Commons Sitting of 29 April 1901

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to Army (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO 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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords].
  Aspatria, Silloth, and District Water Bill [Lords].
  Bristol, Clifton, and West of England Zoological Society Bill [Lords].
  Sheffield District Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO 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, the Standing

  29
  Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE)
  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, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Military Lands Provisional Orders Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 4).
  Mr. TATTON EGERTONreported from the Committee on Group 4 of Railway and Canal Bills, That the parties promoting the Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill had stated that the evidence of Captain Avvott was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be pro cured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Captain Avvott do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.
  Ordered, That Captain Avvott do attend the Committee on Group 4 of Railway and Canal Bills to-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL
  Read the third time, and passed.
  HENRY DIAPER AND COMPANY (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [Lords]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  [Not amended], considered; to be read the third time.
  HORLEY DISTRICT GAS BILL
    ILKESTON AND HEANOR WATER BOARD BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUHT WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL.
  Order [25th February] referring the Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  DEVONPORT GAS AND COKE BILL.
  Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Bournemouth to construct tramways within and beyond the borough: to make certain street widenings; and for other purposes." [Bournemouth Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, being returned—Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to.—
Army (Annual) Act, 1901.

PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT (1872) AMENDMENT (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL.
  Petitions against proposed Customs Export Duty, from Glasshoughton and Burradon; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Liversedge; Scholes; Radford; Slapewath; South Skelton; Grinkle; Grangetown; Skelton; and North Skelton; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (YOUNG CHILDREN) (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Farnworth and Clayton; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from Camberwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bradford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Walthamstow and Gateshead; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Scholes; Wollaton and Radford; Aberpergwm; Liversedge; Llanhilleth; North Skelton; Skelton; Grangetown; Grinkle; Slapewath; South Skelton; and Spa Wood; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Johnstone, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Salisbury; Wolsingham; East Dulwich; Hastings (two): High Felling; Gateshead; Halifax; and Bridlington: to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions against, from Southsea; Portsmouth; Bristol; and Spilsby; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Nelson; Chester; Farnworth; Broughton; Newcastle Emlyn; Ilfracombe (two); and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Duns and Chirnside; North Bute; Mearns; Barrhead; Houston and Killellen; Adersier; and Gourock; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COMPANIES (WINDING UP) ACT, 1890.
  Account presented, showing Receipts and Expenditure on account of Proceedings during the year ended 31st March, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 141.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 20th April, 1901, declaring that Charles Elliott, Labourer in the Royal Laboratory, in the service of the War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (INTERNATIONAL PENITENTIARY CONGRESSES AT PARIS AND BRUSSELS IN 1895 AND 1900.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Proceedings of the Fifth and Sixth International Penitentiary Congresses, by Mr. E. Ruggles-Briso, C.B., Chairman of the Prison Commission for England and Wales, and British Delegate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return for the quarter ended 31st March, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (NAVAL BRIGADE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 15th March; Sir James Fergusson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 142.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2583 to 2585 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Montgomery).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 143.]
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Address for "Return showing the estimated position, as regards capital expenditure, of the several Railways and Irrigation Works under construction in India on the 31st day of March, 1901, and the proposed expenditure thereon during 1901–2."—(Mr. Price.)
  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Address for "Return of the net Income and Expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the eleven years from 1889–90 to 1899–1900."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  One other Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—LORD ROBERTS AND THE END OF THE WAR.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can with safety to the public interest give the communication between the Government and Lord Roberts as to the precise date to be fixed for the termination of the war.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am not quite sure that I understand exactly what correspondence
  34
  the hon. Member refers to, but certainly no correspondence which answers to the description could with advantage to the public interest be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I take it, then, that when the Government announced the dissolution one day and Lord Roberts announced that the war was over the next, it was a happy coincidence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, the hon. Member must not take it so.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, but we will, though.

  TUGELA—POSITION OF COLONEL LONG.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the statement of Colonel Long, R.A., with respect to the capture of the guns at Tugela, and his reply to the strictures on his conduct made in his despatch by Sir Redvers Buller at a time when Colonel Long was lying dangerously wounded and unable to offer any explanation, will be published; and why, although Sir Redvers Buller stated in his despatch that Colonel Long, by reason of his condition, was unable to make any explanation, has Colonel Long's explanation, long since made, been withheld from the public.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): As I explained to the House on Thursday, it is not proposed to publish any further despatches for operations prior to the 29th November, 1900.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is Colonel Long to lie under this stigma although he has made his defence?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not prepared to discuss the case of an individual officer by question and answer across the floor of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We will make you.

PAARDEBERG DESPATCHES.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the despatch of Lord Roberts, dated 28th February, as now published contains everything he originally wrote with reference to the management of the troops when under Lord Kitchener's command on the first day of the engagement at Paardeberg; whether Lord Roberts's account of that engagement is included in its entirety in the despatch now published or is continued in cablegrams, letters, and memoranda not published; and, if so, having regard to the fact that in that engagement no fewer than 200 officers and men were killed and nearly 1,000 wounded, will Lord Roberts's full account of the incidents of the day be published.
MR. BRODRICK: The despatch published contains all that Lord Roberts originally wrote as to the engagement at Paardeberg.

BOER PRISONERS—INTERNMENT IN INDIA—PROPOSED INTERNMENT IN IRELAND.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Ahmednagar, the place to which 500 Boer prisoners have recently been sent, is unhealthy and in every respect unsuitable as a place of imprisonment for men coming from such a climate as that of South Africa; and whether he will consider the desirability of transferring these prisoners to some more suitable place, and whether he will consider the desirability of sending Boer prisoners in the future to Ireland.
MR. HAVILAND-BURKE (King's Co., Tullamore): I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the arrival of 500 Boer prisoners of war at Bombay, and their despatch to Ahmednagar; and, seeing that the Ahmednagar district was last year so famine stricken that one in every four of the population was on Government relief, and was also subject to a water famine, and that these conditions still to some extent prevail in the district, which is liable to cholera, plague, and
36
other Oriental diseases, whether he will consider the advisability of interning these prisoners of war in a more suitable district.
MR. BRODRICK: Ahmednagar has been selected by the Indian authorities as a healthy place, at which British troops have been stationed without ill effects for a long period of years. All arrangements have been made for a proper water supply and for the health of the prisoners.
MR. SCHWANN: Is it not the fact that there was a famine in this district last year, and does not famine usually leave disease behind it?
MR. BRODRICK'Sreply was inaudible.

SIR J. H. DE VILLIERS AND SIR ALFRED MILNER.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the, Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sir J. H. de Villiers, the Chief Justice of Cape Colony, has expressed a wish that his correspondence with Sir Alfred Milner should be published; and can he explain why he has not complied with the desire of the Chief Justice. This is the question which the right hon. Gentleman did not like to answer on Friday.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The statement the hon. Member has added to the question is entirely without foundation.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg pardon, it is absolutely true.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir J. H. de Villiers informed me in August last that the letters, of which I sent him copies, were only part of the correspondence, which included other letters to President Kruger, Mr. Reitz, and Sir A. Milner. He added that while he had come to the conclusion that he ought not to object to the publication of the letters in my possession, he thought it would have been better that the whole of the correspondence should have been published. This he was aware I was unable to do, as I had not received any of the

37
other letters to which he referred. Otherwise I should have had no objection to publishing them also.

RETURN OF TROOPS—BUCKS IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information of the date of the return of the Bucks Imperial Yeomanry; and whether, in the case of drafts of Volunteers or Yeomanry being sent home, preference will be given to those for whom situations are being kept open by employers in this country.
MR. BRODRICK: I am not yet in a position to state when this company will return. As I have already explained to the House, the selection of the Yeomanry or Volunteers for return rests with Lord Kitchener, who will doubtless show every consideration to them which is compatible with the public service.

43RD COMPANY IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 43rd Company of Imperial Yeomanry is now reduced to less than forty efficients; that most of the officers, including the captain, have left it, so that it is now under the command of a lieutenant, and whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of the early recall of the company.
MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of the exact state of each company of Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa. Large drafts have been recently despatched, and Lord Kitchener has reconstituted deplenished companies, so that we have every reason to believe they are up to strength.

NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS—SEPARATION ALLOWANCE REGULATIONS.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a non-commissioned officer on active service
38
reduced to the ranks and sentenced to imprisonment, the separation allowance made to his wife and family ceases entirely; and, if so, whether arrangements can be made to prevent the family from being left unprovided for.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): If a non-commissioned officer were reduced and sentenced to imprisonment exceeding three months, the issue of separation allowance would cease from the date on which the imprisonment was notified in this country.

VOLUNTEERS AND YEOMEN AT THE FRONT.
MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many of the first 10,000 Yeomen who were despatched to South Africa are at present serving in that country; I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteers, respectively, other than invalids, who have returned from service in South Africa, and to what extent they have been replaced by further drafts from home.
LORD STANLEY: In reply to these questions I can only give a rough estimate of the figures. Between 3,500 and 4,000 Militiamen have returned, and about 3,500 have been sent out in drafts. About 4,000 Yeomen have returned, and about 16,500 have been sent out in drafts. About 3,500 Volunteers have returned, and about 6,800 have been sent out in their places. Other Volunteers are about to embark for home. About 6,000 of the original Yeomen still remain in the country.

IMPERIAL YEOMANRY—PROMOTIONS FROM THE RANKS—OUTFIT ALLOWANCES.
MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that troopers in the Imperial Yeomanry, who may have served with sufficient distinction to merit a commission in the Regular Army, find them-

39
selves unable to accept such commissions owing to the fact that they are not provided with a money grant for outfits, such as is allowed in the case of promotion from the ranks in other regiments; and will he say what steps he proposes to take to remedy the alleged grievance.
LORD STANLEY: All officers granted commissions from the ranks during the present emergency will be granted outfit allowance. An Army Order to this effect will shortly be issued.

MILITIA AT THE FRONT.
COLONEL M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of men belonging to Militia regiments (Militia reserve included) that have been sent to South Africa to join regular battalions since November, 1899.
MR. BRODRICK: About 13,500.

STAINES RIFLE RANGE.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the rifle range at Staines is unlicensed, and that the War Office have refused to license it until a footpath clear of the range is substituted for the right of way which now exists across the range; and whether, seeing that the range is continually used, though unlicensed, steps will be taken by the War Office towards procuring a footpath or right of way in substitution for that now existing.
LORD STANLEY: A new footpath was accepted, and the range was duly approved in October last.

ARMY RESERVE.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what is the normal number of men drafted annually from the reserve of the Army, and what is the normal number of men annually completing ten years Militia service.
LORD STANLEY: The average number of men who annually complete
40
their engagement in the Reserve, which I presume the hon. Member refers to, is about 15,000. The average number of men annually completing ten years service in the Militia is about 3,000.

INCREASE OF THE ARMY.
MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what are the principal heads of the estimated increase of permanent expenditure of £6,327,000 upon the Army.
MR. BRODRICK: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. The sums estimated for the permanent additions to the Army voted in 1900–1 and the automatic increases thereon amount to 1,748,000. The sums estimated for the permanent additions under the Army scheme which is now before the House amount to £1,912,000; and the sums estimated for non-recurrent increases, as the re-armament of fortresses, amount to £2,667,000.
*SIR JOHN COLOMB: Before the resolution is taken can the right hon. Gentleman give separate figures, in order to show how much of the increase is for home defence?
MR. BRODRICK: It would be impossible to divide the British Army for home and for Imperial defence as troops are sometimes available for both purposes, as in the case of India.
*SIR JOHN COLOMB: But the expenditure mentioned in the hon. Member's question applies not merely to the regular army.
MR. BRODRICK'Sreply was inaudible.
*SIR JOHN COLOMB: The scheme includes the force purely and solely appropriated to home defence.
MR. BRODRICK'Sreply was again inaudible.

WATER-TUBE BOILERS IN THE NAVY.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty

41
whether he can state how many boilers of the Belleville type have been countermanded in accordance with the recent recommendation of the Water-tube Boiler Committee, that such boilers should not be proceeded with in cases of ships whose progress was not too far advanced; and whether any such countermands have been withdrawn, and for what vessels; and whether he can explain the reason for such withdrawals.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The work in connection with the Belleville boilers of seven ships has been suspended. In the case of one ship, the "Lancaster," the work has been ordered to be resumed, it having been found on inquiry that a change in the type of boiler at the present stage would involve great delay in the completion of this ship.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is that the only withdrawal or countermanded order?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The only case of withdrawal in which the work was ordered to be suspended.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been drawn to the statement by the chairman of the Thames Ironworks that a countermand had been given in regard to a ship being constructed by them?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, but I will inquire if the hon. Member will give me more specific information. I think I may say positively it is not the case.

ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF BENGAL—INQUIRY INTO MANAGEMENT OF ESTATES.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Commission of Inquiry recently held at Calcutta to inquire into the management of estates by the Administrator General of Bengal, whether the commissioners have submitted their Report;
42
and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex Ealing): I have no information as to whether the Commission referred to in the question has submitted its Report. That Report, when submitted, will be for the consideration of the Government of India; and until I have seen it and the orders passed upon it by that Government, I am unable to say whether it can be laid upon the Table.

ADULTERATED BUTTER PROSECUTIONS AT MARYLEBONE.
GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to proceedings taken in the Marylebone Police Court on 15th March, when certain vendors of butter were summoned for selling butter containing 24, 23, and 23 per cent. of water respectively; and when the magistrates dismissed the summons on the ground pressed by the defendants' solicitor that it was no offence to sell butter containing an unlimited quantity of water, and that there was no obligation to expel all the water possible; whether he is aware that the Society of Public Analysts have adopted a standard of 16 per cent. of water in butter; and whether the Board of Agriculture have made regulations, under Section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, determining the proportion of water permissible in genuine butter, or whether they propose to do so.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): My attention has been called to this case. The magistrate founded his decision on the opinion expressed by the analyst that nothing had been added to the butter to give the amount of water found, and on the ground that under the Act of 1899 it is for the Board of Agriculture and not for the Society of Public Analysts to fix the standard. As soon as I received the Report of the Committee on the subject of a standard for milk I gave directions that a Committee should be appointed to fix a standard for butter,

43
and evidence is now being collected for that purpose.

CATTLE DISEASE RETURNS.
MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the number of outbreaks of swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease up to this date in the years 1899, 1900, and 1901.
*MR. HANBURY: The approximate number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease for the sixteen weeks ended 20th April, 1901 is twelve; there were eight in the similar period of last year, and none in 1899. Of swine fever there have been 935 outbreaks in the sixteen weeks of the present year, 563 during the same time last year, and 771 during the similar period in 1899.

