought to impose a shilling stamp on brokers' produce contract notes. He could not see why the intervention of a broker should necessarily involve a stamp. On behalf of trade and commerce he would point out that all restrictions on and impediments to trade, however necessary for financial purposes, and however trifling from a pecuniary point of view, were nevertheless evils. This was a tax on industry, and would have a tendency to hamper trade transactions, and should there-

  103
  fore be reconsidered. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire raised an artificial objection with regard to the payment of an indemnity for the war by the Transvaal. He contended that it was not for the people of this country as a whole to bear the burden of the war, but that those who caused it or profited by its results should pay the most, whether they were Boers or millionaires.
  MR. LOUGHalso complained of the imposition of a shilling stamp on produce contracts, and pointed out that contract stamps in other trades were very different to contract stamps on the Stock Exchange. The people who went to the Stock Exchange were either gamblers or persons who had money to invest. In the former case they should be made to pay and in the latter they could easily afford to. But with regard to the produce markets he contended that the charge of a shilling on small contracts for £5 worth of produce would be very unfair.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: A contract for £5 worth would only require a penny stamp. For anything less than £100 the charge is only a penny.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that if that was so it was satisfactory, at all events. He would, however, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press the resolution on this point that night, but to allow information to be brought before him before he finally decided upon it.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.
  MR. LOUGHwent on to call attention to the conduct of affairs at the custom houses with regard to the clearance of dutiable articles during the time that had elapsed since the announcement that the Budget would be introduced that night. He pointed out that care had been taken to prevent traders keeping back their clearances, by the fact of the new duties being levied up to August next. The rule no doubt was good, but it applied equally to the other side, and that ought to have been observed by the Treasury, which had not, apparently, acted quite fairly in the matter. At the London Custom House that day men had waited from eleven o'clock in the morning with the object of making clearances at the lower scale of duty, and then at half-past
  104
  three in the afternoon had been hustled out by twenty policemen without having had an opportunity of effecting any clearances.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Any clearances made to-day must have been made on the lower scale.
  MR. LOUGHsaid his complaint was that, owing to the pressure at the Custom House, no clearance had been possible after eleven o'clock that morning, because no arrangements had been made to combat the extreme pressure that was likely to arise.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but no greater facilities were given to-day for clearances than the usual facilities. What happened on Saturday and to-day was that a number of dealers who trade in tobacco and other dutiable commodities, by no means confined to those on which I propose to impose extra taxation, insisted on going to the custom houses in London and all over the country in order to clear goods at the existing rate of duty. The effect of that is that these gentlemen clear goods at the existing rate, and then when the duty is raised to-night they will immediately charge the extra duty to their customers. Thus they "do" their customers and "do" the Revenue, and I am not going to be a party to that operation.
  MR. LOUGHsaid his point was that the notice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given as to the promulgation of the increased duty might also have been given as to the introduction of the Budget. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the change in the income tax would affect the payments in the year ending the 31st inst.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
  MR. LOUGH: The hon. Member for North Louth had complained about the income tax. The change which the Budget proposals make in the taxation of Ireland was certainly most startling. The addition to the income tax would affect Ireland to the extent of £350,000, the increase of 50 per cent. in the tea duty to the extent of £326,000, the increase of one-eighth in the tobacco duty to the extent of £150,000, and the increase of one-eighteenth in the duties

  105
  on beer and spirits to the extent of £200,000, making a total increase in the taxation of that country of £1,026,000.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The income tax in Ireland is differently assessed from the income tax in Great Britain.
  MR. LOUGHfurther expressed the view that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had that night, as on previous occasions, under-estimated his revenue and over-estimated his expenditure.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONurged that it was neither just nor expedient nor necessary that any part of the cost of the war in South Africa should be placed upon the taxpayers of this country. We had cheerfully given our blood and treasure, and had contributed to the various funds which had been started in connection with the war; but it was not necessary that we should do more. The experience of the Franco-German war should be followed, and the Republics made to bear the expense of the war. They had declared war against this country, had invaded our territory and annexed part of it, and ought therefore to stand the consequences. As a practical mine-owner who knew the country, he declared that the Transvaal alone was able to pay the whole cost of the war, even if it were £80,000,000 or £100,000,000. It had been often said by members of the Opposition that this war was a capitalists' war, that it was got up for their benefit and at their instigation. Let that no longer be possible to be said, and let the burden of the cost of the war be put upon the mines—the gold mines principally of the Transvaal, which at present produced one-fourth of the whole output of gold in the world and under a just, and honest, and capable Government instead of a corrupt and dishonest and incapable one like that of President Kruger, would ultimately produce twice more, so that even bearing the burden of the cost of the war, the country would thrive and more fortunes be made than before. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though not present, would be made aware of what he had said.
  *MR. LOWLES: I think the working class constituency which I represent will welcome this Budget as a perfectly reasonable and fair one. They are perfectly willing to pay their fair share of the cost of the war,
  106
  which they regard as just and righteous, but I hope we shall before this debate closes have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he regards the £35,000,000 as merely a suspense account, and that he really intends that the two countries with which we are in conflict should ultimately pay the cost of the war. I speak with a personal knowledge of the resources of these two countries, and it is not too much to say that at the present moment—
  Attention drawn to the fact that there were not forty Members present (Dr. Tanner, Cork County, Mid). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
  *MR. LOWLES(continuing): The public lands in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State are worth tens of millions of pounds, and would alone readily provide all the expenses of the war. With regard to contract notes, the tendency in the sales of produce at the present time, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see if he looks to the catalogues of Mark Lane and Mincing Lane, is to offer goods in very small lots. He said his proposal was to put a duty of 1s. on contract notes, and while it is true that the right hon. Gentleman has modified that to a 1d. in transactions under £100, I am not quite sure whether, if you consider the multitude of transactions and the smallness of many of them, it will be worth collecting £150,000 a year.
  MR. SOUTTAR: I have no desire to obstruct the passing of the resolutions, nor do I think of objecting to the nature of the resolutions themselves. We must all feel that the Budget is an honourable one, and that the right hon. Gentleman has, as far as possible, carried out the best financial principles in connection with it. It is, however, a matter of regret that the duty on tea, at any rate, should have been increased. We have been accustomed to hear Chancellors of the Exchequer state how desirable it would be to have a free breakfast table, and to cease from taxing the necessaries of life. It may not appear to some that tea is a necessary of life, but I have seen enough of the lives of the exceedingly poor especially to know that to them tea is indeed a necessary of existence. There are many places where the poor people take tea morning, noon, and night, and we should, therefore, have the strange

  107
  anomaly of these exceedingly poor people paying a larger proportion of the tax than the very wealthy; £1,750,000 will come out of the purse of the poor, so that the washerwoman will be paying more than the millionaire in this matter. I am glad the Budget has been spread over many classes. If people are anxious for this war—and I fear a great majority of the population are—they should bear their fair share of the expenditure, and be made to feel the responsibility of going to war by having to pay for it. I trust that something eventually will be done on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite—that the money should eventually be raised from the Transvaal Government. I have nothing to say about that at present; I think it would be better to conquer the Transvaal Government before we discuss that sort of thing. But in saying that, let it be clearly understood that the real meaning is not so much to raise the money from the Transvaal Government as to raise it from the mines. I think our mining friends have shown their hands just a little bit too soon. Quite recently it has been clearly laid before us that they expect to profit by this war to the extent of many millions annually. I could have desired that the men who are about to profit should have had a greater share of the fighting, but since that has not been I hope that those who made the quarrels will be made to pay the cost.
  *MR. LAWRENCE: I would take issue with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I am a tea-drinker myself, and never drink spirits from year's end to year's end, but I am sure that those who, like myself, are tea-drinkers quite recognise the propriety of tea bearing some measure of this expenditure. It is quite certain that a very large number of the community, like myself, no longer either smoke or drink spirits, and therefore it is quite legitimate that such worthy and excellent people should bear their share of the burdens of this great war. The hon. Gentleman somewhat criticised the action of the mining interest in the Transvaal, and went on to say that they had not done their part of the fighting. As a matter of fact, the Uitlander corps in Natal have done everything that men could do to show of what stuff they are made. They have borne the burden and the heat of the
  108
  great battles in Natal, and I do not think it lies in the mouth of any Member of this House to say that the mining interests of the Transvaal have not taken their share in the fighting.
  MR. SOUTTAR: I should be very sorry to be misunderstood. I did not refer to those humble Uitlanders who have taken part in the war, but to the mining speculators and capitalists.
  *MR. LAWRENCE: As a matter of fact, it is not everybody who can do the fighting. According to their age and period in life these people have done what they could, and certain other gentlemen interested in mining have openly told us that they can bear a considerable share of this cost. I am quite certain they do not desire to shirk their share of the burden any more than those who are younger than themselves have shown any desire to shirk their share of the fighting. But I rose principally to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he is putting an increased duty on spirits he ought in justice to the colony of the West Indies to have regard to the old and burning question of the surtax on rum. There is nothing new about this question, but it is a matter which presses very heavily upon the people in the West Indies. In these days when we have already felt how our difficulties in South Africa have been aggravated by the neglect in the past of the mother country towards her colonies in that part of the world, it becomes us here at home while we have time to consider the interests of the West Indies, because they are far separated from us and are only a small community. I should like to remind the Committee how the case stands. I am quite certain that if only the facts were more fully known to the Committee and to the people of England, they would see the propriety of the course which I and many before me have over and over again recommended. The fact is that at present rum proceeding from the West Indies has a special tax upon it, together, I should say, with foreign imported spirits, of four pence per gallon. This is put on as a surtax and as a duty to countervail the excise here on the manufacture of British spirits. That is to say, in order that British spirits may have an equal chance of competing, all spirits coming from the colonies and foreign countries are handicapped and