GIBRALTAR HARBOUR WORKS—THE RECENT INQUIRY.
MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes to place on the Estimates any sum for the expenses of the Gibraltar Inquiry Commission; and whether he proposes to place on the Estimates, or invite provision in any other way, for any extra expenditure on Gibraltar that may be proposed to be incurred in consequence of the Report of the Commission.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not proposed to place any special sum on the Estimates for the expenses of the Gibraltar Inquiry Commission. The travelling expenses of members of the Commission will be met out of moneys already voted by Parliament. In the event of any additional works being proposed at Gibraltar for which provision has not been made by Parliament, a Vote for such works will be submitted to the House.
MR. M'KENNA: On the Estimates, or in any other way?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: On the Estimates if proposed under the Naval Works Bill.
MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to give an opportunity to the House of discussing the question brought under the consideration of the Gibraltar Inquiry Commission.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have already stated on more than one occasion, there will be no formal Report presented to the House from the Gibraltar Inquiry Commission, and I do not think it would be desirable or, indeed, possible to give a day for the discussion of the subject.

WEST INDIAN COLONIES—IMPERIAL GRANTS.
MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the amount of financial assistance given to the West Indian Colonies since the Report of the Royal Commission upon the West Indies in 1897; and, what, if any, further grant it is proposed to make.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Since the Report of the Royal Commission and including the sums on this year's Estimates, the financial assistance to the West Indies will have amounted in all to about £320,000 in five years, for carrying out the various recommendations of the Commission, over and above sums of £40,000, £25,000, and £17,000 in relief of the distress caused by hurricanes in Barbados, the Windward Islands, and the Leeward Islands. As regards further grants, if any, I cannot make any statement at present, except that, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, such grants-in-aid as those for the Imperial Department of Agriculture and steamer services are recurrent for some years.
MR. LOUGH: Do the sums named by the right hon. Gentleman include loans made under the Colonial Loans Bill?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think not. They are all grants.

GILBERT ISLANDS—PERSECUTION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State

45
for the Colonies if he has any information to the effect that the Roman Catholics of the Gilbert Islands are subject to persecution; and if he will have inquiry made into the matter, especially with regard to then case of the boy Joane, of Maiana.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Some complaints were received last year, and an inquiry was instituted, which showed that there was no foundation for the allegations. The Vicar Apostolic of the Gilbert Islands expressed his thanks to the High Commissioner, and stated that he was confident that everything would go well. I will, however, ask for a special report on the case named by the hon. Member.

COLONIAL LOANS ACT—ADVANCES TO JAMAICA FOR RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.
*MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Return presented by the Treasury of advances made to colonies under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899, and to Section 2 of that Act, which provides that the principal and interest of such advances shall be charged on the general revenues and assets of the respective colonies, with priority over any subsequent charges, whether the advances made to the colony of Jamaica for railway purposes on 21st August, 1899, rank as a charge on the general revenues and assets of that colony before or after the issue of Jamaica Government Inscribed Stock, bearing interest at 3½ per cent. from 24th January, 1899, and repayable between 24th January, 1919, and 24th January, 1949.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The advance to which the hon. Member refers was sanctioned on the date he names, but was not made until the 14th April, 1900, and ranks as a charge on the general revenue and assets of Jamaica before the 3½ per cent. Inscribed Stock, to which he refers. The amount of the advance in question is only £110,000.

ARABIA—REPORTED DISTURBED STATE OF THE HEDJAZ.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State
46
for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate to the House any information received from His Majesty's Consular officers in Arabia respecting the steps taken by the local authorities for the protection of British subjects travelling between Jeddah and the cities of Mecca and Medina during the present disturbed state of the Hedjaz.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY FO FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): His Majesty's Government have not recently received any reports showing an unusually disturbed state of the Hedjaz.

BRITISH MERCHANTS' CLAIMS AGAINST TURKEY.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the petitions addressed by the British Chamber of Commerce at Constantinople to His Majesty's Ambassador with regard to the non-payment of the claims of British merchants at Stamboul, Hasskeui, Galata, and Pera, who suffered pecuniary losses during the disturbances of August, 1896, and copies of the replies sent to those petitions; and whether his Majesty's Government are now in a position to state the nature of the joint action which the Powers interested in claims arising out of those disturbances have in contemplation with the object of arriving at a settlement.
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Ambassador is continuing his endeavours to obtain a settlement of these claims. There, will be no objection to laying on the Table copies of the petitions received on the subject if a settlement is much longer delayed. I have no statement to make in answer to the last paragraph of the question.

LIGHTS IN THE RED SEA.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of any progress in the negotiations for the provision of four additional lights in the southern part of the Red Sea in

47
the fairway of vessels to and from the East, and of a light in the Gulf of Aden; and if there is any change in the intentions of His Majesty's Government in regard thereto.
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: As the outcome of the negotiations which took place upon the subject, the Turkish Government undertook the construction of the four lights in the Red Sea, under the auspices of the Lighthouse Administration; and it was understood that the work of construction was to be actually commenced in January last. The Government of India have decided to improve the Ras Marshag Light near Aden. The question of a new light on Socotra, and of an improved light on Obstruction Point, in the island of Perim, is under consideration between the Imperial and Indian Governments. The general policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the question remains unchanged.

CHINA—YANG-TSZE PROVINCES—ALLEGED DISAFFECTION.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any official information as to the alleged elements of disaffection in the Yang-tsze provinces; whether the British authorities have reduced their forces in those regions by the withdrawal of the Sikhs and the Artillery; and whether in view of a possible rising in these provinces, the Government have taken the necessary steps for the protection of the British interests involved.
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The answer to the first question is in the negative. In answer to the second and third questions I have to say that some of the British troops at Tientsin, Wei-hai-wei, and Hong Kong are being withdrawn, but no reduction in the Shanghai garrison is in contemplation at present.

SS. "BOHEMIAN"—ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF SAILORS.
MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the President of the Board
48
of Trade whether he is aware that two seamen of the ss. "Bohemian," named Logan and Christopher Duffy, were admitted to Boston Hospital, U.S.A., in January last, suffering, as they alleged; from ill-treatment received during the voyage; that both men have since died; and that the deceased man Duffy made a sworn declaration concerning the ill-treatment before Mr. F. E. Blunt, British Consul in Boston, or to the hospital authorities and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances attending the death of these two men.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I am informed that the seaman Logan died on board the "Bohemian" on the 4th January last. The ship's doctor certified that his death was due to natural causes. On the arrival of the vessel at Liverpool statements were made to the effect that he had been ill treated by two of the engineers. By direction of the Board of Trade, an inquiry was held by the Liverpool Local Marine Board, who found that the charges were not proved. No report of Duffy's death has reached the Board of Trade. The ship's articles show that he was discharged into hospital on the 8th January suffering from inflammation of the lungs. The Consul at Boston has been requested to furnish a Report on the ease, which will be carefully considered.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Report be laid on the Table, or be shown to those interested?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I had rather not answer that question without consideration. I will let the hon. Member know.

TRANSIT OF LIVE STOCK IN GLAMORGANSHIRE.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that live stock are kept in trucks for twenty-two hours whilst making the short journey between Talgarth, in Breconshire, and Aberdare, in Glamorganshire, involving suffering to the animals, sometimes resulting in

49
death, and consequent loss to the traders; and whether he has any powers of interference by which this state of affairs can be remedied.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; from the information supplied by the railway companies concerned it appears that since the beginning of the year only five trucks of live stock have been conveyed between the places named, and that in none of these cases was the time taken in railway transit as long as the hon. Member suggests. It is suggested, however, by the railway companies that possibly trucks may occasionally be loaded by owners of stock some time before the trains are to start. The Board of Trade have no powers of interference in the matter.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—HORSE TRANSIT RATES.
MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Western Railway Company claims that in the event of a horse being too large for one stall of their horse boxes they shall charge the ordinary rate and one-half; and whether, in view of the importance to farmers of encouraging the breeding of shire horses, he will, by legislation or otherwise, endeavour to induce the company to abandon this charge.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not clear from the question whether reference is made to the carriage of shire horses by passenger or goods train; I have, however, received a letter from the company which I shall be happy to show the hon. Member. The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction to revise the charges.

PRICE OF EXPORTED COAL.
MR. D. A. THOMASI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in how many and what years during the quarter of a century prior to 1900 the average net f.o.b. price of coal shipped foreign from the United Kingdom exceeded 12s. per ton; and if he can say what pro-
50
portion of the coal shipped foreign in 1900 was small coal.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The years 1875 and 1890 were the only years during the period specified in which the average declared value of coal exported rom the United Kingdom exceeded 12s. per ton. I may, perhaps, add that in 1900 the average declared value was 16·52s. The proportion of small coal shipped in 1900 cannot be stated.

DIMINUTION OF COAL EXPORTS.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the summary statement of coal exports in the Return issued on Tuesday last (Parliamentary Paper, No. 119) shows the exports of coal to four of the ten market groups to have been less in 1900 than in the previous year, five years previously, and than nine years previously, and that such was also the case in the Far East group when allowance is made for the extra quantities of coal supplied in that market in consequence of the complications in China; and whether he has information showing the deficiency to be owing to a smaller consumption of coal in those markets, or to have been made up from other sources of supply.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated so far as regards the diminution of exports of coal from the United Kingdom to four of the least important market groups. I am unable to give figures for 1900 respecting the consumption of coal in these markets, or the extra quantity of coal supplied to British war vessels in the Far East.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, I said I was unable to give the figures respecting coal consumption in these markets.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: My point is this: has the deficiency been made up from foreign sources?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot say definitely if the falling off is due to the greater output in the countries concerned.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: But cannot you say how in these four markets it has been made up?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to answer that.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: That is sufficient. You are unable to answer the question.

SOUTH WALES COLLIERY SHARES.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the ordinary shares of the majority of South Wales and Monmouthshire colliery companies quoted on the Cardiff Stock Exchange are below par, and that the ordinary shares of not more than four public South Wales colliery companies are quoted above par.
MR. COHEN: Is it not a fact that in more than one case the South Wales coal companies declared dividends for the twelve months of from 100 to 180 per cent.?
*MR. HORNER: asked whether one South Wales colliery company, known as the Bwllfa and Aberdare Dale Colliery Company, had not recently declared a dividend of 130 per cent., with an expression of regret that it was not larger.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no official information enabling me to verify the statements contained in the question.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman regard the official Stock Exchange list at Cardiff as a sufficient authority?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Had I seen the question on the Paper I should have ruled it out of order, as it obviously deals with a matter not within the official knowledge or duties of the Minister to whom it is addressed.

COAL DUTY—CUSTOMS RULES AS TO SHIP'S COAL.
MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has been brought to his notice that in the new Customs rules, in connection with the proposed duty on coal, there is a provision compelling an account to be kept in the ship's log of the daily amount of coal consumed on any voyage, in order that the duty may be subsequently imposed upon any difference there may be between the amount shown in the log entries and the original intake of coal; and, whether, seeing that vessels are not ordinarily fitted with the means of measuring the amount of the daily consumption of coal from the bunkers, he can state how the amount is to be arrived at.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no such provision in the Customs Coal Regulations, nor have any directions been given as to levying duty on any difference there may be between the amount shown in the log entries as consumed and the amount originally shipped.

NEWPORT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE COAL DUTY.
MR. HORNER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received the report of a resolution in favour of the proposed coal tax which was passed on Wednesday last by the Chamber of Commerce of Newport (Mon.), as representing a district directly interested in the export of coal; and, if so, whether he will give it his favourable consideration.
MR. M'KENNA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Newport Chamber of Commerce has no representative capacity; that the majority in favour of the resolution consisted entirely of members of one political party, and that a political contest is now pending in the borough?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I always understood that chambers of commerce were non-political. The resolution is in

53
favour of the duty, but also asks for the exemption of existing contracts, which, as the hon. Member knows, I have already promised to consider.

BUNKER COAL.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the regulations concerning the shipment of bunker coal on vessels provide that the quantity allowed is to be calculated on the daily consumption and length of the whole voyage outward and homeward; whether a vessel proceeding to Port Said, going on to the Black Sea, and then home will be permitted to take in bunkers for the whole round as is often the practice now, and be allowed them free of duty; and whether a vessel proceeding to Port Said and then on to America in ballast will be permitted to ship her bunkers free.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The answer to the three points raised is in the affirmative in each instance, provided that in each case the bunkers are shipped in this country.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: What provision is made in foreign ports to see that the tax is not evaded by boats taking coal in as bunker coal in this country and selling it as cargo at the other end?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Customs authorities are advised that the regulations they have laid down will suffice.

INCOME TAX—ABATEMENTS.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the delays which occur in the consideration and settlement of claims for the repayment of income tax on incomes eligible for abatement by the Commissioners for special purposes at Somerset House; and whether he will take steps to prevent these delays both in considering the claims and in making the payments immediately the claims are due.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: At this season, at the end of the financial year, the Income Tax Repayments Branch is
54
always taxed to its utmost strength, the whole staff working long after official hours, and even on days generally observed as holidays. This year the pressure is exceptionally heavy, and claims have recently been coming in at the rate of 5,000, 6,000, and even 7,000 a day. Each claim must of course be dealt with in its proper turn, and it is inevitable that some delay should occur at this time of year. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that every effort has been, and will be, made to dispose of the claims as expeditiously as possible.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now continue, down to the end of the financial year 1900–1901, the Return of the number and amounts of abatements allowed for income tax in each of the levels of such abatements; and if he can state by what amount they lessen the proceeds of income tax at a rate of sixpence in the pound.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The latest complete information in regard to abatements is that for the year 1898–99, and appears on pages 122 and 123 of the 43rd Report of the Board of Inland Revenue. The corresponding figures for 1899–1900 will appear in the Report which will be published this year; but they are not yet complete. The figures for 1900–01 will not be available until the summer of 1902. The long delay is inevitable, and is mainly due to the fact that exemptions and abatements by way of "repayment" on the income tax for any one financial year continue to be claimed and allowed through the whole of the following year.

ALLOTMENTS—STAMP DUTY.
MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that the District Auditor's Act of 1879 imposes a stamp duty on payments made by the parish councils for land hired and rented by them as allotments, thereby increasing the rent charged for the allotment, whether he can see his way to exempt such payments from the stamp duty, and so enable the councils to let the allotments at a lower rent.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The District Auditor's Act of 1879 does not impose a stamp duty on payments made by parish councils for land hired and rented by them as allotments. The stamp duty imposed by the Act in question is in the nature of a fee to the district auditor, and is graduated in accordance with the total of the expenditure comprised in the financial statement audited. The payments to which the hon. Member refers of course form part of such expenditure, but that is the only way in which they affect the amount of duty payable.

SUGAR DUTY—REBATE ON COLONIAL SUGARS.
MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of granting a rebate of the duties on sugar imported from the colonies equivalent to the rebate which this country enjoys for its imports under the Canadian Tariff, and if he could state the approximate loss to the Revenue if there were such a rebate in the sugar duties.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir, I do not think this would be a practicable policy. It is impossible to estimate what loss it might cause in the yield of the sugar duty, because the extent to which sugar, possibly not really colonial, might be imported under it cannot be foretold.

SUGAR DUTY—DRAWBACKS.
MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state how it is proposed to deal with drawback in regard to confectionery sold in bottles and not by weight, in cases where the bottles, although of actually the same outward size and appearance, really vary in capacity.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The point will not be lost sight of when the details of the scheme for the assessment of drawback are under consideration. The question will probably be met by a system of "averaging."

THE SPIRIT DUTY.
MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Ex-
56
chequer whether the sixpence added to duty on spirits in the Budget of 1900, as was stated then till August, 1901, will after that period be continued as an impost.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir.

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY—REHOUSING SCHEME.
MR. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give any information as to how the matter stands as to the provision to be made by the London and North-Western Railway Company for rehousing persons displaced in Stanhope Street, Granby Street, and Mornington Road by the extension of their line.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The London and North-Western Railway Company is in default with regard to its rehousing obligations in the case referred to; but it has been for some time erecting houses for the purpose of fulfilling those obligations. Certain questions have, however, arisen between my Department and the company in respect to the matter, and a writ has been issued by my orders against the company.

CUSTOMS OFFICERS' GRIEVANCES.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Board of Customs intends to take any steps with reference to the statement of the chief inspector of waterguard that preventive officers and boatmen were unfitted to discharge their waterguard duties satisfactorily after fifty years of age; and if some new positions could be opened up to the older preventive officers in connection with the increased staff necessitated by the new sugar duty.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): No such statement has been made by the head of the waterguard, nor do the Board of Customs consider it advisable that the older pre-

57
ventive officers should be withdrawn from their waterguard duties to perform fresh duties in connection with the new sugar duty.

CUSTOMS EXAMINING OFFICERS—CASE OF JAMES ALLAN.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received an application for financial aid from the widow and six children of the late James Allan, a first-class Customs examining officer, who died as the result of an illness contracted in the performance of his duty; and whether he has been able to grant the prayer of the petition.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; the case is under consideration.

NAVAL PENSIONERS AS CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Board of Customs to employ naval pensioners as Customs boatmen at a lower rate of wages than that now obtaining, and, if so, whether, in view of the Fair Wages Resolution, he will refuse to allow such employment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As some of the boatmen are now employed on duties which are assignable to watchers, it has been determined that one hundred watchers, who are naval pensioners, shall be employed in place of an equal number of boatmen. These men will be classed and paid as watchers, and not as boatmen.

WEST INDIAN MAILS.
MR. BRODIE HOARE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the accelerated service to the West Indies calling at Trinidad with the main line steamers, which has been offered by the Royal Mail Company for the same term of years as the contract of the Imperial direct line to Jamaica, has been accepted by His Majesty's Government.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of two schemes put forward by the Royal
58
Mail Steam Packet Company for serving Trinidad by their main line packets, His Majesty's Government has not accepted either; but the question whether any arrangement in that behalf can be made is still under consideration.

STAFFORD STATION POST OFFICE—WATER SUPPLY.
MR. CHARLES SHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it has been brought to his knowledge that the staff of the Stafford Station branch of the post office have been without a supply of drinking water since the 18th of June, 1900, and that the water which was supplied up to that period was, after analysis, certified by the medical officer as being unfit for use, and that two cases of typhoid resulted from the impurity; and, seeing that at the present time a supply of water for the staff, sixty-six per cent. of whom are on night duty, has to be obtained from the London and North-Western Railway Company and carried some distance in the daytime, and should that supply become exhausted the night staff are absolutely without same, whether he will take steps for the provision of a proper supply.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The post office premises at Stafford Station are rented from the railway company, and up to November, 1900, the water for all purposes was obtained from the company's source of supply. Then, as a consequence of complaints as to the quality of the water, the supply was transferred to the Corporation mains; but, owing to the arrangement of the railway company's service, it was not practicable to obtain a continuous supply. Consequently arrangements were made to obtain a supply for the post office direct from the Corporation mains, and independent of the railway company's service; and this is now in operation.

JOHN BRIGHT'S STATUE.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will be prepared to grant a site for the statue of Mr. John Bright which it is proposed

59
to substitute for the statue which has been removed.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I adhere to the pledges I have repeatedly given to find a site for a memorial of Mr. Bright. I understand that the statue which it is now proposed to present is to be a replica of that at Birmingham; and if the general sense of the House appears to be in favour of a memorial in that form, I shall be happy to do my best to select a suitable place for it.

DAY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE REGULATIONS.
MR. TOMKINSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, having regard to the fact that, by a new clause in the Code of Regulations for Day Schools (1901), providing that no attendances made by children under twelve will, after this year, be recognised for the purposes of certain grants, few children can, after this year, receive more than one course of instruction in the important subjects of cookery, laundry work, and household management, instead of three courses, which each individual child can now receive while in the day schools, whether he will take steps to safeguard the existence of training schools of cookery and laundry work, and the interests of the teachers who have already qualified in these subjects.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The Board of Education will do its best to safeguard the interests of training schools of cookery and laundry work, and of the teachers who have qualified in these subjects, so far as they are consistent with the interest of the children in the public elementary schools.

LONDON SCHOOL BOARD EVENING CLASSES—REX v. COCKERTON.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, so long as the present law is unchanged, evening
60
continuation classes under the London School Board will continue to be held.
SIR J. GORST: This is a question to be determined by the London School Board. No communication has been received by the Board of Education which leads me to suppose that they will be discontinued.
DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether it is proposed by legislation this session to legalise the work of the School Board in instructing adults in their night schools.
SIR J. GORST: Nothing can be stated until the Education Bill is brought in.
MR. LOUGH: Is the House to understand that it will be legal for the Board to continue these schools in the meantime?
SIR J. GORST: No, Sir, the hon. Member is to understand nothing from me.

MUNICIPAL PURCHASE OF WATER UNDERTAKINGS.
*MR. GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government would consider favourably a proposal to authorise local authorities to compel water companies to sell their undertakings, the price to be fixed by arbitration in default of agreement; and whether they would support the repeal of the provisions in the Borough Funds Act, 1872, which require the consent of owners and ratepayers to be obtained to the promotion of or opposition to a Bill by a local authority.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD. (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I am afraid the answer to the first part of the question must be in the negative. With regard to the second part, I am not prepared to say that no consent on the part of the inhabitants of a district should be required for the promotion of a Bill by the local authority, though I doubt whether such consent is necessary in the case of opposition to a Bill. My hon. friend the Member for South Islington has

61
before the House a Bill to amend the Borough Funds Act, 1872, and I am disposed to concur generally in the proposals in that measure.

POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what was the amount fixed as the proportion of superannuation allowances to be paid boards of guardians from the Probate Grant in 1889–1900, and what was the amount paid the unions from the Probate Grant for superannuation allowances for the year ended Michaelmas, 1900.
MR. WALTER LONG: The question appears to be founded on a misapprehension. An annual sum is paid by the council of each county outside London to the boards of guardians in the county for the costs of the officers. The sum is that which the Local Government Board certified to have been expended by the guardians during the financial year ended the 25th March, 1888, on the salaries, remuneration, and superannuation allowances of the officers (other than teachers in poor-law schools), and on drugs and medical appliances. The grant is a fixed one, and no separate payments are made out of it in respect of superannuation allowances.

COATBRIDGE LICENSING SESSIONS.
MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the action of the licensing magistrates at Coatbridge at the licensing court on 9th April in postponing the hearing of applications for renewal of certificates by three licensed publicans of Coatbridge to 15th April, and recommending them to close their premises meanwhile, on the ground that they disregarded the recommendation of the magistrates to close their houses on the day of the funeral of Her late Majesty the Queen; whether his attention has been directed to the statement by one of the magistrates, that the manner in which their recommendation was observed would largely influence the court in deciding the applications;
62
whether the publicans concerned were bound to close their premises on the occasion referred to; and whether the magistrates were empowered to order these publicans to close their premises as a punishment for disregard of their recommendation; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. In answer to the third paragraph, I cannot find any warrant in the licensing statutes for the recommendation made by the magistrates. In answer to the fourth, I have no jurisdiction over the magistrates sitting as a licensing court, and I do not therefore propose to take any action.

SHOTTS (LANARK) WATER SUPPLY.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Local Government Board for Scotland has been called to the scarcity of water in the district of Shotts, in the county of Lanark, with a population of close on 12,000, notwithstanding that for seven years the inhabitants had been charged water rates, whilst no connection with any water supply had been made, and when a remedy for this state of things is likely to be provided.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Local Government Board for Scotland are informed by the county medical officer of Lanarkshire that the villages, asylum, and hospital, etc., in the parish of Shotts have gravitation water supplies, with numerous connections; that no complaint of scarcity of water has been received, and that rates are levied in accordance with statutes.

GLASGOW SMALL POX EPIDEMIC.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will take steps to prevent manure being sent from Glasgow, where for months past small-pox has been prevalent, for distribution in the county of Fife from railway stations in burghs which hold

63
clean bills of health, or whether he will point out to the local authorities what means they can take to prevent the risk of spreading small-pox by such distribution.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Unless there is legal warrant for the assumptions made by the hon. Member in the question, which would require specific proof of injury or danger to health, there exist no statutory powers under which such distribution can be prevented—having in view the judicial interpretation which has been put upon the provisions of Section 16 (5) of the Public Health Act of 1897.

CONGESTION IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS—CROIR FARM.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Congested Districts Board have received from the landless cottars of Bernera, Lewis, intimation that they are about to take forcible possession of Croir Farm, in consequence of the Board having taken no steps to acquire it until after the landowner had recently re-let it, and this notwithstanding the fact that they have repeatedly made application for the farm during the last seven years; and, in view of the unrest amongst the landless cottars of the Hebrides, will the Congested Districts Board endeavour to come to some understanding with the proprietor and the new tenant to secure the settlement of the people on Croir Farm.
I beg also to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to a statement in the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland to the effect that the people of the Island of Bernera expressed a strong desire to obtain holdings on Croir Farm, Lewis, in December, 1900, is the Secretary for Scotland aware that the people applied for this farm in the previous year; and will he explain why the Board made no attempt to secure the farm until the application of December last was received.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I propose to reply to the hon. Member's two questions together. It is the fact
64
that an application was made in the year 1898 for Croir Farm for the purpose of dividing it into a few small holdings. This application was carefully considered at the time, but in the general interests of the locality it was not deemed expedient to give effect to it. It may be added that the West Highlands and Islands Commission was presumably of the same opinion as the farm was not one of those scheduled by the Commission as suitable for the formation of crofter's holdings.

STATIONERY IN SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the practice for sheriffs in Scotland to provide at their own expense all stationery required in connection with their office, and to pay their travelling expenses when engaged on business which requires their attendance at places other than their chief court house.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: In reply to the first paragraph of the question, the answer is that stationery is provided in the sheriff courts at the public expense. In reply to the second paragraph, the answer is in the affirmative.

CATTLE REARING IN LEWIS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the people of Carloway, Lewis, have applied to the Congested Districts Board for a bull, without success; will he state what other townships have met with a similar response to their applications, and what steps it is proposed to take to remedy the grievance.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: As regards the first portion of the hon. Member's question, I must point out that the statement in the hon. Member's question is not accurate; the application by the people of Carloway was for a bull in the month of May, and the animal will be delivered to them in that month. In reply to the last portion, it is sufficient for me to say that the Congested Districts Board have arranged for the

65
distribution of the bulls which, in their discretion, they have purchased, to the places where they consider they will do most good.
MR. WEIR: As the right hon. Gentleman says my statement is incorrect, I will furnish him with the information applied me by the people of the district.

SCOTTISH FISHERY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD REPORTS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state when the Reports of the Fishery Board for Scotland and the Local Government Board (Scotland) will be issued.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is hoped that the Annual Report of the Fishery Board will be issued shortly, but it may not be possible to issue the Local Government Board's Annual Report until the month of June.

IRISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD—PURCHASES.
MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to state the number of acres of land purchased by the Congested Districts Board with a view to redistribution among the people in the poor law unions of Ballina, Belmullet, and Killala since the Congested Districts Board was established.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): 9,410 acres have been purchased for redistribution in the Belmullet Union, but none in the other two unions.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN ANTRIM UNION.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 15th November, 1899, an application was made to the Aghalee District Council (county Antrim) to have a number of labourers' cottages erected, and that the scheme was passed by the council on the 21st November. 1900; and can he explain why the building of the cottages has not yet been commenced;
66
and what is the amount of the yearly grant to the county Antrim for the building of labourers' cottages; and how much is now lying to the credit of the county for this purpose.
MR. WYNDHAM: The scheme of the district council was sent to the Local Government Board for approval, but in an incomplete form, on the 16th February. It was duly completed on the 29th March. A local inquiry will be held with the least possible delay. The answer to the second paragraph is, £2,460 and £9,855 respectively.

STEAM TRAWLING IN DINGLE BAY.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that steam trawlers have been trespassing inside the legal boundary in Dingle Bay and along the coast of Kerry, causing damage to the fishing industry; and whether he will take steps to prevent any such occurrence in future.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware that there has been any illegal trawling in these waters since February and March, when three trawlers were prosecuted and fined. The activity of the Department, it may be added, is exhibited by the fact that there have been fourteen prosecutions leading to convictions during the past six months. Two other prosecutions are pending.