  109
  countervailed with a duty equivalent to four pence per gallon. That may be perfectly fair with regard to foreign spirits, but when I remind the Committee that in the West Indian colonies rum is produced under exactly the same regulations as to excise and exactly the same local regulations as British spirits are here, it will be seen that it is obviously a gross injustice to our colonies beyond the seas that they should have to pay an extra tax of fourpence when competing in the local markets here. When the Committee remembers that the legislatures of the West Indies are actually under the thumb of Downing Street, and that all the regulations are subject to the fiat of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, it will be seen that it is all the more unfair to the West Indies that their local produce should be taxed with this fourpence on the plea that they themselves are not liable to similar excise duties as are British spirits at home. The contraryis the case. They are subject locally to exactly the same excise regulations, equivalent in stringency and amount, as are British spirits here. But yet, directly they come here to compete in the open market, they are taxed fourpence per gallon. The injustice of this is shown more clearly when I inform the Committee that whereas British spirits used for purposes of methylation pay no duty, West Indian ram, which can be used equally for methylating purposes, is subject to this fourpence per gallon, and, in consequence, is practically ruled out of the market for methylation. Then, again, owing to this fourpence, it is very much handicapped for purposes of blending. The Committee will therefore perceive that our fellow-countrymen and fellow-subjects in the West Indies are unduly handicapped in this matter of the fourpence. The feeling in those parts is such that I really cannot exaggerate it, but I will just quote a resolution passed by a conference held at Barbados in 1898. The conference was of delegates from all the islands of the West Indies—
  "This meeting would strongly urge upon the Imperial Government the injustice of the surtax imposed upon colonial ruin, and the abolition of 4d. per gallon. By this means a large quantity of rum would be used for blending."
  If this was merely a local feeling, though I should still say it was most properly a subject for consideration, I should not, perhaps, so persistently urge the matter in
  110
  this House—although I think on its merits the people in the West Indies have clearly the best of the case—but the West Indian Commissioners who were sent out a few years ago to examine into the question also said that it was a very great hardship, and that this levy seemed to be unsound in principle, and they strongly advocated the abolition of the surtax. It is frequently very difficult on ordinary occasions to get a reduction of such a duty, but when, as on this occasion, we have a proposal—and, no doubt, generally, a very wise proposal—that there should be an increase of the duty on spirits, I think that the West Indies have every reason now after an interval, again to urge their rightful claim on the people of the mother country that they should have equal opportunities of selling in the British market their home-made spirits. They to not ask for any preferential treatment; they simply say that, inasmuch as they have local excise similar to our own in Great Britain, this fourpence, which is admittedly put on to countervail the local disadvantage of the excise, should be done away with. This matter has been raised over and over again for the last twenty years, but, as a matter of fact, because the people of the West Indies at present are few in number they are thought to be of no consideration. But, according to my humble view, the time may come when the islands of the West Indies will be very much appreciated, owing to the opening of the Panama and Nicaragua Canal, and then their interests will come home to the people of this country. It is all very well for the mother country to wake up at last and find she has neglected her colonies, as we have lately done in South Africa; but it is better that the colonies should be taught to cherish the mother country. They should not be taught to think that because their people are few and they are far away fro the mother country their interests are therefore of no concern. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on previous occasions said that this is a small matter, and the West Indian Commissioners, I believe, say that if the injustice were removed it would not actually save the sugar industry. But I am prepared to say from my own personal experience that in Jamaica, where the estates are small, and where the profits on an ordinary estate cannot be reckoned at much more than £500 or

  111
  £600 a year, this fourpence certainly reduced the income of the farmer of sugar by £175 or £200 a year. Even in other islands where rum is not so much a consideration as in Jamaica, where thirty-five gallons of rum are made from every ton of sugar, it will be seen that the difference is very appreciable. While people on the Front Bench, who are accustomed to large incomes, talk about this as being a small consideration, those who know what the small profits of farmers are can see that an amount of £100 a year to the profits on a farm is a very appreciable addition. Therefore I speak with some feeling, because I know how loyal these men of the West Indies are, and how they feel the burning injustice with which their interests have been overlooked for many a long year. I speak with some warmth, because what I say I say with knowledge. I therefore hope that when I venture to put down, as I believe I can, a motion for some modification of the proposal as to the sixpence per gallon on spirits, in favour of it being, say, twopence in the case of rum imported from the West Indies, the right hon. Gentleman will give it his kindly and considerate attention.
  *MAJOR JAMESONpointed out that in the Budget there was not a word about putting a tax upon the unearned increment of land. As a typical instance the great distilleries of which he was at the head might be taken. They stood upon sixteen acres of land in one place and upon eight acres in another, but while the industry carried on in those distilleries, employing a large number of people, was to be more heavily taxed, not one penny of taxation was proposed to be put upon the ground rents of the landlord. Distilling was one of the few industries left to the people of Ireland, and why should it be taxed in this way while the unearned increment of those who "neither toil nor spin" was allow to go scot free? There was another matter in regard to spirits to which he would like to call attention. According to the Treasury returns, something like 1,600,000 gallons of spirits were annually imported from Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Those spirits were made from the very refuse of corn, wood, and, it was even said, leather. Those 1,600,000 gallons were supposed to be made into methylated spirits, but only 8,000 gallons were devoted to that purpose. What became of the rest? Did anybody ever hear of a man selling Danish
  112
  or Swedish spirits, or German whisky? Would the Government deny the fraud? The right hon. Gentleman should get a little expert knowledge of what he was taxing. By all means give the West Indies a chance, but also let it not be forgotten that the heart's blood was being drained from the people of Ireland. Why was not an embargo put upon these imported spirits from Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, instead of this fraud being actually connived at by the Government? They had this great question of the unearned increment of land which was not taxed in any way because hon. Members opposite had all their interests in land, while those who had no land were made to bear the brunt of these wars. The proposals now made had been sprung upon the House, and he would like the Government to have taken more time, and to have thought out some way of raising their money without injuring the Irish people and their trade. It was no use the Government going on increasing taxation on Irish industries without increasing the duties on spirits from Germany, Denmark and Sweden. How long were those foreign whiskies going to be sold in this country as Irish whisky; and yet not one penny extra was to be put upon foreign spirits. He did ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to relieve Ireland of a portion of this burden by putting a large tax on foreign spirits and seeing that a different coloured permit was used for foreign spirits. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman went into the matter he would acknowledge that Ireland had been badly treated, and he looked for his kindly consideration of this question.
  MR. BARTLEY: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down in his remarks about foreign spirits. If it is true that they are sold in this country as Irish and Scotch whisky, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to stop that practice. Perhaps the hon. Member opposite will excuse me if I say the large firms to which he alludes do not look as if they were ground down very much by the Saxon. The question of the taxation of land is an old one which I will not discuss upon the present occasion. As regards the Budget itself, I must say that I am glad the Government have had the boldness to put forward a Budget in which all classes are called upon

  113
  to pay a reasonable and fair share towards the cost of the present war. I am sure that this heavy expenditure has been incurred in a war which is certainly popular, and which is believed to be just by the great bulk of the people, and I am certain that the people themselves are willing and anxious to make an effort to pay the bill. I do not believe in a patriotism which simply shouts and waves flags, and which objects to pay when the bill comes in. I am sure that there has never been such a feeling throughout the country concerning the justice of the war, and the great mass of the people, although they do not like to pay extra taxes, are quite prepared to make any reasonable sacrifice. The only thing I would suggest, if there is any change to be made, is that the duty on spirits should have been 1s. per gallon instead of 6d. Though many of us drink a certain amount of spirits, when you come to think of our enormous alcohol bill—amounting to something like £180,000,000 or £190,000,000 per annum—it does look like a fair subject for taxation. I am not talking of it from a moral standpoint, but if that large sum can be spent in drink in periods of prosperity, it does not look as though we should be overtaxing it by increasing the tax on spirits to 1s. per gallon. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has included tea, because I think those persons who do not drink spirits or smoke tobacco, but who drink tea, will be willing and glad to pay a share towards the cost of the war. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire referred to the Transvaal, and he seemed to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have stated how much that country was going to pay towards the cost of the war. I agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that it will be time enough to go into that question when we have got to Pretoria. I should like to say that, in my judgment, it would be right and proper that the Transvaal should pay a substantial part of the cost of this war; but I do not think it can be said that this is a war simply for the Transvaal, for it is not only the Transvaal but the whole of South Africa that is concerned. I go further, and say that it is a war which concerns the very existence of the great Empire to which we belong. It would be unfair in every sense to require the Transvaal to pay the whole cost, but it
  114
  would be reasonable, when peace is made, that the Transvaal should be required to pay something. I believe that the great mass of the capitalists of that colony will be willing to pay a fair share provided they can only secure a stable, fair, and just government. I am convinced that the revenue from the Transvaal will be sufficient to pay over and over again the interest on a large loan, and I do not see any reason why that should not be done. It was my good fortune to be in the Transvaal when the war broke out, and I do say most emphatically that a great number of the Uitlanders have done excellent work in the war. I saw the Imperial Light Horse, who have taken such a prominent part in the defence of Ladysmith. A great many of those men came down from Johannesburg with me, and they enrolled themselves, and have been fighting for us against the Transvaal up to the present time. Mr. Davis and Mr. Sampson are two of them, and both are officers who have been seriously wounded in this war. Concerning the loan which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given rather mysterious hints about, I hope he will take this opportunity of making use of this loan as an experiment for enabling persons to obtain smaller sums, for this has been a very popular system in France and other places. We have done a great deal by opening Consols in small sums, and this has been most advantageous in the development of thrift and financial arrangements amongst the poorer classes, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to see his way to divert some of the funds which now go in other directions to encouraging deposits of very small sums. It will require some care, but I think something may be done, and the result will be that he will get the money practically at par and without many of the disadvantages of forming a large and permanent loan. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman in having it a short loan. One of the mistakes we made in our National Debt has been the making it a permanent debt, for it would have been quite as easy and practicable for it to have been made a terminable debt extending over a considerable period of years. The difference is almost infinitesimal, and in future it would be better to make these loans of a terminable nature. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes this year to suspend the operation of the Sinking Fund. He made considerable