KILKENNY DISTRICT ASYLUM—GRANT-IN-AID.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sum of £892 18s. 1d., certified by the Government auditor as the amount due as grant-in-aid, for the quarter ended 31st March, 1899, to the Kilkenny District Asylum has not yet been paid; and whether he can explain the cause of delay, and say when this amount will be paid.
MR. O'MARA: At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

67
whether he is aware that the auditor of the Kilkenny District Asylum has certified that £892 18s. 1d. is due to the asylum as part of the grant-in-aid; and, if so, will he explain why payment is deferred.
MR. WYNDHAM: This case is similar to many others brought to my notice, upon which I promised a statement to the hon. Member for East Clare. I hope to redeem that promise shortly, when some further figures have been obtained.
MR. O'MAEA: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a definite date?
MR. WYNDHAM: I have endeavoured to explain my position in answer to questions, but the hon. Member for East Clare has asked for a detailed exposition of our views, which I promised. I wish to make it as complete as possible, but I hope to be able to make it in a week or ten days.

RAILWAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BALLINA AND BALLY-CASTLE.
MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a memorial from Ballycastle, county Mayo, on the subject of railway communication between that town and Ballina; and, if so, can he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
MR. WYNDHAM: There are no funds at the disposal of the Government for the construction of the line of railway suggested in the question.

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES.
DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what service, on the 1st April, 1900, would entitle a national school teacher to receive the maximum salary of the grade in which he may be placed under the new rules, in case he is not already in receipt of such maximum salary; and whether special consideration will be given to classed teachers whose schools, owing to a decline in the attend-
68
ance, only entitle them to a lower grade salary than the salary of the grade occupied by them.
MR. WYNDHAM: Service given before 1st April, 1900, does not entitle a national school teacher to receive the maximum salary of the grade in which he may be placed. The cases of classed teachers in charge of schools with an insufficient average attendance are already dealt with under the rules issued by the Commissioners.

BUTTER ADULTERATION IN IRELAND.
MR. ARCHDALEI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Department of Agriculture, whether, seeing there have been so many convictions in Ireland lately for persons selling margarine to country shopkeepers as butter, any prosecutions have been put in force by the Department against the manufacturer, under Clause 7 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899; and whether his official information shows that a sufficiently strict and constant inspection of the factories and wholesale places of business of dealers in margarine is carried out, so that the provisions of the Act for the protection of pure butter makers can be enforced.
MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The Department has, during many months, organised a strict and systematic inspection on the premises of those who manufacture or deal in margarine. The action of local authorities, who are primarily responsible for the execution of these Acts, is largely due to the initiative of the Department, and in some instances prosecutions have been based on information procured by the Departmental Inspector. The Department has also appointed an officer for the special purpose of taking samples.

BELTURBET AND BALLYHAISE RAILWAY.
MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Great Northern Railway

69
Company keep separate accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the railway between Belturbet and Ballyhaise; and does it allow or give credit to this railway for terminal charges.
MR. WYNDHAM: At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The company does not keep separate accounts of receipts and expenditure in connection with the line. It does give credit to the railway for terminal charges.

PURCHASE ACTS AMENDMENT.
COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will in this session amend the Irish Purchase Acts so that on the sale of grass farms the Land Commission may, as a condition of their advance, insist on a portion of such grazing land being sold to neighbouring small tenants.
MR. WYNDHAM: I doubt if this proposal would be practicable in the manner suggested, but, in any case, I cannot now foreshadow the lines of future legislation.

POLICE REPORTS ON MALICIOUS OUTRAGES.
MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when malicious injuries are reported to the head constable of the district in which they occur, it is his duty to report the same to the district inspector, and, if so, what penalty does he incur if he fails to do so.
MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first query is in the affirmative. Such a neglect of duty would be a matter for disciplinary correction, and the penalty would be determined by all the circumstances of the case.

NENAGH MUNICIPAL ELECTION PETITION.
MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of the election petition recently held at
70
Nenagh regarding the urban council of that township, when, by the judgment of Mr. Commissioner Patchell, who presided, twenty-one members of the body were unseated on the grounds of bribery and corruption directly by three of their number, and the others by their agents; whether he is aware that the said urban council were seeking to provide a loan of £8,000 for the purpose of erecting sixty artisans' dwellings, and that, at the inquiry held by the Local Government Board, evidence was given on the part of the ratepayers that such an amount would be an excessive burden upon them, and also that such a number of houses were not required; and whether, in view of the fact that this body was unduly elected, their action with regard to the proposed loan, as well as other proceedings, will be declared null and void under the circumstances.
MR. WYNDHAM: The loan applied for in this case was in excess of the borrowing powers of the council, and the scheme will be referred back to the new council when elected. It will rest with the new council to decide whether they will or will not proceed with an amended scheme.

IRISH EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland intend to increase the marks for Irish in their programme for next year, so as to place it on a position of equality with English.
MR. WYNDHAM: The programme for next year is still under consideration by the Commissioners. I am not, therefore, at present in a position to reply.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when it will be published? Will it be before the Education Estimate is taken?
MR. WYNDHAM: I hope at an early date. The delay is due to the fact that the Board is in communication with regard to the appointment of additional inspectors,

71
and it will be impossible to publish the programme till that question is settled, which I hope will be in a week or ten days.

SLIGO ROMAN CATHOLICS AND THE IRISH MAGISTRACY.
MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of the Roman Catholic population of the Mullaghroe Petty Sessions district, South Sligo; how many Roman Catholic magistrates are resident in the district, and whether he is prepared to recommend the appointment of further Roman Catholic magistrates for that district.
MR. WYNDHAM: I have no official information on the first query. One of the magistrates residing in the district is a Roman Catholic. The Lieutenant of the county and the Lord Chancellor are ready to consider the names of any gentlemen who may be recommended to them by the hon. Member for appointment to the Commission of the Peace in this district.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: How many Protestant magistrates are there in the district? The right hon. Gentleman admits there is only one Roman Catholic magistrate.
MR. WYNDHAM: That does not appear to be pertinent to the question on the Paper. Recommendations will be submitted in the usual form.
MR. TULLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Lieutenant of the county has refused to appoint any Catholic magistrates?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

BOYLE TOWN COMMISSIONERS—SALE OF PIGS ON THE STREETS.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what grounds District Inspector M'Clelland refuses to carry out the resolutions of the Boyle Town Commissioners, under the Towns Improvement Acts, with
72
regard to preventing the sale of pigs on the public streets on the days not appointed for such sale; whether he is aware that previous district inspectors always enforced such directions; and that District Inspector M'Clelland's refusal to act similarly dates from the period when the Town Commissioners had occasion to report him to his authorities for ordering baton charges on the people; and whether he will state what steps he proposes to take in this matter.
MR. WYNDHAM: The resolutions have not been confirmed by the Local Government Board as required by statute, and until this has been done the police cannot enforce the resolutions. They were never enforced by previous district inspectors. It is incorrect to say that the Town Commissioners complained of Mr. M'Clelland personally.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT BLACKROCK.
MR. J. P. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Local Government Inspector, Mr. Wilson Lynch, rejected an application for one labourer's cottage in the Blackrock district of Cork; whether he is aware that the labourers of this district are actually rated for cottages built in other parts of the union, while they cannot get one cottage for their own district, and that it was the first application for a cottage from the district since the Labourers Act was passed; whether he is aware that the occupier of the farm brought cattle from another farm to let the Local Government Inspector see that the land appeared to be fully stocked; and whether he will direct a further inquiry into the case.
MR. WYNDHAM: The occupier objected to the cottage on the ground that there were already five houses on the land, three of which were vacant, and that the site selected was the only suitable place to accommodate his cattle in winter. The inspector considered these objections reasonable. The expenses under the Labourers Acts are district charges. The fact that there has been no previous application for

73
cottages in this locality would point to the conclusion that they were not considered necessary. There seems to be no sufficient reason for reopening the case.

OUTRAGE AT PORTADOWN.
MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an outrage lately perpetrated at a farm belonging to Mr. James M'Coo, Portadown, the house and offices being completely destroyed by fire, and three cows and a calf in a byre being burned to death; whether he is aware that Mr. M'Coo was one of the Roman Catholic excursionists attacked last summer, and subsequently was a witness in the prosecution of the Orange aggressors; and will he inquire into this case.
MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are stated with substantial accuracy. The police have made careful inquiry. They have come to the conclusion that the deplorable event was malicious, and not accidental, in its origin, and will spare no effort in the attempt to bring the authors of this dastardly outrage to justice.
MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to his opinion that the police force at Portadown is sufficient?
MR. WYNDHAM: I admitted that at the time the outrage occurred in August last the force was not sufficient, but I promised that the deficiency should not recur on any future occasion.
MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: It has recurred.

IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if the Land Commission can make it a condition of their advance of money to a tenant desirous of purchasing that this tenant should permit of his sub-tenants also purchasing their sub-holdings.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The reply to this question is in the negative.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DEPUTATION TO THE KING.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Roman Catholic deputation to His Majesty King Edward on the 3rd May will be constituted of ecclesiastics in their Papal robes; and if it is intended that the prelates should walk thus through the public streets; and whether the proclamation, issued on the 15th July, 1852, under the advice of the Ministers, expressly referring to the 29th section of the Emancipation Act, which forbids such public manifestation, will be repeated, if necessary, by His Majesty's Government.
MR. O'DOHERTY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether it is possible that His Majesty made this arrangement without first consulting the Member for South Belfast.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the hon. Gentleman I have no information as to the first paragraph in the question, and, as to the second, I think it was stated by the Solicitor General in July, 1899, that there was no intention of renewing the proclamation.
MR. CULLINAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit Mr. Johnston to beat his Orange drum on this occasion?

CORK POST OFFICE-INADEQUATE STAFF AND ACCOMMODATION.
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that in the sorting office and parcel office at Cork the supervision of work and staff is at certain hours attached to ordinary duties, and that it sometimes happens that a junior is placed in charge of his seniors; and, considering that the matter has been reported to the Postmaster General,

75
whether steps are being taken to make the supervising staff made adequate.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No representation on this subject has reached the Postmaster General, but inquiry is being made, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Has the Postmaster General received no communication from the local postmaster?
MR. FLYNN: Did not a deputation wait on the Postmaster General, or his representative in Dublin, with reference to this matter?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That may be so. If so, there is an error in the question. As I have said, the Postmaster General has himself received no representation, but he is making inquiries.
*MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at the last meeting of the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping in reference to the need of better and larger accommodation than is planned for the public in the enlarged Post Office buildings in course of erection in Cork; and, whether, in view of the complaints of the commercial classes and general public as to inadequate accommodation, the postal authorities will give immediate consideration to this matter and provide that the plans as revised will be carried out.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received a copy of the resolution referred to. The enlargement of the public office in the Cork Post Office, which the Chamber of Commerce desire, would involve a very large increase of expense and would probably endanger the stability of the structure. It is considered that the public office as planned will afford ample accommodation; but in order to meet the views of the Chamber of Commerce as far as possible it has been arranged to provide a separate counter for parcels on the Pembroke Street side of the building.
*MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Seeing that the increase would only cost £5,000, do the Government think that too much to provide a suitable office for Cork?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We intend to provide a suitable office.
*MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: But whose opinion is to be taken as to the suitability?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General's.
*MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I say local opinion should be the guide.

IRISH POST OFFICE SERVICE—IRISH LANGUAGE.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in order to meet the growing correspondence in Ireland in the Irish language, he will take steps to secure that a knowledge of Irish be required for all future entrants to the Post Office service in Ireland.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the Postmaster General's opinion no sufficient reason exists for requiring a knowledge of the Irish language from entrants into the Post Office service in Ireland.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Why is there no sufficient reason?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been answered.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Why is not the same treatment given to Ireland in this matter as to the Welsh people?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the actual number of letters addressed in Irish passing through the Post Office?
*MR. SPEAKER: The Financial Secretary obviously cannot answer such a question without notice.
MR. FLAVIN: Then I give notice that I will raise the question on the Estimates.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice in the ordinary way.

GOVERNMENT EDUCATION BILL.
*MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the declarations of labour and co-operative associations throughout the country during the past year in support of the claim of the school boards to maintain the hitherto existing system of instruction in higher grade and science schools, and protesting against any restriction of this instruction, whether by code or minute, as prejudicial to the interests of the children of working men; and whether, in deciding on the proposals of the Bill now promised, His Majesty's Government will give due consideration to these practically universal representations from working-class organisations.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until my right hon. friend has an opportunity of explaining the Bill before he asks for information on the subject.
*MR. CHANNING: My question does not refer to the Bill's provisions. It is whether in drafting it these representations will be considered.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will understand when he sees that Bill that all these matters have been taken into consideration.
DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way to give school boards an assurance that practices now declared illegal will be dealt with by Parliament this session. Such an assurance would relieve the anxiety very much, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have stated to the House that it is our hope to be able to introduce the Bill before Whitsuntide, and even if that hope should be disappointed, which I do not think it will be,
78
the Bill certainly will lie, introduced immediately after Whitsuntide.
*MR. CHANNING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if its proposals do not adequately meet the demands of the associations mentioned the Bill will meet with, the most strenuous opposition from this side of the House?

SCOTTISH SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORAL REGISTERS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that thousands of ratepayers in Scotland, who are entitled to vote for the Parliamentary representative and at county and parish council elections, have no vote for school board elections by reason of their rentals being less than £4; and will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation this session which will place the school board electorate on a more satisfactory footing.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no intention to introduce such legislation this session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury what are his intentions or expectations with regard to the course of public business this week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: "Hopes" would perhaps be a better word than "intentions" or "expectations." My hopes are that we shall finish all the resolutions connected with the Budget to-night, except the Report of the coal duty, which will be discussed at the morning sitting to-morrow, and that we shall read the Budget Bill the first time at the morning sitting to-morrow before seven o'clock. If my hopes are disappointed, we shall finish the Budget resolutions on Thursday and take the Civil List resolution on Monday. On Friday Irish Supply will be taken.
SIR JOHN COLOMB: Then the Army resolution will not be taken this week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, there is no question of that.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: When the motion for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is made, will opportunity be afforded for a general discussion on the financial proposal of the Government?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is it intended to take the resolution with regard to the Army before the Second Reading of the Budget Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine that the Civil List resolution and the introduction of the Civil List Bill, which is to follow, will only take one night—Monday night of next week. In that case we will take the Army resolution at the morning sitting of the Tuesday following, or on the Thursday. The Second Reading of the Budget Bill will follow.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Friday, 10th May, could be allotted to the consideration of some of the Scotch Estimates.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as I am aware there will be no objection to devoting this Friday to Scottish Supply. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be contented with that provisional undertaking.

MESSAGES FROM THE LORDS.
Widows and Orphans of Soldiers and Sailors.—That they do propose that the Joint Committee, appointed to consider the various charitable agencies now in operation, and the funds available for relieving Widows and Orphans of Soldiers and Sailors, with the view to ensuring that the funds supplied by local and private benevolence are applied to the best advantage in supplementing a scheme of Government pensions for Widows and Orphans of Soldiers and Sailors who have lost their lives in war, do meet in Committee Room A, on Thursday next, at Three of the clock.
Lords' Message considered.
Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords' Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
London Underground Railways.—That they do propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider and report—

1. Whether the lines of route for underground railways in and near London, proposed by Bills which have been or may be introduced during the present session, are best calculated to afford facilities for present and probable future traffic; and, if not, what modifications of those lines of route are desirable.

2. What special provisions, if any, should be made for the protection of the owners, lessees, and occupiers of properties adjacent to underground railways from possible damage and annoyance;

3. What special terms and conditions, if any, as to construction and working should be imposed upon the promoters;

4. Whether any, and which, of the schemes proposed by the said Bills should not be proceeded with during the present session,

do meet in Committee Room B, on Thursday, at Two of the clock.
Lords' Message considered.
Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords' Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

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

CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL EXCISE DUTY ON SPIRITS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the additional Excise duty on

81
spirits, imposed by Section seven of the Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and two."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. NOLANsaid he desired to make a personal appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the duty on spirits. He had little doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman were left to his own instincts in the matter he would not have the slightest hesitation in acceding to the request he was about to make. But he was well aware that the right hon. Gentleman was not free to give effect to his personal inclination, and he could forecast the reply which the right hon. Gentleman would make to his appeal. He would, no doubt, express the wish he entertained to relieve the over-taxation of Ireland, but he would also inform the Committee that the exigencies of the public service prevented the possibility of any amelioration of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman would doubtless point to the increase in the Army and Navy and to the demands on the public purse in connection with the war still proceeding in South Africa, and then would come the refusal to which he was afraid he had to look forward. He was reminded of an incident which occurred on the first occasion on which he visited the House of Commons many years ago. At that time the party to which he now had the honour to belong was led by Mr. Isaac Butt, and from the strangers' gallery he heard Mr. Butt make an appeal to the Treasury Bench, and when he received a reply he said that when he considered the words of Ministers and the action of the Government he was reminded of the saying of his namesake in the Old Testament—"The voice was the voice of Jacob soft and sweet, but the hand was the hand of Esau rough and hard." Ireland received soft words from Ministers of the Crown, but yet the country was left to groan under an intolerable burden of taxation. It was, however, the duty of the Irish Members to protest against this burden of taxaton, and they protested on broad national grounds, because it had been proved by the Royal Commission which inquired into the financial relations between the two countries that
82
Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of nearly three millions sterling a year. He wished further to protest against the tax on whisky, because it was unfair in its incidence to the Irish people. When they compared the tax upon spirits which were used by the great mass of the people of Ireland with the wines consumed by the upper classes they found it told against the working classes. He also protested against the continuance of the additional 6d. levied upon that industry in the previous year, having regard to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he did not make a definite promise, held out a very distinct hope that it was only to be levied for twelve months. It had often been stated that Ireland was a poor country. He protested against such a statement. Ireland had rich resources in herself, and if she was poor it was owing to the excessive taxation from which she suffered, of which this particular tax formed a very important part. At the present time, excluding manufactured goods, Ireland exported to this country goods to the extent of no less than £26,000,000, and if she were not so excessively taxed she would be one of the most prosperous and richest countries in the world. The produce of all the gold mines of the world would not pay for the amount of agricultural produce which Ireland exported to England, and if the return for the produce were not drained out of Ireland year after year by excessive taxation Ireland would not have to appear in forma pauperis before the nations of the earth. The excessive taxation amounted to as much as £3,000,000 at a time when the revenue of the country was £7,500,000, and now that the revenue of the country stood at £10,500,000 its burdens correspondingly increased. With regard to the tax upon whisky, the number of gallons of proof whisky distilled in Ireland last year was 14,500,000, upon which a duty of 11s. was levied. He drew attention to the fact that no rebate was allowed upon whisky exported to Great Britain, and he thought that Ireland ought to be credited with the full amount of duty paid on Irish whisky, whether paid in Ireland or in this country. This enormous impost upon this particular industry

83
had increased from 3s. 4d. in 1853 up to 11s., and it now amounted to more than five times the cost of the product, even of the best class. Charges had been made against the Irish of disloyalty. In the beginning of the last century thousands of Irishmen were fighting for England, and pouring out their hearts' blood on the fields of Spain, and both the general officers of those times and historians of that war admitted that many of the greatest victories won for this country had been won by the Irish troops. What did those who survived and returned to their own country, which they loved so well, find? They found the taxation had more than doubled, and in connection with this particular tax trebled, and the same thing occurred in the Crimean War. Irishmen then fought and bled for this country, to find upon their return to Ireland that fresh burdens had been placed upon the shoulders of the people.
There was a strong belief in Ireland, and also in Scotland, that the tax put on the general drink of the masses was heavier by a great deal than that placed on the general drink of the masses of England. Those who measured the popular beverage of Ireland and the popular beverage of this country said that whisky paid quite as little as beer when the alcoholic strength of the liquids was taken into account, but he protested against the national beverage of Ireland being compared in this way with beer. There was no analogy between beer and whisky; they were entirely different drinks, and produced by a different process. He would like to know if that was the standaard by which the Government measured the tax on the two liquors; and if so, why? Without entering into the technique of the question, he might point out that 84 lb. of malted barley, fermented into wort at 1,055°, produced 36 gallons of beer for the English consumer; whereas, as far as Ireland was concerned, it produced 4½ gallons of proof spirit. The processes of developing the two kinds of drink were entirely different, and the alcohol which was developed in the one case was allowed to remain latent in the other. There was no getting away from the fact that the capacity for developing this alcoholic strength was in the beer
84
just as in the whisky. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had the advantage of being advised by great chemical experts, would be able to put a different complexion on the matter, but all the men he himself had met with connected with the distilling and brewing industry, and all the chemists he had been able to consult, were of opinion that, as far as the two drinks were concerned, there was no earthly reason why whisky should be taxed at 11s. per proof gallon, while beer escaped with a tax of 11s. for 36 gallons. The Irish farmers' barley, placed in the hands of the distillers, turned out an alcoholic strength of 450°, and paid £2 9s. 6d., while the English farmers' barley, which had within it a possible alcoholic strength of 450°, paid only 11s., the Irishman thus being forced to pay four and a half times as much as the Englishman. Then with regard to wine, which he admitted was, like whisky, a distilled product, if the standard of alcoholic strength was applied to wine, it would be found that a gallon of wine, containing 30°. of alcohol, paid 1s. 3d. Therefore wine registering 30° of alcohol paid for 100 per cent. of alcohol 5s. a gallon, while whisky paid 11s. If alcoholic strength was to be the standard according to which the tax was to be levied, how was it that the product of the Frenchman, the Spaniard, and the Italian was allowed to get off at half the amount imposed upon the product of the Irishman? He, however, looked to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some relief in connection with this particular duty, on account of the promise held out by him when the question was before the House last year. The right hon. Gentleman was reported in Hansard as having stated, after mentioning the amount of the duty for that year—
"I think that we may very properly impose another sixpence per gallon on spirit."
And then, having said so much, he went on—
"I wish to say that I look upon it as a temporary addition to the existing taxation, I hope, merely for the coining year."
The right hon. Gentleman further said—
"I propose that the additional taxation shall last until 1st August, 1901—not, I hope, that it will he necessary to levy it so long."

85
The hon. Member, therefore, looked forward with considerable interest to the right hon. Gentleman's reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also held out a specific hope with regard to what was called "silent spirit." The amount imported was something like 1,500,000 gallons.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid it would not be open to the hon. Member to consider the question of imported spirit. That had already been disposed of by the Resolution of the Committee.
MR. NOLANsaid it was not merely the question of the imported silent spirit, as there were no less than 14,500,000 gallons of that liquor manufactured in this country. What became of that spirit? A portion was used for its legitimate purpose, namely, the making of varnishes, etc., but a large amount found its way into the Scotch and Irish whisky vats. In the interests of the revenue, as well as of the health of the population, steps ought to be taken by the Government to prevent unscrupulous traders using this vile product, faking it up, and selling it as Irish or Scotch whisky. He suggested, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have to derange his plans, that this 6d. per gallon should be devoted to some useful Irish purpose, such, for instance, as the recently instituted Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. That Department, which was established with an honest and genuine desire to improve the condition of Ireland, had a very wide field to cover; almost everything connected with the undeveloped resources of the country came within its purview; and, at least, it would be able to indicate a way in which the money, amounting to between £300,000 and £400,000 per annum, might be applied. But whether the money was devoted to that particular object or not, it surely was not an extravagant request to ask that it should be applied to some beneficial and specific Irish purpose. The war in South Africa was costing £1,500,000 a week, and surely it was not asking too much when they expressed a wish that this money, raised in Ireland by increased taxation, should be devoted to Irish purposes to the extent of one-third of the amount
86
which was being poured out weekly on the veldt in South Africa. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give special attention to the points he had raised, and make some effort in the direction of restoring a portion of the money which had been unjustly levied upon Ireland.
MR. FLYNNsaid he joined with his hon. friend in protesting against the re-imposition of this additional duty on spirits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured them at the time would only be levied temporarily. Nothing could be more distinct and less ambiguous than the undertaking given them by the right hon. Gentleman that this additional 6d. was only to be a temporary duty. This tax more than any other exemplified in a striking manner the unfair way in which taxation weighed upon Ireland. At the present moment indirect taxation in England had been reduced by 48 per cent. of the whole, while it remained in Ireland at 73 per cent. The tax on whisky proved up to the hilt that indirect taxation had been levied very unfairly upon Ireland. He was anxious to see the consumption of alcohol in Ireland largely decreased by voluntary efforts, but that was not the question before the Committee. What they had to consider was what the tax produced, how it was levied, and what effect it would have on the country upon which it was levied. In 1823 the tax in England upon whisky was 11s. 8d. and in 1852 it was reduced to 7s. 10d. In 1823 in Ireland the whisky tax was 2s. 5d., butitwasraisedinl852to 2s. 8d., and at the present moment it stood at 11s. That was a four-fold increase in the duty upon the national beverage of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might argue that the same taxes were levied indiscriminately in Ireland as in England, and that there could not possibly be any unfairness in that. That was exactly what they complained of. By picking out those particular articles which were greatly used in a certain country, as whisky was in Ireland, under the pretence of fairness and equality, they inflicted a great injustice upon the country. Whisky was the national beverage in Ireland, and by taxing that they placed a direct tax upon the people, while those people who consumed beer got off with

87
much lighter taxation. They had a right to claim that this extra sixpence ought to be discontinued. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would argue that, like tobacco, whisky was a luxury. Mr. Sexton, in his Report of the Financial Relations Commission, said—
"Whether tea or tobacco, beer or whisky, is a luxury or not, is a question to which no absolute answer can be given. The question is not whether any commodity of common consumption is a luxury or not, but simply what part of the Imperial Revenue the people in each country can fairly contribute in proportion to what they can afford to spend, no matter how they may think proper to spend it."
He would give an illustration of this. Supposing the finances of France and England were joined, it would be quite unfair to the French to levy a heavy tax upon coffee and a light tax upon tea. They might say to the Frenchman, "Coffee is a luxury; why do not you drink tea?" The French would reply that coffee was their national beverage, and that they would not be treated equally with England by putting a heavy tax on coffee and a light one on tea. The same argument applied between England and Ireland with regard to whisky and beer, the national beverages of those countries. Upon this question Sir Robert Giffen observes—
"The amount contributed by Ireland to Customs and Excise revenue which is frequently considered by itself a sign of relative resources, is only evidence that in matters of taxation Ireland is virtually discriminated against by the character of the indirect taxes which happen to hit articles of specially Irish consumption."
That was part of their whole case in regard to their financial relations, a question which he hoped would be dealt with at no very distant date. Really the whole argument and the whole proof of the unfairness of the taxation of Ireland, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer got £3,000,000 more than he was entitled to, rested upon the basis of indirect taxation. There was another view of the question, and that was to compare the whisky tax with the beer tax of this country. Irishmen paid more on the alcohol they consumed than Englishmen, although they were more temperate. He objected to the whole system under which taxation was levied
88
at present in Ireland. The Nationalist Members considered it fair that the tax should be reduced to something more in accordance with justice and with sound principles of financial equity. With regard to the proportion between whisky and beer, he thought it would be allowable to quote the statement of a gentleman whose name at the present moment was known probably to every newspaper reader in the civilised world. He referred to Sir Alfred Milner. It was admitted by Sir Alfred Milner when he was Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue—
"that whilst the tax on spirits—the article more generally consumed in Ireland—is equal to from two-thirds to three-fourths of the price, the tax upon beer, which is the popular article of consumption in England, is only about one-sixth of the price."
The case was stronger in regard to spirit duties. In whisky the duty on patent still whisky was nine-tenths of the price, and on pot-still whisky seven-eighths of the price. The whole of this system of taxation—this apparent equality of the rates of duty in both countries—was based on wrong principles, and with regard to the poorer country the Government discriminated against her with almost awful injustice. There was another view of the case in connection with this additional tax on spirits. A high tax on spirits tended to produce bad whisky; at any rate, it tended to put a large amount of bad and unwholesome whisky into consumption among the people, because the temptation to adulteration by the use of imported spirits was increased. That imported spirit was mixed with honest Scotch or Irish whisky, and it was placed on the market with large profit to the publican, but, unfortunately, with the most destructive effects on the bulk of the people who consumed it. Methylated spirit was used for burning old paint off doors and shutters, and whisky adulterated with that spirit was calculated to burn the stomachs of the unfortunate people who consumed it. This was owing to the high duty levied on the whisky. Why should they discriminate against Irish whisky? In connection with silent spirit, as it was called, whether imported or made in this country, he thought they were entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