  115
  alterations in this fund last year, and I was one of those who strongly objected to it. I opposed it then, and I always shall do under those circumstances. I think it was a mistake to do it last year, and I think so still. But this year the circumstances are quite different, and this seems to be a reasonable and proper time for suspending the operation of the Sinking Fund. It seems to me to be one of the great objects of this Sinking Fund that it produces elasticity, and I quite approve of the step which has been taken this year. The only other point that I wish to refer to is the question of the death duties. Although I objected to some of the details of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire's scheme when he brought it in in the year 1894, I have always approved of the system of these death duties. It seems reasonable in every way that these enormous fortunes should contribute a larger proportion than they have hitherto done to the taxation of the country, and I cannot conceive of a stronger case than the one instanced to-day of a man living all his life on a small sum and leaving millions behind him, I think it is only right that a large portion of that money should come to the State. This system has been so beneficial to the State that it seems to me that at the present moment we might be more merciful in making remissions in certain cases. In the year 1894 I moved an Amendment to the effect that those persons who were killed in the service of the Crown and belonging either to the Army or the Navy should have their estates exempt from the death duties if they were of small amount. Inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has derived £17,500,000 from these death duties, I hope he will be able on this occasion—looking to the interests of those of our fellow subjects who have been killed in this war—to consider favourably the granting of some relief to those estates the owners of which have been killed in the prime of life. I am sure the loss to the revenue would be very slight, and it is very hard indeed for the widow of an officer who leaves £2,000 or £3,000 behind him if she is called upon to pay these heavy death duties. I hope he will consider favourably an Amendment which I shall put down in order to bring about a change in this respect. Taking the Budget scheme as a whole, I think we
  116
  may fairly say it meets the wants of the time. It takes a considerable part of the cost of the war out of present taxation, which is right and proper. I myself do not object to it being taken out of the present or coming year, because I feel quite sure that the public are willing to do what is necessary at the present moment, and I am sure that it is always wise when we have to incur large expenditure to face it boldly, because when we look into the facts there is no question that this nation, whatever our faults may be, is the lightest taxed nation in the world. I think we should be prepared to pay the whole cost of this war during the life of the present generation. I am glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spread the taxation over all classes of the community, so that every class will bear its fair proportion of the cost of this war.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: There is a great deal I admire in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he did not seem to be a strong enthusiast in favour of the war. I admire his observations in regard to the monstrous and preposterous proposals that appeared in The Times this morning, that we should expend permanently £20,000,000 per annum upon the Army and Navy. If we were to do that what would become of old age pensions and all other social reforms? All our money would go in military expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman laid down certain principles about the mode in which the money for the war should be obtained, and said he wished the war mainly to be carried on upon a cash basis. I cheered those sentiments, but I am bound to say that I did not find that the right hon. Gentleman, when he came to the details, entirely carried out his own excellent principles. He told us that at the commencement of the great French War we borrowed I forget how many millions of money, and afterwards raised a very large amount of the money by taxation.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said £391,000,000.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The amount was £391,000,000 which was raised, and one-third of the amount of the cost of that war was raised by taxation. In the Crimean War the right hon. Gentleman

  117
  gave us figures and said it had cost us £67,000,000, and of this sum £32,000,000 had been raised by taxation. That is almost one half. Then he told us that this war, counting the expenditure which he anticipates will be the minimum for the present year, will cost £60,000,000. He has been impressing upon us what was done in the cases of the French War and the Crimean War, but is he now going to raise one half? Instead of proposing to raise this one half he proposes to raise £14,000,000, and that is not one half, in fact, it is not one quarter. Why did he not stand to those principles which he so much admired in Mr. Pitt? I think he will admit that there is as light difference between his principles and his practice. He laid down another sound principle, that everybody should pay proportionately towards the cost of this war, and he made a difference between the income tax on the rich and indirect taxes which are supposed to weigh more heavily upon the poor. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned tea. Tea costs roundly 1s. per pound with the duty. The right hon. gentleman increases the duty on tea by twopence; in other words, he increases the cost of tea to the poor by one sixth. Then he went on to tax beer and spirits, and said he was going to levy 1s. upon a barrel of beer. Now, what does a barrel of beer cost? It costs 36s.; that is to say, he only increases the tax on beer by one thirty-sixth. Whisky costs about £1 a gallon with the duty, and he adds 6d. to that, which only increases the tax upon it by one fortieth. So that the poor tea drinker is obliged to pay one sixth more on his beverage, the beer drinker one thirty-sixth more, and the spirit drinker one fortieth more. I want to know why this distinction is made between the person who drinks tea and the person who drinks beer or spirits. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman stand to his grand principle that every person is to be taxed proportionately for this war? I hope, for my part, there will be a division against this increase in the tax on tea. I am opposed to it myself, and I stand to that fine old principle "a free breakfast table." [Ministerial laughter.] We have actually now got to this point, that absolutely the soundest principle of Liberalism is laughed and jeered at. Reading an article in The Times, I saw this principle referred to as absolute clap-trap. That is the difference between us, for Gentlemen
  118
  opposite think it is clap-trap, while we think it is a sound principle, but we will leave the country to judge between us. I have always voted for a reduction of the duty on tea, and I have always urged that there should be no duty on tea at all. There is a wide difference between drinkers of beer and spirits and the drinkers of tea. Beer and spirits are certainly luxuries, for nobody is obliged to drink them, but practically almost every person is obliged to drink tea or coffee. Tea is essentially the beverage of the very poor, and it is the beverage of every honest old woman in the country. Tea is a domestic institution which exists in almost every family throughout the country. Even taking the poorest people in our workhouses, tea is what the old women want, and there is very often a dispute among the guardians whether they should have more or less of it. If you add this twopence there will be a large number of highly respectable poor persons who will have to go without this very essential beverage, and I really think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done well to have left it alone. We have always protested against any duty on tea, and we ought to protest against it if we remain true to that grand old principle "the free breakfast table." The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to raise £6,000,000 by the income tax. I almost regret that when the right hon. Gentleman dwelt so long upon the exemptions to the income tax he did not seize the opportunity of making that tax more fair to those who have to pay it. I should have thought that he would have made the tax larger upon incomes derived from investments and less upon incomes derived from trades and professions. This would have been an exceedingly good opportunity to do so. The income tax ought to be paid upon the spending income, and until you make this distinction between income from investments and income from trades and professions the injustice will remain. I notice that hon. Members opposite have not been very enthusiastic over this Budget, and there was a sad silence amongst them when they heard that these poor old women were to be taxed on their tea. Coming events cast their shadows before, and everyone has united in telling the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they cordially agree with him in thinking that the Transvaal millionaires ought to pay a very great deal

  119
  of money towards this war. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me told us that they were prepared to pay willingly and cheerfully. They may have virtues of which I am ignorant, but certainly if they wish to pay increased taxation they have more virtues than ordinary human beings.
  MR. BARTLEY: What I said was that they would cheerfully pay for a free, proper, and pure government.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What is a pure government? I am afraid if I attempt to discuss the abstract question of what a pure government is that I will be called to order. I will only say that I would be perfectly happy to vote for any proposal that these millionaires should pay any amount of money for the benefits they have derived from the war. I saw, in the report of the Goldfields Company's meeting, that they anticipated making by the war two and a half millions per annum. If that is so, there must be plenty of money, and I hope we shall shear them as closely as we possibly can, whether they like it or not. I have only risen to express my admiration for a great deal of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in doing so I ventured to make these slight criticisms on the manner in which he has carried out his own excellent principles.
  SIR J. A. WILLOX: I desire to say, without discussing general principles, that I think the experience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be that tinkering with the tobacco duty is a dangerous and mischievous policy. For nearly sixty years the tobacco duty remained fixed at 3s. 3d. per pound, and during that period there was a gradual and steady development of the trade which yielded constantly increasing revenue to the Exchequer. The first break in that long period was made by Sir Stafford Northcote, when he raised the duty by 4d. The result was most injurious. He checked the progress and development of the trade, and the trade did not yield the revenue expected by the Exchequer. Since then there has been a tendency not only to alter the duty, but to take charge of the processes of manufacture. These experiments have not been at all successful. First of all moisture was limited to 35 per cent., and afterwards to 30 per cent.,
  120
  and now there is another change of duty. I think, perhaps, there is no stronger evidence of the purely theoretical and experimental character of these changes than in the last two Budgets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1898 the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated that there would be a great increase in the consumption of tobacco, and he predicted that there would be an improvement in the quality of the tobacco sold to the public, and also a reduction in the price. Last year, after having a year's experience, he said:
  "I do urge the Committee to give the experiment a fair trial in the interest of the revenue. I do assure them of my complete conviction that if they will do they will reap from it a golden harvest in the future by increased consumption."*
  Now, as a matter of fact, these confident hopes have been entirely disappointed. There has been no increase of a substantial character in the consumption, or at any rate no increase sufficient to compensate for a reduction in the duty, and I think all experience tends to show that it would be much better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have continued a uniform system of fixed duty without disturbing the trade, or in any way attempting to regulate or control it. With reference to the system now promulgated, of adding fourpence to the duty, I think it is unfortunate. The figure will be entirely indivisible among the masses of the people who are large consumers of tobacco. As a rule the working man buys his tobacco by the ounce or the half ounce, and we know that fourpence on sixteen ounces will enable neither the manufacturer nor the retailer to divide it up into ounces or half ounces. An hon. Gentleman suggests that a farthing per ounce would be the exact equivalent of fourpence per pound, but all experience shows that farthings are not in practice current coins of the realm, and it will therefore be impossible to divide the sum. There is one respect, at all events, in which the trade ought to regard the present arrangement with satisfaction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not again attempted to alter the modes and regulations of manufacturers. Two years ago there was a change in the limit of moisture, and the trade is just now beginning to settle down
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxix., p. 1021.