89
to cause inquiries to be instituted as to where it was made and what it was made from, and to try to follow it through its various ramifications in connection with the spirit trade. When Mr. Gladstone brought in the Budget in 1854 in connection with the expenditure for the Crimean War he increased the duty on beer by 50 percent., but now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make no increase whatever on the beer duty. If it were to be a question as between keeping the increase of 6d. per gallon on the whisky or increasing the beer duty, the Nationalist Members should support the latter. It had been pointed out and proved to demonstration that whisky was most unfairly taxed as contrasted with beer. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not agree to lop off the additional 6d. per gallon, at any rate he should not violate their intelligence by pretending that the tax was imposed in the interest of fair play and financial equality between England and Ireland in regard to these matters. The Nationalist Members trusted that they would be able to raise this whole question of the financial relations between the two countries in a more formal manner than was possible in a debate on a single tax. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to assure Irish Members that this tax would not be continued beyond next August, as the right hon. Gentleman said last year that it would only be a temporary tax. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He was not standing there as an advocate of intemperance or of the increased consumption of whisky. Far from it. He should like to see the consumption of whisky in Ireland at any rate reduced very largely, and he should like to see the consumption of honest Irish whisky increased in this country on the ground of temperance, because it would then drive out of the market bad and deleterious spirit, which was doing an enormous amount of harm to the health of the community.
MR. SAMUEL YOUNGsaid he considered the duty on whisky was too high at 11s. per proof gallon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him that it did not even pay him to put that tax on. It would pay
90
the Chancellor of the Exchequer better at 10s., and it would be better for the country. There was a point at which it was dangerous to tax an article, and he thought they had not only reached that point in whisky, but they had gone beyond it. Patent still whisky was used enormously in this country, and to make a gallon twenty-five over proof by that process cost 1s. 3d. On that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to be paid 13s. 9d. of duty The proportion of duty to cost in whisky was out of all proportion as compared with any other article on which duty was levied. Beer was probably the nearest thing to it, but the proportion between beer and whisky was as 2s. 3d. to 11s. He did not say the duty on beer was too little, but he distinctly said the duty on whisky was too much. It was not good for the community, and it was not good for the revenue to put so large a tax on whisky. He wished to disabuse the public mind with regard to the great evil which was said to take place in this country from the use of silent whisky. Silent whisky was German whisky which came in here, and he believed it was rarely used in this country as a beverage. It was only used for methylation. He was really not much afraid of a further duty being put on spirits, not because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have any qualms of conscience in increasing the duty, but because he was satisfied that it would not pay, and that it would be detrimental to the public interest. He had asked a question that day as to whether the 6d. could not be taken off, and he did not get a favourable answer, but he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the matter.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONsaid that after the unimpassioned and impartial speech just delivered, he was afraid that anything he could say would fall very flat. He desired that the country should understand that the Irish Members were not unanimous in protesting against this tax. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish benches: Yes, we are.] Not even three-fourths of them. He thought that the feeling of that part of the country which he had the honour to represent towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that

91
his Budget dealt very impartially with all interests and sections of Great Britain; and if there was one section of the House more than another which had a right to be grateful it was surely the representatives for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had not added to a single tax which bore on that country. [Cries from the Irish Benches of "Sugar!"] He desired to give the heartiest support to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he would have been better pleased had the right hon. Gentleman increased the duty on whisky. There was a meeting of the National Temperance Association that afternoon in the Mansion House, with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the chair, and he had sent a telegram expressing regret that he could not be there to support the Archbishop, because he felt it his bounden duty to remain in the House to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. TULLYsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken would tax whisky on religious grounds. [Mr. JOHNSTON: Why not?] Well, most of the bad whisky came from the hon. Gentleman's own constituency. It was very important that the House should know how the people of Ireland had been treated in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave last year a clear and specific promise that this tax would only last a certain period. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House should bear in mind that that promise had not been kept, and that probably the promises of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the coal and sugar duties would be as evasive as that with reference to the whisky duty. It was very unfair to increase the tax on an important Irish industry, which had already reached the breaking point, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted in his opening statement. From the very instructive set of figures supplied by the hon. Member for West Islington he found that in 1893–94 the total revenue from whisky was £2,234,684, but when the duty was increased to 11s. per gallon the revenue only amounted to £2,471,000, or an increase of £236,000. He thought hat was a very clear indication that the tax on whisky could not be further increased with any profit to the revenue.
92
They could tax an article out of existence, and if the Government continued this tax on a legitimate Irish industry it would be killed. The effect of the increased tax on Irish whisky had been to drive it out of the British market, and to introduce a cheap German spirit, manufactured from sawdust and sulphuric acid; and in a great many cases that obnoxious compound had been palmed off on the British public as good Irish whisky. Good, well-matured Irish whisky was as little intoxicating as some of the German wines. After all whisky was the wine of Ireland, and was used for medicinal and other purposes, besides driving people into the ways of intemperance. He found that on 72s. worth of beer the taxation was 8s.; on 72s. worth of wine the taxation was 9s.; on 72s. worth of coffee the taxation was 9s.; but on 72s. worth of spirits the taxation was 29s. 6d. That meant that on a 1s. worth of beer a man paid only 1⅓d. of taxation, but on 1s. worth of whisky he paid 5d. When the British working man, who shouted for the South African War, drank 1s. worth of beer he only paid 1⅓d., but the poor Irishman, who had objected all along to that iniquitous war, drank 1s. worth of whisky he paid 5d. Not only had the taxation on whisky reached the point at which it ceased to be profitable, but it was driving the good Irish stuff out of the market and introducing an impure foreign stuff. They could not go into a decent public-house in this country and get a glass of Irish whisky which could be safely drunk. It was not Irish whisky at all, but a deleterious German spirit. Irish whisky had been unfairly treated in the matter of taxation. The hon. Member for South Belfast seemed to think that the whisky industry in Ireland should be extinguished altogether.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Hear, hear!
MR. TULLY: But Ireland was naturally a favourable country for producing all the materials for making good Irish whisky. What would the Germans or French say if it were proposed to wipe out the production of wine, for which those countries were naturally adapted? It was very important that

93
hon. Members on both sides of the House should carefully weigh how the Irish Members had been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question, and how his promises had been broken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that the Irish people had a grievance in this matter, and had been unfairly treated, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not give some indication of the intentions of the Government in regard to discontinuing the tax. He admitted that this Budget was the first for many years in which Ireland had not been treated unfairly, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bearing in mind his promise last year, would give the Irish Members some assurance of relief which they could tell to their people at home.
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for the admission he has just made that in this year's Budget I have not striven to deal unfairly with Ireland. I can assure the hon. Member that with regard to the additional taxation imposed last year, in that also I tried to deal fairly with Ireland. Last year that addition was expected by me and by the House to be temporary, and I have explained already to the House the circumstances in which it was necessary to continue it. I only propose to continue it in these resolutions and in the Finance Bill for another year, because I hope that by that time I may be able to review the financial position and consider how these taxes may be dealt with. I can not, however, make any promise now as to the future until I see what expenditure I have to meet. I shall be just as glad as the hon. Member to get rid of this and other additional taxation, but if the country has to meet expenditure like the present I am afraid it cannot be done. The additional tax on spirits has been criticised in its relation to the tax on beer. The general taxation of spirits is doubtless higher in proportion to the amount of alcohol, and I can only say it has always been, and I believe still is, the recognised principle of the taxation of alcohol that the stronger the liquor in which the alcohol is contained the heavier the tax. That is a principle
94
which holds good not only in this country, but all other countries which deal with taxation of this kind. The hon. Member has been almost as eloquent upon the virtues of Irish whisky as the hon. Member for the Sudbury Division upon the virtues of English beer. I am surprised to hear that it is principally used for medicinal purposes, and has no great intoxicating Power. I am not a large consumer of Irish whisky, but I should be rather afraid to attack it with such views as those.
I think hon. Members who have discussed the relative taxation of whisky and beer have really omitted to consider that the burden on Ireland of the further taxation of spirits is to be measured not so much by the production of spirits in Ireland as by the consumption. Irish Members make it a grievance, whisky being an Irish export, that by its export Ireland is so much the poorer. I cannot myself regard the taxation upon Irish whisky from that point of view. No doubt there is a larger proportionate consumption of spirits in Ireland than in England, but I believe the disproportion is steadily diminishing year by year, and that beer and porter are becoming more popular. For Ireland's sake I am glad of it, because I would much prefer that people should drink ale and porter rather than spirits; not on the ground of revenue, but from the point of view of health. I do not believe much silent spirit, as it is called, imported from Germany, is used here for drink. I believe it is used in manufacture. On the whole question, which has been only lightly touched upon, and which could only be lightly touched upon, on this resolution of the relative taxation of Ireland, I am quite willing to admit that the tax on spirits does pro tanto press more heavily on Ireland than on England. It is a part of our general system which has that effect, whereas other parts of that system bear more lightly on Ireland than on other parts of the kingdom. Whether it is fair or not I will not now discuss; but I believe the objections which hon. Members from Ireland raised to the taxation on spirits are due not so much to a wish on their part that spirits should be lightly taxed so that they might become cheap, and be more

95
largely consumed than at present, as to a desire to diminish the taxation which Ireland bears. That is a question which we cannot now discuss for reasons with which hon. Members are well acquainted, and I must ask the House
to sanction this additional tax, at any rate for another year.
Question put.
The Committee divided; Ayes, 342; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 157.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Coddington, Sir William

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gretton, John

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Aird, Sir John

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Groves, James Grimble

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc Stroud

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Allsopp, Hon. George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Archdale; Edward Mervyn

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hall, Edward Marshall

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Robert Hunter

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Amold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hambro, Charles Eric

Asher, Alexander

Cremer, William Randal

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hamilton, Marq of (Lnd'nderry

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Rob. W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cust, Henry John C.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Austin, Sir John

Dalziel, James Henry

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bain, Colonel Jaines Robert

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

Baird, John George Alexander

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir A. D.

Baldwin, Alfred

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

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

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Heider, Augustus

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

Helme, Norval Watson

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Banbury, Frederick George

Doughty, George

Higginbottom, S. W.

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Bartley, George C. T.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E)

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

Edwards, Frank

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Bill, Charles

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Horniman, Frederick John

Black, Alexander William

Faber, George Denison

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hoult, Joseph

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

Boulnois, Edmund

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Bousfield, William Robert

Fenwick, Charles

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Brigs, John

Finch, George H.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jacoby, James Alfred

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Fisher, William Hayes

Jessel, Capt. Herb. Merton

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Burns, John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Burt, Thomas

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Keswick, William

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Forster, Henry William

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Caine, William Sproston

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

Knowles, Lees

Caldwell, James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Langley, Batty

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A (Glasgow)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lawrence, William F.

Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lawson, John Grant

Causton, Richard Knight

Garfit, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gordon. Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Leng, Sir John

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Leveson-Gower, Frederiek N. S.

Channing, Francis Allston

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Levy, Maurice

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Goschen, Hon. George J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Chapman, Edward

Graham, Henry Robert

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Charrington, Spencer

Grant, Corrie

Lloyd-George, David

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Penn, John

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Porks, Robert William

Tennant, Harold John

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Plummer, Walter R.

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Thornton, Percy M.

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Pretyman, Ernest George

Tomkinson, James

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Price, Robert John

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Priestley, Arthur

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Purvis, Robert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

M'Kenna, Reginald

Pym, C. Guy

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Majendie, James A. H.

Randles, John S.

Valentia, Viscount

Malcolm, Ian

Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter

Manners, Lord Cecil

Rea, Russell

Walker, Col. William Hall

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Reckitt, Harold James

Wallace, Robert

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Markham, Arthur Basil

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Rickett, J. Compton

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Rigg, Richard

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Weir, James Galloway

Milward, Colonel Victor

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

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

Mitchell, William

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Loyd

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

White, George (Norfolk)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Round, James

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose)

Russell, T. W.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Morton, Arthur H. A. (D'ptford)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Moss, Samuel

Samnel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Mount, William Arthur

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Schwann, Charles E.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Murray. Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Myers, William Henry

Sinclair, Louis Romford

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Newnes, Sir George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (York.)

Norman, Henry

Sinith, H. C (Northmb Tyneside

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

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

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Soares, Ernest J.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Palmer, George Win. (Reading

Spear, John Ward

Wylie, Alexander

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Parker, Gilbert

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Younger, William

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Stroyan, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Strutt, Hn. Chas. Hedley

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

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ambrose, Robert

Hemphill Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Connor, Jas. (Wieklow, W)

Blake, Edward

Joyce, Michael

O'Doherty, William

Boland, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Boyle, James

Leamy, Edmund

O'Dowd, John

Burke, E. Haviland-

Lundon, W.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Mara, James

Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Cann, James

Reddy, M.

Crean, Eugene

M'Dermott, Patrick

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Cullinan, J.

M'Fadden, Edward

Roche, John

Delany, William

M'Govern, T.

Sullivan, Donal

Doogan, P. C.

Mooney, John J.

Tully, Jasper

Duffy, William J.

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

Elibank, Master of

Murphy, J.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Hammond, John

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

Harrington, Timothy

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

Resolution to be reported to-morrow, at Two of the clock; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

WAYS AND MEANS [19TH APRIL] REPORT
Order read for resuming Adjourned. Debate on Question [22nd April], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution.

LOAN.
That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and two, sums not exceeding sixty million pounds may be raised by all or any of the following methods:—

(a) by means of the creation of two and three-quarter per cent. Consolidated Stock within the meaning of the National Debt Conversion Act, 1888; or

(b) by means of the issue of further War Stock or War Bonds under the War Loan Act, 1900; or

(c) by means of the issue of Treasury Bills; or

(d) by means of the issue of Exchequer Bonds;

and that the principal of, and interest on, any sum so raised be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
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."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. DOHERTYsaid he rose to protest against the loan of sixty millions for the purposes of paying the cost of the infamous war that was being waged in South Africa. He would like to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what price the loan had been placed, as there was a strong feeling on the Irish Benches that the expense of this war should be laid not
100
on the shoulders of the people of Ireland, but upon the shoulders of the men who had been the main cause of it. The expense should be borne not only by the Transvaal, but by the Jews and moneylenders of the London Stock Exchange, to whom, to a large extent, it was due. One hon. Member upon the Conservative side of the House had said in the course of debate that if the war cost 200 millions it would be a very good price for which to obtain the Transvaal, and if that were so, it was not the present generation who ought to pay at all but future generations who would enjoy the fruits of the war we were now waging. So far as Ireland was concerned, nine-tenths of the people opposed the war, and he appealed to the Leader of the House, recollecting his late connection with Ireland, to use his influence to relieve Ireland from the burden she would have to bear if this war tax outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were put upon her. There was no reason why Ireland should pay any more than the colonies paid, in fact the colonies should be made to pay for their enthusiasm and the way in which they had assisted to take the liberty of the Boers away.
MR. FLYNNsaid the resolution raised a question of the highest principle and highest importance. For once he disagreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down, who appeared to think that posterity ought to be called upon to pay the costs of the war, and that therefore, the loan was justified. Such a suggestion reminded him of Robespierre's question, "What has posterity ever done for us." He thought those who caused the war should pay a large proportion of the cost. The Government were putting off the evil day. He felt convinced that if the late Mr. Gladstone were alive and in the House, he would denounce in the strongest terms this system of raising money by way of loans instead of by fresh taxation. He was not capable of suggesting the alternative courses to be pursued, but at the same time he could not help thinking it would have been more honest and straightforward to have raised a considerable proportion of the sixty millions required by direct and indirect taxation instead of by a loan at 2¾ per cent.

101
When the Government found that this war was costing so much and likely to last so long, they ought to have made inquiries into new sources of taxation. They might have taxed ground rents and ground values, so that the landlords who draw so much money from those sources should pay their fair share. The Committee was told there was no hope of obtaining any assistance from these wealthy mines in the Transvaal. Why not? And again, why did not the Government instead of having an income tax of 1s. 2d. in the £. have a 2s. income tax with proper graduations, so that it should not fall on incomes of less than £1,000? Such a tax would be a real test of whether the war was popular. It was not honest to put the burden upon generations to come; the proper course was to place it upon the shoulders of the present generation by means of direct and indirect taxation. The loan would go on and other loans would be asked for, and the whole 200 millions would be raised by way of loan, and nally added to the National Debt, and the only share the present generation would pay would be the interest upon that loan. The Government had claimed that the great majority by which they were returned was an endorsement of their policy, but he contended that the true test was by taxation, and, having regard to the way in which the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been met, he thought he was justified in saying the war was not so popular as had been supposed. He protested against the resolution.
MR. LOUGH: hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the House into his confidence, and tell them more than on a previous occasion he had judged it wise to do. The first question he wished to ask was, why was the whole loan of sixty millions issued so promptly? He had understood that the right hon. Gentleman was only going to borrow some forty millions at present, and that he only took the right to borrow the remainder so that he might be able to do so if necessary during the year. Last year when the right hon. Gentleman took power to borrow thirty-five millions he did not exercise his full borrowing powers, he only borrowed
102
thirty. To-day he had exercised his borrowing powers to the utmost. He also wished to know what was the proportion of the needs of the present year for which this money was borrowed. The great crime of the right hon. Gentleman was that he delivered good moral lectures to the House, and that he complained that the Opposition did not strengthen his hands; but when they came to the actions of the right hon. Gentleman they were hardly up to the level of his speeches. So far as he could make out, sixty millions had been raised by loan, and eleven millions by new taxation, so that out of seventy-one millions raised only eleven millions were raised by taxation. He had seen, the statement that the loan was divided into two parts, and thirty millions were placed with foreign bankers before the issue to British bankers. If he was wrong he would be glad to be set right, but he understood that a large foreign syndicate had in this way an advantage over British bankers, as they knew the precise price at which they could get the loan and could make their arrangements. Another interesting point in this connection was the total amount of national indebtedness after the issue of the loan. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, to say the amount was then 687 millions. Did that include the sixty millions? It probably did not. If it did not, that would bring the total amount up to 747 millions, almost the largest amount at which the Debt had ever stood. So far as he could see, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had strained his powers to the utmost limit, and no doubt that had had a depressing effect on national securities. He hoped some explanation would be given before the resolution was carried.
MR. TULLYsaid that, in his opinion, if the loan was to be raised at all, it should be charged on some special matter. The Government should charge it upon the new colonies which they had annexed, but not yet conquered, and call it the "Transvaal Loan." Unless the loan was charged on something it would entirely disappear in the National Debt, and the gentlemen interested in the Rhodesian companies would devise some plan by which it should never be charged on the gold mines of the Transvaal.

103
Those mines were the richest in the world, and the capitalists who had encouraged the war should be made to subscribe to the cost of it. Therefore the loan should be known by a special name, so that any future Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to levy it upon the Transvaal. The more honest method of raising the money would be by taxation, as was done at the time of the Crimean War, which had been reckoned the greatest blunder of this country in the past, as the South African war would be in the future regarded as the greatest crime which could have been perpetrated. What was about to be done was neither honest to the present or just to future generations, and he was astonished that the proposal to issue such a loan did not meet with a vigorous protest from the Liberal party, having in view the enormous burden there would be on the country when that party came into power. The loan should bear the distinctive title of Transvaal War Loan, and be imposed on the new colonies to start them with a debt. Capitalists who encouraged the war should not escape from their financial liability.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: thought the hon. Member had treated the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather hardly. The right hon. Gentleman had been abused in all the moods and tenses for having issued the loan. Individually, he considered the policy of the war a most infamous policy. It was the blackest proceeding in which any Government could be engaged; but the right hon. Gentleman had no other course open to him. Not so long ago the right hon. Gentleman at Bristol, speaking at the Colston banquet, said that, so far as he was concerned, the mine-owners would bear the expense of the war; that he would not allow them to ride roughshod over the people, and saddle them with the expense. Nevertheless, the wealthy companies had got off scot-free, and the people were to be taxed, and those for whose benefit the war was made were to escape. The fact was that the Government dare not tax the mine-owners of the Transvaal, because if they did the Rhodes-Hawkesley correspondence would be published.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: pointed out that the resolution authorised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise £60,000,000 by any one of four specified methods, whereas he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had already decided upon the particular method by which he would raise the money.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It was necessary to give the alternatives in the resolution, in order that everybody might not know the precise form in which I desired to raise the money. Of course, the Bill itself will apply only to the particular method adopted.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I would suggest that the resolution, as now before the House, is, as to methods (b), (c), and (d), absolutely unnecessary. What I was going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman was that he should pass the resolution in the only form in which it will be effective—that is to say, he should take power to raise £60,000,000 by method (a), that being the form in which, as he has now told us, he has made arrangements for raising the money.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We are now merely asking the assent of the House to the resolution passed by the Committee. It will not make the slightest difference whether it is passed in this form or in the form suggested by the hon. Member. If, however, it were to be passed in another form I should have to bring in another resolution, pass it through Committee, and then pass it through the House.
MR. BUTCHER (York): There is one defect in this otherwise admirable Budget which I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to remedy before he brings in the necessary Bill to sanction this loan. I desire to see some clear and definite pronouncement by Parliament, which would have the effect of providing that an adequate proportion of the cost of this war shall eventually fall upon the new colonies. We have had statements from the right hon. Gentleman—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's observations would be more appropriate

105
to the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when the whole scheme will be before the House. This resolution has to do with the specific question of raising the money by loan.
MR. BUTCHER: I would merely express my regret that the loan has not taken the form of a Transvaal loan, charged on the revenues of the colony and guaranteed by this country. It is not as if we were wholly without information as to the riches of the Transvaal. We know that the profits of the gold mines have, in the past, been very great, and we have no reason to suppose that those profits will be diminished under British rule as opposed to that of President Kruger. In addition to that, we have the knowledge that the old Transvaal Government owned very valuable property, such as mining property, and banking and other shares. We therefore know enough of the new Government of the Transvaal to be certain that it will be possessed of vast assets and large revenues. Consequently, I should have been glad to see a large portion of the cost of the war raised by a loan directly and primarily charged on the Transvaal and its revenues. If it is too late, as I suppose it is now, to get that done, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would be possible, in the Bill sanctioning this loan, to provide that by some date to be fixed now or hereafter the whole or a substantial portion of the loan will be charged upon the new colonies.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope the House will not pursue this debate at any length, because it must be remembered that this is but a formal resolution, and a full opportunity for debate will be afforded on the Second Reading of the Bill—which will be a separate Bill from the Finance Bill. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for York, I would remind the House that it was raised and discussed on a former occasion, when I think I received the practically unanimous assent of the House to this principle, namely, that in the present condition of the Transvaal which I have myself described, it would be misleading and useless to issue a Transvaal loan, for a contribution
106
to the cost of the war, guaranteed by this country, rather than a loan secured on the credit of this country, and that the effect of doing so would be to saddle the taxpayers of this country with a larger rate of interest than they would otherwise have to pay. Of course, I quite agree with my hon. friend that we must keep the matter in mind. I said so in my Budget speech, and I pointed out then to the Committee that for several years to come—for at least ten years—the loans which we have already borrowed on account of this war will, from time to time, be falling in, and then will be the time, if possible, to make some such arrangement as is desired. Several Members below the gangway opposite have criticised this resolution, but on different grounds. The hon. Member who commenced the debate said he did not want any taxation imposed upon Ireland. This is not a tax; it is a loan resolution. Another hon. Member said he disagreed with his hon. colleague, and thought that all this money should have been raised by taxation. Yet the hon. Member is among those who have invariably opposed all the proposals of taxation which it has been my duty to make. The hon. Member for West Islington asked some questions with regard to the issue of the loan. I hoped to have satisfied the hon. Member for once in a way, because I remember that in the last speech he made upon this subject he pressed me to inform him precisely how I intended to borrow, and urged that it should be by Consols. I am very glad that in that, at any rate, I have satisfied the hon. Member. Now he asks why I raised the whole sum at once. I did so because in that way I could raise it to the best advantage and spread the whole of the payments for the loan over a longer time, and thus cause much less inconvenience to the Money Market than if the payments had to be made at shorter intervals. Further, it was of great importance to the public interest that the loan, so to speak, should be got rid of, and that the Stock Exchange should be relieved from the feeling that a large issue was still impending. That was my reason for issuing the whole at one time. But as I have already stated, there is a considerable amount of Treasury bills falling due, and I shall be

107
able to utilise any surplus of the loan, if the course of the war should permit, in paying off the Treasury bills as they become due. The hon. Member asked why I issued half the loan to certain large firms—whom he quite wrongly characterised as foreign firms—and only issued the remaining half to the public at large. Anybody who has considered these matters knows that to borrow sixty millions at one time is a financial operation of considerable magnitude, and while I wished, on the one hand, to obtain for the loan as good a price as possible in the market, I desired even more strongly on the other that there should be no risk of anything but a most successful issue. The morning after my Budget statement Consols touched 94½. I am afraid that my speech, with the statement that it would be necessary to borrow a large sum, necessarily rather lowered their value. But I rather pride myself upon having, shortly before Consols touched that point, agreed with certain large financial houses in the City to take half the loan at 94½. If the House compares that operation with the operation, for example, which Sir George Cornewall Lewis had to undertake at the commencement of the Crimean War, when he announced an issue of fifteen millions, and 3 per cent. Consols being at 90, he could only obtain 87⅝ for his issue, I think I may venture to say that I did better for the taxpayer than did Sir George Cornewall Lewis. Then the hon. Member for West Islington says that the result of this borrowing has been to considerably depress securities. I think, on the contrary, that if the hon. Member looks into the matter he will see that securities are now rising. The knowledge that a large loan was to be raised undoubtedly did depress securities, but they are now distinctly rising again. Though, of course, you cannot borrow large sums of money in the Money Market, and you cannot engage in very costly wars—[Nationalist cheers]—you cannot engage in costly but necessary wars—without lowering the value of securities, yet I do not think that the way in which I have borrowed the sums required has had any such effect as the hon. Member suggests.
MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the total amount?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The total amount of what?
MR. LOUGH: The total amount to which the loan brings up the Debt.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The total amount of the loan is £60,000,000. If the hon. Member will add that to the amount of the Debt, which I stated in my Budget speech—I have not the exact figures here—the amount will, of course, be increased by that sum.
MR. LOUGH: I only asked the question because, when I stated the amount just now, it was met with ridicule on the other side of the House. £687,000,000 was the amount mentioned in the Budget speech, and £60,000,000 added to that brings the sum to £747,000,000. merely ask whether my figures are correct.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have no doubt that, if the hon. Gentleman's first amount is right, his figures are correct. I think I have now answered all the points which have been addressed to me.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not explained why he was borrowing now, notwithstanding the fact that, in October, 1899, he said he would not borrow except for a first-class war.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I fully explained that in my Budget speech. That statement related to a war which, it was then anticipated, would be a comparatively small war. I pointed out that the cost had grown so enormously that the circumstances were entirely altered, and that I was justified therefore in issuing a funded loan.
MR. JOYCE (Limerick): I feel that I must voice my feelings, and the feelings of the great majority of my constituents, in condemnation of this war and all its belongings. We are asked to vote a loan of £60,000,000 towards the cost of one of the most unholy and unjust wars ever waged, but I for one will protest against any payment in connection with that object, whether the amount be £1