  121
  to the new condition of things after having been engaged on a very difficult and complex problem, and it ought to be grateful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he has changed the duty, has not attempted to aggravate that change by interfering with the process of manufacture. I think those who calculate that this change in duty will be a direct benefit to the working man will be grievously disappointed. It is more than probable that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased the duty by an amount which in theory is equal only to a farthing per ounce, in practice the consumer may be required to pay an extra halfpenny per ounce. This is not, I think, the desire of the manufacturers, but at the same time it is difficult to see how a retailer will be able to practically divide the amount among small buyers. I hope that the experience of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and of his predecessors will be taken as a caution against unduly interfering with the trade. We know from a very long experience that with a fixed duty there had been progress in the development of business, and that changeable and capricious innovations have not proved beneficial to the public, but have proved detrimental to the revenue and inconvenient to the manufacturer. At the same time, I am bound to say that the change now proposed is as equitable as could have been devised, seeing that it is desired to impose on all classes of the community a proportion of the increased taxation. It seems to me that those who use tobacco are fair subjects for taxation, and whether the amount is 4d. or more, they at any rate will not object to it. My criticism is that the amount of the change is such that it is not divisible among the great mass of consumers, and that either the consumer will have to pay an increased amount or the manufacturer will be unduly taxed in his production.
  MR. KEARLEY: As regards the complaint of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, it would be well for the Committee to remember what happened when the remission of the tobacco duty took place. The hon. Member complains that the present amount will not be divisible, and that the consumer or else the manufacturer will have to pay. Let us consider what has happened during the last few years. The tobacco manufacturers absolutely appro-
  122
  priated in the most barefaced manner 75 per cent. of the remission which was kindly handed over to them as a free gift by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The consumers had no advantage whatever, and of all the increases in duty in this Budget there is none which I am more pleased to see than the increase in the tobacco duty. The position will now be that the consumer will be no worse off, and the manufacturer will have to pay. The manufacturer has appropriated the remission for the last two years, and it was the coolest and most deliberate appropriation I have ever heard of. Within a week of the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago all these great manufacturers of tobacco met together. I think the hon. Gentleman was present at that meeting—
  SIR J. A. WILLOX: I was not.
  MR. KEARLEY: Some member of the firm with which the hon. Member is connected was present. Three meetings were held almost simultaneously, and the point which the hon. Gentleman takes now that it was impossible to give the concession to the public because it could not be divided was taken, and the manufacturers agreed to keep it themselves. The hon. Member for Northampton complained about the increase on tea, and he held up the boon of a free breakfast table. A free breakfast table is a very nice thing when remissions are being distributed, but it would be impossible to urge a free breakfast table when such a large amount of taxation is required for the purposes of the war. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his courage in distributing the whole of this taxation over all classes of the community. That is one of the most cheerful features of this Budget. From my experience I would say that there will be no objection whatever to the tea duty. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] I exclude Ireland because I am not in a position to speak regarding it, but there will be no ill feeling at all in this country, and everyone will gladly pay. You cannot have war without paying taxation, and I think the distribution is a very fair one; if only one class were taxed they would be certain to be grumbling. I would also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having wisely kept to well-tried revenue producers, not diving to the right or to the left for items

  123
  on which to levy taxation. He has very wisely kept to those revenue producers which are certain to realise expectations, and as regards which with existing machinery the cost of collection will not be increased. Of course, putting on or taking off duty sometimes upsets a trade, but we have to put up with that. To impose new duties, however, such as on sugar, would create a very strong feeling. The right hon. Gentleman was very wise, I think, and I must congratulate him on adhering to the regular revenue producers. The position as between direct and indirect taxation has been almost one of equality, the direct taxation being 48 per cent. and the indirect 52 percent. of revenue collected. Now the balance will be altered and indirect taxation will in future realise five and a half millions, whereas direct taxation will realise six and a half millions, which is not, however, a very serious difference. The only criticism I have to make refers to the stamps on produce, brokers' contracts. I anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman will not realise £150,000 on produce brokers' contracts. A stockbroker's contract must pass with each transaction; it is the basis of the whole thing; but there is no obligation on either side with reference to a produce brokers' contract; it is merely a matter of courtesy between broker and dealer, and the effect of the change will be that no contracts will be passed, and consequently the estimate will not be realised. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise the difference between a stockbroker's contract and a produce-broker's contract. The former must pass and is indispensable, but the latter is purely optional. It is the custom, I admit, but I think contracts will not in future pass if they have to be stamped. That is an item which the right hon. Gentleman would be almost wise in striking out. I think it will not realise £20,000, and that the right hon. Gentleman's expectations will be disappointed. My views with reference to indirect taxation have changed materially since labour has been so well employed and wages have risen throughout the country generally. The working classes now expect to contribute something. Taking the whole Budget proposals in their entirety, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has hit a very happy medium, and that everyone will be satisfied. As to the
  124
  South African question, there is a general feeling in the country that South Africa ought to contribute something to the expenses of the war. It is somewhat premature to suggest as to how it should be levied—one must catch his hare before he can cook it. I do not think, however, that the matter will be overlooked, and if the South African contribution takes the form of a considerable sum annually, it ought to be sufficient to pay the interest on the money borrowed for the war. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his Budget, which I think will meet with approval throughout the length and breadth of the land.
  *MR. McCRAE: I desire to enter my humble protest against one or two of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have also one or two suggestions to make. I am new to the proceedings of the House and new to its Ministers, but after reading an article in the Morning Post this morning, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer was described as a man of flexile policy, I thought there was some chance of my suggestions being considered. I must confess, however, that the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman is one that does not indicate he bears the character which that paper gave him. I think many of his proposals are proposals worthy of a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the right hon. Gentleman made a financial statement in October he laid down the lines of his future financial policy with regard to the war, and he indicated that those lines would not be affected either by the extent or duration of the war. He said—
  "I have in what I have said formed perhaps an unduly favourable anticipation of the end of this war. It may be so, but even if my anticipations should not be realised, even if we should meet with reverses, and if the war has to be prolonged, and if the sum voted on Friday should be but a part of what we shall have to pay, then we shall appeal to the patriotism of the people next April, and we shall rely that those who have supported us so loyally in the prosecution of this war will not fail us when the proper time comes to pay the bill."
  I wish to analyse the present proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the light of that declaration, and I wish to ask whether he is relying sufficiently on the patriotism of the people. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have approached his Budget to-

  125
  night under the shadow of a great crime—that financial Jameson raid which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Sinking Fund last year, which, unlike its prototype was unfortunately successful, and by which he immediately annexed £2,000,000 for the contributions to the Sinking Fund, for the reduction of the National Debt. I rather think the right hon. Gentleman must regret the action he then took.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Not at all.
  *MR. McCRAE: Then I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is acting on the apostolic principle that he is sinning that grace may much more abound. In the position we are now faced with, I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not look back with regret on the course he then took. The right Gentleman himself described the Sinking Fund as a reserve in time of emergency. Surely when he reduced that reserve he was doing something which handicapped him in producing his Budget. He ought to feel that he would be all the better if he had that £2,000,000 now. I also think that he aggravated his offence by anticipating the revenues which are to fall in. He anticipated the terminal annuities which were to fall in in 1902, and also the Chancery annuities which were to fall in in 1904.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I did not anticipate the Chancery annuities; but the hon. Member is quite right as regards the other annuities.
  *MR. McCRAE: The right hon. Gentleman gave these as his reasons why the contribution to the Sinking Fund should be reduced by two millions; but I was very much surprised to-night to find that the same sums were mentioned as an excuse for not making provision for the re-payment of the amount which the right hon. Gentleman is going to borrow. Now, I think that is a departure from the principles of sound finance, and if you make a departure from any principle, sooner or later it will bring its own punishment; and in none sooner than in the region of finance. I think the right hon. Gentleman has met to-night with a certain part of that punishment. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that when he was gaily drawing his bills on posterity, he little
  126
  thought before the financial year was closed he would require to draw this larger Bill for sixty millions. Now, what is the nature of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted to-day? I think he is on sound lines when he says that all classes ought to bear a share of this war expenditure; but I do think that the allocation of that expenditure might have been somewhat different. The addition of 2d. per lb. on tea is a proposal to which, I think, those who sit on this side of the House, if they are true to the principles they have always professed, should give their most strenuous opposition. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of putting 2d. per lb. on tea, might have met his views with regard to taxing fairly the different sections of the community by taxing the classes through the income tax, and the masses through the liquor duties and tobacco. If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed an additional shilling per gallon on spirits and an extra 2d. on tobacco that would have given him £1,550,000 against £1,800,000 which he will get from the duty on tea. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that it would be an act of justice to abolish the tea duty altogether. I quite concede that the present time, when we are levying new and increased taxes, is not the time to propose a reduction in any duty; but I do say that that would be only an act of justice, and one with which some future Chancellor of the Exchequer must deal. I think the House is entitled to some more information in regard to the proposal to raise thirty-five millions by way of loan. I remember in the autumn session the right hon. Member for West Monmouth declared that no proposal had ever been made to raise money without making some provision for its redemption. I was astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no such provision to-night. The right hon. Gentleman is depending, no doubt, on getting some of the money from the Transvaal. Still, I think it hardly fair to borrow thirty-five millions without making any provision at all for its liquidation, more especially when the Sinking Fund is to be suspended to the extent of four millions this year. I would also submit that the increase of our ordinary expenditure is so alarming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have taken a still bolder course than he has proposed to the

  127
  House. In his Budget statement last year he stated that the increase in ordinary expenditure had been nineteen millions in four years, and that if this rate of increase is to continue Parliament and the country must make up their minds not only to a large increase in the existing taxes, but also to the discovery of new and productive sources of revenue. These were weighty utterances, and I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have come a little nearer to new proposals which some Chancellor of the Exchequer must deal with. The right hon. Gentleman has a new source of revenue lying ready to his hand; and if it is not tapped by him it will be by some future Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has already been indicated that town lands ought to be taxed. [Laughter.] I know that some hon. Members look upon that as a visionary proposal; but all proposals are visionary until they take shape and form; and while this country is slow to consider new methods of taxation I think the House will find that the country is in advance of the opinions of politicians on this matter, and that the people are ready, and will press, for a more equitable distribution of taxation. This is a matter with which Parliament will be forced to deal. We have allowed one class in the country to shift their obligations on to the shoulders of others. It was done by Sir Robert Peel in the case of the Corn Laws, and it was done by the Agricultural Rating Act. Here let me say there is another source from which the right hon. Gentleman might draw, because when a discussion took place in this House on the taxation of town lands, the First Lord of the Admiralty said that the Agricultural Rating Bill was only going to last for five years. I hope it will not be renewed. There again, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might look for a source of revenue. This question is one of enormous possibilities, of which it is almost impossible to foresee the end. We know that the land tax is levied on an old valuation of 1698, and that it is 4s. in the £ on that valuation; but if you were to put the tax on the true valuation of the land it would bring in about forty millions per annum. Now, there is a source of revenue which I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel deeply indebted to Members on this side of the House for bringing before
  128
  him. A tax of 2s. in the £ on the true value of land will bring in an annual revenue of twenty millions. This is not the time to discuss the question of the taxation of land values—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—but I put that before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I say that any gentleman who occupies the position which the right hon. Gentleman does, is in duty bound to look to all the available sources of revenue, especially when the country is met with a large demand on its taxable capacity. I had hoped that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would have been more suited to the temper of the nation, and that we should have had a bolder scheme of taxation adapted to the nation's need, and worthy of this great Empire.
  MR. COHEN: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the courageous and statesmanlike Budget which he has submitted to us this afternoon, and I entirely approve of what I consider his sound decision in asking the House to place their confidence in him, and to give him entire liberty in regard to the placing of the loan he proposes to raise. I believe the House and the country will approve of his desire to attract small investors to become fund-holders of the State. We would all be glad if small investors were to become more of fund-holders and less of depositors. I wish to say a word on behalf of a class for whom we have not heard a word to-day; I mean the income tax payers. I do not wish to reduce the demand which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make on the millionaires and the rich income tax payers. That is a class of the community which neither deserves, nor, I believe, asks for any sympathy. But there is no class of the community which in times of peace has to pay to the State a thirtieth of its income, and in times of war a twentieth of its income, like the income tax payers. I do not say that 1s. in the £ is a large income tax in this unhappy war period. I entirely approve of the distribution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made of the taxes he desires to impose. In my opinion he has distributed them equitably on all classes of the community, and by all classes of the community will these taxes be cheerfully and contentedly paid. But I do hope that when my right

  129
  hon. friend occupies the position he now adorns in more happy—I cannot say more prosperous—times he will remember that he has now added 4d. in the £ to that tax.
  *MR. MADDISON: I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, who spoke with an assurance which I personally envied as to the opinion of the working classes in regard to this war, and the payment of the costs of this war. I do not deny his right to do so, but I think that his estimate of their zeal and enthusiasm to bear the burdens of this war is slightly exaggerated. To him everything seems the best in the best of all possible worlds. Speaking for himself, I think he was quite right to do so. I should probably do the same under similar circumstances. Still, the hon. Member, who had described the anxiety of the working classes to be taxed for the war, at once assured the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had made one serious mistake in increasing the stamp duty on produce contracts. He said he felt sure, speaking from his own experience as a business man, that that source of revenue would nearly fail, because it was not absolutely necessary to make these contracts, and therefore he said, "You may be sure these business men will not pay the stamp duty." Now, I think that is an exalted form of patriotism that we all can appreciate. With all respect to the hon. Member, as the representative of commercial men—who, it seems, will dodge the duty on produce contracts for the love of their country—I regard him as better qualified to speak for them than to voice in a very general and confident manner the opinion of the working classes of the country. I am a little agitated about the peculiar things we get on this side of the House occasionally. But that is not all. The hon. Member, with the same confidence, expressed his delight that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had depended upon the regular revenue producer. There is financial reform for you! There is the old rut if you like! Let the broad back of labour and industry bear the regular burden of the revenue! Good sound Tory economics on the wrong side of the House! But is not this talk about bearing the equality of the burden of this war a little fallacious? I am not going to say for the moment whether the
  130
  benefits received from this war will be equal over all classes; but look for a moment as to whether the burden of taxation is equal under ordinary conditions. If it is taken for granted, as the hon. Member does, that the present system of taxation is so very fair and equal, then by no means allow the burden on the regular producer of revenue to be relieved. But I submit that times like these might be used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for striking out on some new and permanent lines by which you might readjust the burden of taxation. I am no authority on finance, I need not say; but there are illustrious predecessors in the office—I say it sincerely—so worthily held by the right hon. Gentleman who have taken times of stress for proposing reforms which have lasted through the years of peace. There is not a man in this House who heard the able statement of the right hon. Gentleman with greater pleasure than I did. I also had read some of the fantastic proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. But there are hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who have remedies of their own which would interfere with the trade and industry of the country, and I therefore was very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman had not been led in his Budget proposals into these dangerous byeways. This question of equality of burden must be looked at a little closer. We have had for five years the great advantage of a Tory Government with a powerful majority. ["Hear, hear!" from the Government benches.] That is right; you would not be there if you did not agree with that. But I want to appeal to someone else besides hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have had five years of Tory Government with a great majority. Well, how many taxes have been remitted? We have been told over and over again that these have been five years of almost unexampled prosperity. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] Exactly; our great trade has grown up by leaps and bounds; the condition of affairs has been good. Well, if we are not going to get a re-adjustment of taxation under these circumstances, when shall we get it? [An HON. MEMBER: There is no taxation.] Sir, I am in the House of Commons, and not in a debating society in a public-house. I say we have had five years of unexampled prosperity, and, with the one exception of the miserable failure in the

  131
  case of the tobacco duty, not a single penny has been remitted in taxation. If we are not going to get remission of taxation and re-adjustment of burdens in times of prosperity, when are we going to got them? This is a very serious matter, but it is not half the case. Not only has there been no remission of taxation or a lightening of the burdens on the bent back of a single labourer in this London of yours, with his wages of £1 per week, but in order that the Government might convince the working man absolutely and completely that they had befooled him with their promises, they are actually giving doles to the richer classes of the community. A large part of these doles are going to the landowners, and the Tory Government have actually relieved taxation in the very places where they ought to have increased it. After all, this is a fitting conclusion to a Government like this. They began with promises to the working classes, and have ended with burdensome taxation on them. When I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement there was one consoling feature in it, on which we, on this side of the House, can congratulate ourselves. He admitted that the right hon. Member for West Monmouth by his great Finance Act had tapped a source of revenue that would never have been tapped by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and that there was this year an increase of £2,250,000 in the death duties. I venture to say that when people talk about laying the burden of taxation equally, let them get the revenue returns and see what proportion of the people do not come under the death duties at all. The great masses of the people have not a hundred pounds to leave when they die. These are the real Uitlanders. They have no land and no property, and although they love their country, it is not for what the country does for them. They have to be somewhere, and they are here. Yes; and it is that class which has ultimately to bear the burden of taxation. The capitalist can easily adapt himself to almost any situation; but the workman, and especially the poor workman not protected by his union, for whom I am particularly speaking, has out of his misery to bear the equal burden of a war which will not benefit him or his children one penny, and from which you will not get satisfaction or national honour. This is a capitalists' war; let them pay
  132
  for it, and then there might be equality of burden with equality of benefit. The hon. Member for North Islington said that with stable and just government in the Transvaal it might bear some of the cost of this War. Mr. Hays Hammond, a great authority, used precisely the same words. But what did he say would happen? The wages of the Kaffirs were to be reduced by half, and in a short time the wages of white labour would be reduced also. My class cannot own gold mines, they can only work in them, and that is the result. Now the hon. Member for Islington is going to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit half or the whole of the death duties in the cases of the officers who have died in South Africa. The chivalry of our officer's has been worthy of their traditions, but is not this an index of the spirit of the times when hon. Members become enthusiastic about the widows of officers, but how about the widow of the Reservist, who may never have received more than a guinea in his life? You dragged him away to fight a war which he knew nothing about, and you give his widow a more pittance. I am astonished that the hon. Member could make such a suggestion without coupling with it that some substantial assistance should be given to those who, of all the sufferers by this war, have to bear the heaviest burden. The taxation of this country is unequal and presses hardest where it can be the least easily borne, and when hon. Gentlemen talk of direct and indirect taxation they must compare taxation with the amount of income a man receives. A shilling to a dock labourer in London is more to him than many pounds to some Gentlemen in this House. The Transvaal committed the crime of making gold mines pay, but you not only make the poor of this country pay in bone and sinew but in money as well. It used to be a Liberal tradition that in taxation you should differentiate between necessities and luxuries, and in this respect I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have avoided what I must respectfully call a blot on his Budget. Tea is a necessity of the poor, and not alone of the poor, but their children. No man would like to see a child drink beer or whisky, but all are glad to see them drink tea, and by imposing a further tax upon tea the right hon. Gentleman has laid a great burden on the multitude of the children of the poor, who have to suffer silently,

  133
  having no voice in this House. If there is a division upon the proposed extra duty on tea, I shall vote against it.
  MR. J. W. WILSONdesired to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget and the manner in which he had explained it to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had brought home the fact that war could not be made without taxation, and he had distributed that taxation in a very far way. One of the best checks to the patriotism of the nation was that a war should be directly connected with the taxation of the country; but that fact had been almost forgotten by the present generation. In this particular case the nation as a whole was ready, if not willing, to respond to the call made upon it, and on that account it was exceedingly satisfactory to find that the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to raise a great portion of the cost of this war by direct taxation, though no doubt in that direction he might have gone a great deal further. Speaking of the conduct of the colonies in regard to the war, the hon. Gentleman hoped that it would not be long before some Chancellor of the Exchequer, if not the right hon. Gentleman then occupying the position, would see his way to recognise the loyalty and patriotism of the colonies in some substantial manner, and suggested that colonial loans should be constituted trustees securities.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: My contribution to the debate shall be of the briefest possible character, chiefly because it seems to me that very few words are necessary to make clearly understood by the House the attitude the Irish Members take on this question. I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, and, like the hon. Member who has spoken from this side of the House, I was rather amused at the confident way in which he spoke of the desire of the working classes to bear this additional taxation. Of course I have no right and no desire to speak in the name of the working classes of this country. I may be allowed, however, to say this: If I were an Englishman or an English Member who approved of this war I would give a hearty support to the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe, for myself, that the working classes of this country, speaking of them as a whole, do approve of this war. I may be entirely
  134
  wrong in that; it is only an expression of opinion, but it is some consolation to me, holding that opinion, to hear speeches like that delivered by the right hon. Gentleman near me, who, as far as I can make out, has more right and title to speak in the name of the working classes of this country than the hon. Member for Devonport. The position of Ireland in this matter is perfectly plain. We are asked to vote additional taxation in order to carry on a war which the overwhelming majority of the Irish people regard as immoral and unjust. And the position of Irish Members in this House would be ridiculous if on an occasion of this kind they, by every means in their power, did not protest against a Budget of this kind. That is the first position we take. We object to this additional load of taxation, because we are against the war, and on that broad ground we are bound by voice and vote to oppose this Budget. But, Sir, we take another ground of opposition altogether. The hon. Member who has spoken just now near me ridiculed the idea that the burden of taxation fell equally upon all classes in this country. If that be true of England, it is still more true of Ireland. What is the fact? Of the total taxation of Great Britain, only 48 per cent., as I recollect the figures, is indirect taxation, but in Ireland the proportion of indirect taxation is 78 per cent. Therefore, whenever you increase, as you propose by this Budget, the taxation in the way you now propose, you hit the poorer classes in Ireland to a larger extent than you hit the poorer classes in England. Some few years ago a Royal Commission in this country, composed of the most eminent economists and statisticians of the day, gave a verdict on the question of the taxation of Ireland to the effect that Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of nearly £3,000,000 a year. At that time the taxation of Ireland was only seven and a half millions. During the years that have passed, the taxation has steadily increased. This session during the debate on the Address an Amendment was moved raising this question, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply founded himself upon figures which showed that the total taxation of Ireland was something over £8,000,000 a year. This Budget proposes to increase the load of taxation in Ireland to over £9,000,000 a year, and it is no answer to us to say that the taxation of Great

  135
  Britain is at the same time proportionately increased, if it were true; because while during these years the prosperity of Great Britain has increased by leaps and bounds, admittedly the prosperity of Ireland and the population of Ireland have declined. No Englishman could have listened without a thrill of pride to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the enormous strides in industrial activity and prosperity made by this country during the last few years. By increasing the taxation on spirits you are perpetuating and increasing the injustice which originally was put upon Ireland in 1853 by the legislation of Mr. Gladstone. At that time, when Ireland was suffering from the effects of the famine, which had destroyed her prosperity and thinned her population, this legislation, at one fell swoop, doubled the taxation. From that day to this it has gone on from bad to worse; and to-day by putting this additional tax on Irish spirits you are perpetuating and increasing this injustice. The same thing applies to tea and to the increase in the tobacco duty. I think myself that the fairest way of providing the cost of this war, from an English point of view, is by the income tax, but what is the position in Ireland? It was first applied to Ireland in 1853 by Mr. Gladstone, who expressly stated that it was only to apply to Ireland for seven years, and that during those seven years she would get compensation for the imposition of the tax by the consolidated annuities. The consolidated annuities amounted to an annual payment by Ireland of £250,000 a year, and the first year the income tax was applied to Ireland she had to pay half a million. The income tax has never been taken off Ireland since, although something like 30 millions of money has been raised to pay that tax in the country, and yet there is now a proposal to increase it. It is true that the amount of increased income tax raised in Ireland by these proposals is only some £300,000 or £400,000 a year, which in itself is a proof of the poverty of the country, and the fact that this has been one of those sources of income which has gone on diminishing year after year is another proof of the declining prosperity of the country. For all these reasons, it is impossible for the Irish Members to take any other attitude than that of irreconcilable hostility to this Budget. I do not think it possible that
  136
  any occasion could arise in this House which could mark in a more clear and definite way the position of Irish Members and the position which Ireland occupies in this country than that there are eighty-three or eighty-four Irish Members, out of a total of 100, separating themselves formally from the policy of the Empire, and from the policy of the Government of the Empire. The attitude of Ireland on occasions of this kind ought to teach a lesson to the Unionist politicians. I know their argument is that because we take this isolated position, therefore we ought not to be given these rights of self-government which exist in the colonies; but surely a more reasonable lesson for them to draw from this attitude which exists—I am not here to say I am glad it exists, I merely point to it—is to say that the policy which put an end to that state of disaffection and isolation in the colonies ought to be applied to Ireland, so as to bring an end to that state of affairs in that country. Our position is perfectly plain. I do not desire to prolong the debate. It is useless beating the air in this manner. We know that we are face to face with a majority of 150 on that side of the House, eked out by I don't know how many on this. We know we are in a small minority; we are a voice crying in the wilderness, and all we can do is to make that voice heard, make our protest, and make our position perfectly plain. There is nothing to be gained by simply prolonging the debate an hour or or two or three, and I content myself with the few words I have said, hoping that we may be able, at any rate, in the division lobby on each of those resolutions to explain and make clear to the country how completely Ireland is isolated away from the general sentiments with regard to this war, and how completely we de-desire to perpetuate the protest on the question of the over-taxation of Ireland. I beg to move this Amendment to the resolution, "To leave out the words 6d. and insert 4d."
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member moves that Amendment now, it will preclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer from replying to the points raised in the course of the debate.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he had no desire to do such a thing. He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment, and move it at another time.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing the Amendment. There are very few points on which I think I need trouble the Committee. In the first place, I thank the Committee generally for the manner in which my proposals have been received. Of course, I anticipated criticism in some quarters, and particularly that from the quarter for which the hon. Member for Waterford speaks there might be objection to certain of my proposals. But I am glad to find that there has been a general consensus of opinion that the principles upon which I have acted have been sound, and that apart from details, on which we never enter on the first evening of the Budget discussion, there is, generally speaking, approval of my scheme of new taxation. I will not attempt to enter upon the very large question to which the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Waterford referred. The attitude of Ireland towards the rest of the United Kingdom is unquestionably a very important and a very difficult subject, and it raises issues which have very often occupied the attention of Parliament, and very possibly will occupy it again. But I do not think it is quite appropriate to an ordinary debate upon the introduction of the Budget. The hon. Member objects to my proposals of taxation, first on the ground that he and his friends are against the war. That is, of course, a very fair ground of objection to any taxation which is avowedly intended for the purpose of carrying on the war; but at the same time the hon. Member will excuse me if I do not enter at length into his arguments, because there is obviously an irreconcilable difference of opinion between us on the subject. Then he went on to say, as a further objection to my proposals, that they were unequal to Ireland because of the great increase of the prosperity of England and the great decrease in the prosperity of Ireland. There will be another opportunity, I understand, upon which we can argue that question; but it has never been proved, at any rate to my satisfaction, that there is such a thing as a decrease of prosperity in Ireland.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Relative decrease.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Ah, yes; but I believe the prosperity of Ireland has largely increased in recent years, and
  138
  when the proper time comes I think I shall be able to show some facts, and possibly some statistics, in proof of that assertion. I do not quite see why, for instance, such thriving industries as exist in Belfast and its neighbourhood, or as exist in Guinness's Brewery and in Jameson's Distillery in Dublin, should be exempted from the same income tax which is levied in England. That seems to me to be a point raised by the hon. Member for which there is no logical argument whatever. I admit that, as a whole, Ireland is not represented by industries of this kind. As a whole, Ireland is an agricultural country, but there are large parts of England, and there are larger parts of Scotland, which are purely agricultural also, and I know parts of Scotland and the Western Islands myself which, I believe, are infinitely poorer than any part of Ireland. Really this question is one between the industrial, so to speak, part of the country and the agricultural part of the country, much more than between Ireland and England and Ireland and Scotland, or anything of that kind. However, I think the hon. Member will excuse me if I do not enter further into this matter to-night. I have noted two points affecting Ireland which have been mentioned in the course of the debate this evening into which I will very gladly inquire. The hon. Member for North Louth asked me whether I would, in increasing the duty on tobacco, consider the removal of any restriction which would prevent the growing of tobacco in Ireland. There is nothing I should be more glad to do than to encourage the growth of tobacco in Ireland, and I can promise the hon. Member that if this matter is brought before me, as I hope it will be brought before me, by the Irish Board of Agriculture, I will most readily have that matter thoroughly examined, and if anything can be done, and I daresay possibly something may be done, consistently with proper regard to the revenue from tobacco, to remove any restriction which would prevent the growing of tobacco in Ireland, I shall very gladly try to deal with the matter. The hon. Member for West Clare, who is interested in an important industry in Dublin, complained bitterly, as I understand, of the unfair competition of foreign spirits with Irish spirits. I am no lover of foreign spirits at all. I believe that, as a rule, they are comparatively bad, and I am glad to think that last year there was

  139
  a considerable decrease in their importation into this country. But this year the importation has largely increased again. The hon. Member complains that they come into unfair competition by fraudulent misrepresentation with spirits distilled in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member will be good enough to have the details of his complaint placed before me, I will undertake to inquire into it and see whether anything can be done. The hon. Member for Leicester dealt with the duties on tobacco and tea, and pressed me for some relaxation of the duty on the cheaper kinds of tobacco and tea, and some increase of the duty upon the dearer kinds of tobacco and tea. That would be practically, I suspect, a return to the old system of ad valorem duties. I am afraid the system of ad valorem duties with regard to articles of this kind has been tried thoroughly, and has been found impracticable and unworkable. There are distinctions, of course, in the duty on different kinds of tobacco, but whether it be possible to alter the tariff so as to extend those distinctions or to regulate the matter in any way which shall, without causing the old evils to arise again, give effect to the hon. Member's wish that the duty on tobacco, which certainly is extremely heavy on the cheaper kinds, shall to some extent vary with the value of the article, is a matter on which I am very doubtful. I do not at all expect that it will be possible to do anything in this Budget, because it will require very great consideration and consultation with the trade. But I think the present system may be capable of some alteration, and I shall be glad, at any rate, to see if anything can be done. With tea, I think it would be more difficult. I am speaking in the presence of hon. Members who understand the tea trade much better than I do, but I very much doubt whether it would be possible to introduce anything like ad valorem duties with regard to tea. I know there is a great difference in the value of the dearer and cheaper kinds of tea, but, as I said, I am afraid such a system has been thoroughly tried before and found wanting, and it would not do to return to it. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who has evidently given much study to financial subjects, asked me whether I regretted the reduction of the fixed debt charge by £2,000,000 last year. No, Sir, I am entirely
  140
  unrepentant. Suppose I had not carried that reduction, two millions more would have been expended in the reduction of the National Debt. But, as a matter of fact, the two millions were expended in paying the expenses of the war. When we are but war it is pretty well time to cease paying off old debts, and so, for the same reasons as those for which I now propose of temporary suspension of the Sinking Fund for the year, I am bound to say I am glad that this two millions went towards the expenses of the war. The hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool criticises not very favourably my proposals with regard to tobacco. I do not gather that my hon. friend suggested that I could have made any other proposals than those which I have made. My hon. friend, I think, said he was well acquainted with the tobacco trade, and that, although the alteration I propose is considerable, yet it is not divisible among the consumers, although I should have thought 4d. per lb. is divisible among small fractions of a lb. I do not know whether my hon. friend is in the House, but if he is I should like to know whether he wishes me to consider the question of adding 6d. instead of 4d. to tobacco. If I receive any representations on the subject from those interested in the industry, and if it can be shown to me that the change would be better, not only in the interest of the trade, but in the interest of the consumer, of course I should be quite ready to adopt the alteration. As it is, I think I must agree with the remark that the change, as it had to be made, is equitable. A good many Members on both sides of the House in the course of the debate have referred to the future imposition of the cost of the war on the Transvaal. Well, Sir, I have already stated, in October last, my view on the subject as plainly as I think it could be stated in the existing state of affairs. Our troops are not in the Transvaal. We hope for an early and successful conclusion of the war, and the Committee may be quite certain that, when the war is brought to that conclusion, we shall not forgot—and least of all I shall not forget—anything that has been said as to the relief of the taxpayers of this country, as I think they ought to be relieved of at least a considerable portion of the cost of the war. [An HON. MEMBER: The whole of it.] Well, if possible, the whole of it. I think I

  141
  cannot add anything at this moment to what I have said on that subject. I think it would be quite premature to do what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth has suggested, and to state the kind of security we should take for the mode in which the payment should be made. All that will have to be settled when the proper time comes, and I can only say now that it shall not escape our attention. I think now I have alluded to the principal points which seem to me to require attention, and I have only to express the hope that the Committee will be good enough to do what is invariably done on these occasions, on the first night of the Budget—namely, to pass the resolutions in regard to the indirect taxation of dutiable subjects which will come into force to-morrow morning, and I shall be happy to arrange for the resumption of the debate, which could probably be best done by putting down the income tax resolution.
  MR. KEARLEY: Will you kindly explain what is meant by £1,900,000 arrears of the income tax?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There are always considerable arrears in the quarter between 1st April and 1st July, and this £1,900,000 will be the arrears of the additional 4d. for 1900–1901. The taxation be-
  longs really to 1900–1901. I don't know whether I might also ask the Committee to pass the resolution this evening with regard to the loan. If there is no objection to that it would be more convenient, because it would enable me to make the necessary arrangements in a matter that should not be long delayed. I am in the hands of the Committee.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: If my hon. friend (Mr. J. Redmond) proposes to move a reduction from sixpence to fourpence with regard to the tea duty, I shall not be able to support the Amendment. Under these circumstances I propose, Sir, that after the Amendment of my hon. friend has been negatived you should put the substantive resolution. In that case I should not vote with my hon. friend, but I should subsequently vote upon the resolution itself.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will move the reduction.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'six pence,' and insert the words 'four pence.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question put, "That the words 'six pence' stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 52.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Galloway William Johnson

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gedge, Sydney

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r)

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D.

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J.(St. Geo's.

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bethell, Commander

  Denny, Colonel

  Green, Walford D.(Wedn'sb'ry

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Doughty, George

  Gretton, John

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Evershed, Sydney

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Butcher, John George

  Faber, George Denison

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man.)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Finch, George H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Henderson, Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Flower, Ernest

  Howard, Joseph

  Charrington, Spencer

  Forster, Henry William

  Howell, William Tudor

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants)

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  More, R. J. (Shropshire)

  Sandys, Liet.-Col. Thos.Myles

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Morrison, Walter

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Keswick, William

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Knowles, Lees

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornw'll)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsey

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Ed. H.

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn(Swansea

  Penn, John

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverp'l.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Pilkington, R.(Lancs.,Newton)

  Usborne, Thomas

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Lowles, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Welby, Lt.-Cl. A. C. E(Taunton

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Purvis, Robert

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pym, C. Guy

  Williams, Joseph Powell(Birm.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.)

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  M'Killop, James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Middlemore, John T.

  Round, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Rutherford, John

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Langley, Batty

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Blake, Edward

  Leng, Sir John

  Runciman, Walter

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Caldwell, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen'sC

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Crae, George

  Souttar, Robinson

  Crombie, John William

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Steadman, William Charles

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Doogan, P. C.

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Wallace, Robert

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(H'dd'rsf'd

  Holland, William Henry

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Maddison.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 53.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H(Bristol)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B (Hants

  Butcher, John George

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bethell, Commander

  Carlile, William Walter

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East

  Bartley, George, C. T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  144

  145

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs., Newton)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Holland, William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howard, Joseph

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Charrington, Spencer

  Howell, William Tudor

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Purvis, Robert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Johnstone, William (Belfast)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Johnston, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe(Heref'd)

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Keswick, William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Crombie, John William

  Kimber, Henry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Knowles, Lees

  Rothschild, Hon Lionel Walter

  Curzon, Viscount

  Round, James

  Lafone, Alfred

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Langley, Batty

  Rutherford, John

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Dewar, Arthur

  Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Doughty, George

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Ed. H.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Dunn, Sir William

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Evershed, Sydney

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Rnfrw.)

  Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Faber, George Denison

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liv'pool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Fergusson, Rt. H. Sir J. (Man.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

  Finch, George H.

  Lowles, John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Strauss, Arthur

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John (Cumming

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Flower, Ernest

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  M'Crae, George

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Fowler, Rt. Hon Sir Henry

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin. W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  M'Killop, James

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Usborne, Thomas

  Gedge, Sydney

  Malcolm, Ian

  Gibbs, Hn A.G. H.(CityofLond

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wallace, Robert

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Freder'k

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Welby,Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunt.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J.(St. Geo.'s

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrison, Walter

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudders.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hardy, Laurence

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Penn, John

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie(Hampstead

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  146

  147

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Leng, Sir John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Runciman, Walter

  Blake, Edward

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. (Queen's C

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Caldwell, James

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Souttar, Robinson

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Maddison, Fred.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Crilly, Daniel

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Engledew Charles John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Broadhurst.

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Resolved, That in lieu of the duty of customs now payable on tea, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, the following duty (that is to say)—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Tea

  the pound

  0

  0

  6

  TOBACCO.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That in addition to the duties of customs now payable on tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Tobacco, manufactured, namely:—

  Cigars

  the pound

  0

  0

  6

  Cavendish or negrohead

  the pound

  0

  0

  6

  Cavendish or negrohead, manufactured in bond

  the pound

  0

  0

  5

  Other manufactured tobacco

  the pound

  0

  0

  5

  Snuff containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof

  the pound

  0

  0

  5

  Snuff not containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof

  the pound

  0

  0

  6

  Tobacco, unmanufactured namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every hundred pounds weight thereof}

  the pound

  0

  0

  4

  Containing less than ten pounds of moisture in every the pound one hundred pounds weight thereof}

  the pound

  0

  0

  4

  —(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to move to leave out "five-pence" and insert "one penny" in the clause relating to tobacco manufactured in bond. I do not object at all to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's resolution dealing with tobacco which proposes to put a tax of 6d.on imported foreign cigars. That appears to me to be a luxury which, I think, those who indulge in can very well afford to pay for. I am sorry also that the right hon. Gentleman has not pursued more generally the policy of taxation of luxuries. In dealing with this resolution I do not suppose I would be quite in order to refer to it, but I must say that when spirits, and more particularly beer, the drink of the people of this country, is taxed, and we find absolutely not a single penny of additional taxation is put on foreign wines, it is a very extraordinary thing. I think it would be only a fair and reasonable provision that some tax should be put on foreign wines, which are only taken by

  149
  the wealthier classes. Tobacco is perhaps the only luxury which is indulged in by the masses of the people. Tobacco is the very last article of consumption which ought to have been subjected to a tax of this kind. I do not go into the causes which have rendered this fresh taxation necessary, but I do think that it is a hard thing upon the masses of this enormously wealthy country, when millions upon millions have to be raised for the purpose of defraying the cost of a war in which I do not believe the working people of the country take so much interest as is imagined, that a tax should be put upon tobacco. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman put a heavier tax than he proposes to put on imported foreign cigars? Gentlemen who can afford to pay 1s. 1s. 6d., and 2s. for a cigar which takes ten minutes to smoke can very well afford to pay additional taxation; but it is rather hard upon a working man who can ill spare very often a few pence to buy half an ounce of shag to find that he is called upon to bear a large share of the taxation of this war. As the hon. Member for Devonport pointed out—and it was the only thing he said with which I concurred—this additional taxation will be made to come upon the consumer. Some time ago, when the tax upon tobacco was remitted to some extent, the whole of that went to the retailer and
  not to the consumer. No one discovered any decrease in the price of tobacco over the counter at the time the tax was taken off. In regard to the paying of the expense of the war, I wish remind the House that when the war broke out the Government of the Republic, from President Kruger down to the humblest official, all reduced their salaries to one-seventh of what they were. I think it would be a noble spectacle to the masses of the people of this country, who are called upon to pay additional taxation on tea and tobacco, if a heroic and patriotic sacrifice were made by Her Majesty's Government in the same manner, each of whom could got on very well until this war is over with £500 instead of £5,000. However, I suppose that is too much to expect, and all I can do is to enter my protest against this increase in the tax on tobacco.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In lines 9 and 10 (cavendish or negrohead, manufactured in bond, the pound), to leave out the words 'five pence,' and insert the words 'one penny.'"—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  Question put, "That the words 'five pence' stand part of the Question.'
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 247; Noes, 30. (Division List No. 54.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  152
  "In line 24 (tobacco unmanufactured, etc., containing less than ten pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof), to

  153
  leave out the words 'four pence,' and insert the words 'one penny.'"—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
  Question proposed, "That the words" 'four pence' stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolved, That in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Tobacco, manufactured, viz.:—

  Cigars

  the pound

  0

  0

  6

  Cavendish or negrohead

  the pound

  0

  0

  6

  Cavendish or negrohead, manufactured in bond

  the pound

  0

  0

  5

  Other manufactured Tobacco

  the pound

  0

  0

  5

  Snuff containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof

  the pound

  0

  0

  5

  Snuff not containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof

  the pound

  0

  0

  6

  Tobacco, unmanufactured, viz.:—

  Containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every hundred pounds weight thereof

  the pound

  0

  0

  4

  Containing less than ten pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof

  the pound

  0

  0

  4

  SPIRITS.—EXCISE.
  3. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That in addition to the duty of excise now payable for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duty (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof

  0

  0

  6

  and so in proportion for any less quantity."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  *MAJOR JAMESON: In moving that the additional duty should be 4d. instead of 6d., some remarks fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was speaking on this subject, and also from the hon. Member for Northampton, which are not correct. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that large industries like Guinness and the Dublin Distillers Company, Limited, could well bear additional taxation. That is not so, so far as the Dublin Distillers Company, Limited, is concerned. The whisky produced by us is made from barley grown in Ireland, and when they added to the whisky tax, they placed a tax on the agricultural industry of the country. The hon. Member for Northampton stated that tea was more heavily taxed than spirits. He forgets altogether that one pound of tea would make a good many gallons, so that very far from the tea paying twenty times more than whisky, as a matter of fact, tea would pay twenty times less than whisky, even with the present taxation.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'six pence,' and insert the words 'four pence.'"—(Major Jameson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'six pence' stand part of the Question."
  MR. T. M. HEALYrecognised that some approach had been made to the Irish Members by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as regarded the removal of the tobacco restrictions. He had always been of opinion that in dealing with the English, though a peculiar people, there was more to be got out of them by a reasonable than an unreasonable attitude. He would remind his hon. friend (Major Jameson) that while they might take a division by way of registering their protest, the stages of the Bill would afford opportunities for discussion. The hon. Member remembered the admirable speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1885 against the increase of the whisky duty, and with the right hon. Gentleman's powerful assistance they turned out the Government of the day and brought in a Home Rule Government, in fact, two Home Rule Governments, but neither of them succeeded.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 55.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Dewar, Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

  Doughty, George

  Arnold, Alfred

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Evershed, Sydney

  Barry, Rt Hn A. H. Smith-(Hunt

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Faber, George Denison

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B.(Hants)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn-Sir J.(Man.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Finch, George H.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bethell, Commander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Billson, Alfred

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe(Heref'd)

  Flower, Ernest

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Forster, Henry William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Crombie, John William

  Gedge, Sydney

  Butcher, John George

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(Cityof Lon)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Curzon, Viscount

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Caldwell, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Denny, Colonel

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lowles, John

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Round, James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Runciman, Walter

  Graham Henry Robert

  M'Arthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Rutherford, John

  Green, Walford D.(Wedn'sb'ry

  M'Crae, George

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Gretton, John

  M'Killop, James

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Malcolm, Ian

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. (Charles Seale-

  More, R. J. (Shropshire)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Souttar, Robinson

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morrison, Walter

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Strauss, Arthur

  Holland, William Henry

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Howard, Joseph

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

  Newdigate Francis Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hutchinson, Capt, G. W. G.-

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Palmer, George W. (Reading)

  Usborne, Thomas

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

  Penn, John

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Keswick, William

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunt'n

  Kimber, Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Knowles, Lees

  Pilkington, R.(Lancs Newton)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lafone, Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Langley, Batty

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Wilson, J. W. (Worces'sh. N.)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hon E. R.(Bath

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pym, C. Guy

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudder'd

  Leng, Sir John

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'sea)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Long, Rt Hn Walter(Liverpool)

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Malley, William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Labouchere, Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacDonnell, Dr. M.A.(Qn's. C.

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Engledew, Charles John

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, apt Sir Alex. F.

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Arnold, Alfred

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Morrison, Walter

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith (Hts

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G J(St George's

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W.B(Hants

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bethell, Commander

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gretton, John

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Billson, Alfred

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Palmer, Geo Wm. (Reading)

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Penn, John

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Caldwell, James

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pilkington, R.(Lancs. Newton)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Carlile, William Walter

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (D'rbyshire

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Holland, William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor.)

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Richardson, J.(Durham, S.E.)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartle'pl)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ridley, Rt. Hon, Sir Matt. W.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Round, James

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kimber, Henry

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stan. W.

  Knowles, Lees

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Ed. T. D.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Crombie, John William

  Langley, Batty

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawrence, Sir E During-(Corn.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'd

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Denny, Colonel

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leng, Sir John

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)

  Dorrington, Sir John Edward

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Doughty, George

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Evershed, Sydney

  Lowles, John

  Strauss, Arthur

  Faber, George Denison

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man.)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finch, George H.

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, William(Cornwall)

  Tomlinson, W. M. Murray

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Usborne, Thomas

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Killop, James

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Forster, Henry William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Tau't'n

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Gedge, Sydney

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

  156

  157

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R(Bath)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hud'field)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Blake, Edward

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Qu'n'sC

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Provand, Andrew Dryburyh

  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 20. (Division List No. 56.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jones William (Carnarvonshire

  Arnold, Alfred

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Evershed, Sydney

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r

  Faber, George Denison

  Keswick, William

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kimber, Henry

  Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. S-(Hunts

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Knowles, Lees

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Lafone, Alfred

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol

  Finch, George H.

  Langley, Batty

  Beach, Rt Hon. W.W.B.(Hants

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'land

  Bethell, Commander

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Flower, Ernest

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Billson, Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

  Leng, Sir John

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Llewelyn Sir Dillwyn (Swansea

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(CityofLond

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lowe, Francis William

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Lowles, John

  Caldwell, James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J.(St.Geo.'s

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J (Birm.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Chamberlain, Austen (Worc'r

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Killop, James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry)

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Middlemore, John T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

  More, R. J. (Shropshire)

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Morrison, Walter

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Crombie, John William

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Holland, William Henry

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Howard, Joseph

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Denny, Colonel

  Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Dewar, Arthur

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Palmer, George W. (Reading)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Doughty, George

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  158

  159

  Penn, John

  Rutherford, John

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Usborne, Thomas

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs Newton)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E.(Taunton

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, Hon W F. D.(Strand)

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Richardson, J. (Durham S.E.)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Wilson, J. W. Worcester. N.

  Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlepool

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Round, James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crilly, Daniel

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Qn'sCo.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Engledew, Charles John

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Healy, Timothy M. (N.Louth)

  O'Malley, William

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Resolved, That in addition to the duty of excise now payable for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duty (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof

  0

  0

  6

  and so on in proportion for any less quantity.

  SPIRITS.—CUSTOMS.
  4. Resolved, That, in addition to the duties of customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the duties following (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof, of spirits of any description, except perfumed spirits

  0

  0

  6

  For every gallon of perfumed spirits

  0

  0

  10

  For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

  0

  0

  8

  And the duties of customs on the articles hereafter mentioned, being articles in which spirit is contained or in the manu-
  160
  facture of which spirit is used, shall be proportionately increased, and shall be as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Chloral hydrate

  …

  …

  the pound

  0

  1

  4

  Chloroform

  …

  …

  the pound

  0

  3

  3

  Collodion

  …

  …

  the gallon

  1

  6

  3

  Ether acetic

  …

  …

  the pound

  0

  1

  11

  Ether butyric

  …

  …

  the gallon

  0

  16

  5

  Ether sulphuric

  …

  …

  the gallon

  1

  7

  5

  Ethyl, iodide of

  …

  …

  the gallon

  0

  14

  3

  Ethyl bromide

  …

  …

  the pound

  0

  1

  1

  Ethyl chloride

  …

  …

  the gallon

  0

  16

  5

  —(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  BEER.—EXCISE.
  5. Motion made, and Question put, "That in addition to the duty of excise now payable in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duty (that is to say)—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees the duty of

  0

  1

  0

  and so on in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 18. (Division List No. 57.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Arnold, Alfred

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St George's

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Penn, John

  Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B(Hants.

  Gretton, John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bethell, Commander

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pilkington, Rich.(LancsN'ton)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Billson, Alfred

  Haldane, Richard Hurdon

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Purvis, Robert

  Caldwell, James

  Henderson, Alexander

  Rankin, Sir James

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Howard, Joseph

  Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Howell, William Tudor

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J(Birm.

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W.(Grice-

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Jeffreys, Arthur Fredrick

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Round, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Rutherford, John

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir J. H.

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Keswick, William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kimber, Henry

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Knowles, Lees

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

  Lafone, Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Langley, Batty

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Her'f'd

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Curzon, Viscount

  Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dewar, Arthur

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Doughty, George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowles, John

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Dunn, Sir William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Usborne, Thomas

  Evershed, Sydney

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Faber, George Denison

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Crae, George

  Welby, Lt,-Col. ACE(Taunton

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin. W.)

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Finch, George H.

  M'Killop, James

  Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Malcolm, Ian

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W.F.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh., N.

  Flower, Ernest

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wodehouse, Rt Hon ER(Bath)

  Forster, Henry William

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddrsfi'ld

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Morrison, Walter

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gra'm(Bute

  162

  163

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Redmond John E.(Waterford)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacDonnell, Dr M A.(Queen'sC

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Engledew, Charles John

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Resolved, That in addition to the duty of excise now payable in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duty (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees the duty of

  0

  1

  0

  and so on in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity.

  BEER.—CUSTOMS.
  6. Resolved, That in addition to the duties of customs now payable on beer imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties (that is to say):—
  In the case of beer called or similar to mum, spruce, black beer, or Berlin white beer or other preparations whether fermented or not fermented of a similar character—

  For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof are or were before fermentation of a specific gravity—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

  0

  4

  0

  Exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

  0

  4

  8

  In the case of every description of beer other than that above specified—

  For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof were

  before fermentation of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of

  0

  1

  0

  and so in proportion for any difference in gravity.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  7. Resolved, That it is expedient to prolong the term of certain annuities, and amend the law relating to the National Debt, the Customs, and the Inland Revenue.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  WAR LOAN.
  8. Motion made, and Question proposed, "(1) That, towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, nineteen hundred, and the 31st day of March, nineteen hundred and one, sums not exceeding thirty-five million pounds be raised by either or both of the following methods:—

  (a) By means of the creation of stock or bonds to be redeemed within a period not exceeding ten years, and bearing interest at a rate to be fixed by the Treasury; or

  (b) By means of the issue of Treasury Bills;

  and that the principal and the interest on any money so raised be charged on the Consolidated Fund;
  (2) That all expenses incurred in connection with raising the said sums, including any additional remuneration to the banks of England and Ireland, be charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
  It being after One of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at half after One of the clock.