109
or £160,000,000. The Government plunged into this war in the most reckless manner; and the people who backed them in so doing ought to pay in a handsome manner; but those, whether they be in England or in Ireland, who have all along opposed the war, ought not to be called upon to bear the burden. There is another point to which I should like to refer, and that is with regard to the children of some of my constituents who have been dragged out to South Africa to fight your battles. Some of these boys were not fifteen years old, and should have been at school—
*MR. SPEAKER: These are matters which it is not open to the hon. Member to discuss on this occasion.
MR. JOYCE: Very well, Sir. I will just give my idea, from a nautical point of view, with regard to this war. The Government drifted into the war, thinking they could sail off with a trade-wind and on a summer sea, and that a harbour of safety was before them, in which they could cast anchor whenever they got tired of fighting. Before they had been very long embarked, squalls arose—whether those squalls took the name of De Wet, or Botha, or Delarey, I know not, but the Government soon found themselves in a very sad condition. But not only did the Government drift into the war, they are now drifting into the taxes tired of fighting. Before they had been very long embarked, squalls arose—whether those squalls took the name of De Wet, or Botha, or Delarev. I know not.
110
Exchequer quite apprehended the point which the hon. and learned Member for York desired to make. It is admitted on all hands that it may be some years—let us say ten—before we can really call upon the Transvaal to make any effective contribution towards the money we are now raising or going to raise by way of loan. But there is a danger that, when those ten years have expired and the Transvaal is in a position to make such an effective contribution, the matter may have passed out of mind, and, unless something is done at the present time to record the intention of the Government, it may be forgotten. I think the House, in giving power to raise this loan, may very fairly ask the Government to put on record that it is their intention—one cannot say more—at some future period to get back as much of this money as may be fair and reasonable from the Government of the Transvaal. Governments come and go. Who can say what may be the position of things in ten years time? The position of any future Government which has to deal with the question will be very different if, in bringing this matter forward, they can refer to some definite expression of intention, recorded at the time of issuing the loan. I would suggest that it would be very easy to do this when the Bill is introduced by reciting that, whereas such and such is the intention Government which has to deal with the question will be very different if, in bringing this matter forward, they can refer to some definite expression of intention, recorded at the time of issuing the loan. I would suggest that it would be very easy to do this when the Bill is introduced by reciting that, whereas such and such is the intention of the Government, in the meantime it is necessary to raise the money by loan. The then existing Government would be able to refer to such a recital, ant there would be a solid foundation for making proposals which otherwise might be looked upon as stale, and as having no reference to any then existing state of circumstances.
COLONEL NOLANhoped the House would never be so foolish as to attempt to put any part of the cost of the war on the Transvaal. He held this view, not from any any sentimental reason, but purely on the ground of policy. If any of the cost were put upon the Transvaal, this country would have to engage in a second war to collect it. What happened in the case of America? We went to war to protect our American colonies against France.
The colonies were delighted to have our assistance, but the moment they were asked to pay a penny towards the cost they revolted. Exactly the same thing would happen in the Transvaal.
*MR. SPEAKER: The question of levying a tax in the Transvaal cannot be discussed on this Vote.
COLONEL NOLANsaid he would not pursue the subject further than to say that, if the Government adopted such a recital as had been suggested, they would set against this country not only the Dutch but also the English in the Transvaal, because it would become their interest to sever their connection with Great Britain. There was one point to which he wished to call attention in regard to the method by which this money was being raised. He understood that those who took up the loan obtained £100 worth of stock by paying £94 10s., so that the country would eventually have to pay for £5 10s. which it did not receive. It was always said that that was the great mistake Pitt made, but when there was a war the lessons of history were forgotten. He should, however, like some explanation as to why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was following this plan of paying £100 for every £95 10s. he obtained, because, under that arrangement, we should have to pay £60,000,000, while receiving only about £57,000,000.
MR. HAVILAND-BURKE: Speaking on behalf of the younger and newer members of the Irish party, I feel that I should be failing in my duty if I did not protest against this loan, no matter how it is raised, because it is a consequence of the evil spirit of militarism which threatens to ruin industry and trade, and which sacrifices every social and industrial interest for a policy of aggression, miscalled Imperial expansion. We often hear the cry that trade follows the flag, and that you have only got to hoist the Union Jack over any territory in order to secure immediate practical benefit to the industrial and commercial classes of this country. It is very strange that a Ministry using such
112
an argument should have ordered steel bridges in the United States and guns in Prussian arsenals. I think it would have been better occupied in protecting the markets we have already got, and developing our undeveloped resources, instead of going on these wild and sanguinary expeditions to acquire new markets, which are so uncertain both as regards the present and the future. The next reason why I oppose this loan is that I look upon it as a prelude to a system of conscription. In introducing his great scheme of Army reform, the Secretary of State for War told us that he only supported the voluntary enlistment system so long as it gave him a sufficient number of men.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling quite outside the question which is before the House.
*MR. HAVILAND-BURKE: My contention is that the tax for the war should fall upon those who are responsible for the waging of the war. It is against every principle not only of sound finance, but of sound statesmanship, that the people of any country should be encouraged to plunge into a war policy in the knowledge that the burden will not fall upon them selves but upon the people who come after them. To my mind there are other and better outlets for this £60,000,000 which is to be borrowed for the waging of a wasteless, useless, and unnecessary war. I will not trespass upon the time of this House at any greater length, but I wish to say, in conclusion, that in this protest against expenditure for so-called national expansion my hon. colleagues who are members of the Irish party and myself are ready to face the cheap and easy charge of treason and disloyalty to the Empire and the Crown which has been levelled in this House against some of the greatest statesmen who ever trod its floor, when they stood up against a reckless policy of war and ruinous expenditure. It was raised against Chatham when Court newspapers clamoured for his impeachment; against Burke when he urged the Irish Parliament to prevent the Irish Militia being used against the revolted American colonists; against John Bright, Cobden, and

113
Gladstone when they protested against what they considered to be an evil war policy. The members of the Irish party will protest to the last against this war Vote at every stage, and we will have it recorded of us that, whatever our faults, we said and did everything we could against the war in order to leave a clean record behind us, and in order that it might be said that Ireland's hands were free from responsibility for spilling the blood of free men, and that Ireland protested to the best of her capacity against a policy of adventure and aggression, which we believe will be as ruinous in the end as it is disgraceful now.
MR. JOHN WILSON: While I intend to vote for this resolution, I wish to again express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not raised this loan in a different form, and that he has not imposed a three per cent. war loan on the Transvaal, guaranteed by this country, for in this way the contention of the hon. Member for North Hackney would have been secured. If this had been done the loan would have been earmarked. We do not know what changes of Government may take place, and I hold that the Transvaal is quite able to pay this war tax even to the extent of £100,000,000. [An HON. MEMBER: You have not got the Transvaal yet.] The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not need to wait for the Report of Sir David Barbour, although I cannot see why that Report should not have been presented to the House by this time. The whole actual, well-ascertained wealth that exists within an area of twenty-five miles round Johannesburg is in possession of the British forces, and all that wealth will accrue to the mineowners under Government rule and order. There is no need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wait for a Report form Sir David Barbour. The mines are not ruined, £200,000 will repair all the damage done to machinery, and there is no difficulty whatever about opening them up once more.
*MR. CHANNING, who was greeted by loud cries of "Divide!" said: I have no intention of entering upon the policy of the war, but
114
before we go to a division it is important that the grave economic issues involved in the resolution before the House should be seriously weighed. The question before us is the justification or the non-justification of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in placing £6 out of every £7 of the cost of this war upon the taxpayers of the future instead of £1 out of every £2 as was done in the case of the Crimean War. The policy adopted is not only inconsistent with the professions of the right hon. Gentleman made in his speech when he said that nothing could induce him to deviate from the sound policy of placing a reasonable proportion of the cost of the war upon those who had to pay taxes at the time the war was waged. It is not only inconsistent with that, but it also constitutes a grave danger to the future of this country. [Ministerial interruptions.] If hon. Members have not studied the economic results of the policy of charging the cost of a war to loans, I think in time their constituents will enlighten them. [Interruptions.] I am addressing myself strictly to the question before the House, and I have a right to expect to receive fair treatment and a fair hearing from hon. Members opposite. My contention is that this Budget places a ridiculously small burden upon the income-tax payer, and the vast cost of the war—£127,000,000 out of £150,000,000—is to be saddled upon the taxpayers of the future. That means that the richer men are not paying their proper share now, and will not be paying it in the future, and that the larger proportion of the expense will be placed on the poorer taxpayers in the future as well as in the present. The policy of raising the money for the cost of the war by loan means economically the taxation of labour itself, the transfer to the workers of the burden which should fall largely on the income tax, the true tax for war purposes. The policy of charging to a loan means the withdrawal of a large amount of capital from productive uses and devoting it to unproductive uses, lessening to that amount the fund available for the employment of labour. [Loud cries of "Divide, divide!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Such a policy has

115
been strongly condemned by John Stuart Mill. The Government are not only piling up the expenditure of the country higher and higher, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to admit that the ordinary expenditure of the country had greatly exceeded even the increases of the revenue, and that he could not have remitted the war taxes of the previous year even if the war had been over. The Government has not the courage to place adequate taxation upon the shoulders of the wealthy classes in order to prevent this enormous burden being saddled upon posterity. This Budget is only the climax of the policy of the Government for the past six years of protecting the interests of the rich and denying fair taxation to the poor. Instead of borrowing this money and charging posterity with it, it should have been charged upon the persons who have been really responsible for this gigantic expenditure—the great capitalists, and the noble Lords of both parties in the State, and all those who have clamoured for this policy of wild and reckless Imperialism. If I could have my way I would not carry a penny of the cost to a loan, but would place the whole of this £60,000,000 upon the shoulders of the millionaires of Park Lane and Johannesburg who had forced the country into this infamous and disgraceful enterprise. [Loud Ministerial cries of "Divide!"]
MR. FLAVIN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you, on a point of order, whether this assembly of gentlemen is not the most disorderly in the world?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman himself is not in order.
MR. REDDY: Mr. Speaker, you would not allow Irishmen to go on in that way.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think that on a question of this magnitude, when it is proposed to pace a permanent burden of £60,000,000 upon this country, we are entitled to discuss it, seeing that we have only discussed it for such a very short time.
116
I think the speeches have been very short and to the point, and this really is a matter of considerable importance. We do not propose to discuss the war, but this is pre-eminently the time at which we should discuss the question whether or not this loan should be added to the National Debt of this country. I think British Members of Parliament are entitled to enter a word of protest against that course. How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer defend the raising of this money by a permanent loan? He said that the Transvaal cannot be expected to pay more, and that we have arrived at a stage where we can begin to borrow permanently upon the basis of the revenues of the country. How is the House of Commons to know whether the Transvaal can pay more than this sum? The House has not got the Report of Sir David Barbour, and this is part of the complaint which we have against the Government. We are asked to come to a decision upon evidence which is in the possession of the Government, but which they have not given to the House.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHwas understood to say that this was not the case, and that he had given to the House the full effect of the information possessed by the Government.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understood that it was the rule of this House that once you quote a document you ought to lay it on the Table of this House. I want to know how it is that this Government seems to be exempt from the rule which compels every other Government to be fair and frank to the House of Commons. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer quotes from a document which he considers is of sufficient importance to justify him in putting a permanent burden of £60,000,000 upon this country, I say that the House of Commons, which is primarily responsible, ought to have the whole of that document in its possession. Speaking from memory, I think that Report was, as far as it went, favourable. Sir David Barbour said the mines were very wealthy and productive, and could pay a considerable sum of money. He stated that not only could they look forward

117
to those mines paying a considerable sum, but he said that there was unlimited wealth in the country outside those mines. If that is so, how is it that we are now borrowing £60,000,000? Take the case quoted by the hon. Member for Forfar of Mr. Hays-Hammond, who stated that the result of the war would be a saving to his group of companies of £3,500,000. That means the capital value of these properties is increased by £120,000,000. Surely it is not unfair to ask these companies to pay 50 per cent. of that amount?
The wise rule that has been followed up to the present is that every generation should pay for its own wars. This course was followed with regard to the Crimean War. It is true that a certain proportion of the money was borrowed at that time, but it was a much smaller proportion than in this case. After the Crimean War we borrowed something like one-half, but the country was not then so rich as it is now. We are much wealthier now, for the revenue has been going up by leaps and bounds, and how is it that we are now only paying some 10 or 15 per cent. towards the cost of the war and borrowing the rest? The Government are committing a great blunder in statesmanship by departing from the rule. We ought to make it as difficult as possible for people to go to war. Formerly, when wars were the result of the intrigue of kings, then we could say that we had no responsibility. Now the danger is that we are rushed into war by popular clamour, and those people who clamour for war and rush us into it ought to bear the burden of it. It is a dangerous thing to lay down the principle that one generation can go to war and leave it to the next generation to pay half the burden. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that the bulk of the taxation which was originally levied to pay for a portion of the burdens of the war went simply to meet ordinary and normal expenditure What has now become of the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman of taxing ourselves in order to bear some share of this burden? The right hon. Gentleman laid down some very exalted principles of statesmanship which
118
he said ought to guide himself and all Chancellors of the Exchequer. [Ministerial cries of "Divide."] I assure hon. Members that they are not curtailing this debate by their interruptions. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in a speech delivered a few days ago, described the House of Commons as the one place where a minority is allowed a fair hearing. It will be a mistake to ruin that reputation of the House in order that a few Members may go to their dinner a quarter of an hour earlier. The right hon. Gentleman has not kept up to the level of his own statesmanship, for, instead of borrowing £60,000,000, he ought to have found it by means of taxation. He ought to have made the Kimberley diamond mines bear a fair share of this war. It was the mine-owners who influenced the press and supplied the "copy" about the alleged grievances and outrages which roused public opinion up to the pitch of excitement which was necessary to support the Colonial Secretary's war policy.
I only make one other observation. The Crimean War proved, I think, the folly of embarking on this policy of borrowing money to carry on wars. What happened in the Crimean War? It was quite as popular as the present war, and yet seven years after the war was over The Times newspaper said that the war was a blunder, that Austria and Germany had far greater cause to go to war with Russia than we had, and a short time ago the present Prime Minister said that then we backed the wrong horse. Supposing the statesmen who were then at the head of affairs had adopted the same principles as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had carried on the war with borrowed money, had exhibited their patriotism on borrowed money, if the feathers in their cap had been borrowed plumes—it strikes me the Secretary for the Colonies is strutting in borrowed plumes—supposing they had borrowed money then exactly as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is borrowing it now, what would have been the result? The generation who made the war would have escaped the penalty, and the generation that discovered it was a mistake would have had to bear the burden. Is that a fair thing to do? It is easier to judge of a war

119
twenty years after it is over than at the time. You have the passions of the moment, you have what Herbert Spencer calls the bias of patriotism, which rather clouds the intellect at the time. It is rather difficult to judge impartially of a question in which your own country is involved; but in ten, twenty, or thirty years reason returns, and you can judge of events. It is singularly unfair that future generations should have to bear the brunt of expenditure incurred by their forefathers. This war is not over. Already we are increasing the permanent burdens of the country. I think it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that the estimate of £58,000,000 was based on the assumption that the war would be over in four months.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like to know what the basis was, if that is not so. It cannot have been on the basis that it was going to last another twelve months. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the previous Budget was brought forward the basis on which he was borrowing, and he said then that the war at full speed would be over by September, and that at half speed it would be over in February. We know how that calculation was realised. Not only are we spending as much money now, but we are spending more. It is admitted now that we are spending £1,500,000 a week. There is progressive expenditure. I ask the Government whether they are borrowing money now on the assumption that this war is going to be over in four months. If not, how are we going to meet the deficit? Is it going to be borrowed as a permanent loan, or is taxation to meet it? The whole estimate on which this loan has been based is not a fair one to the country. The Government know perfectly well in their own minds that the balance of chances is that this war will not be over in four months. If so, why do not they give a clear and straightforward statement to this House? The representatives of The Times at Bloemfontein and Pretoria said there was a chance of the war going on two years. Sir Alfred Milner has said that the war has gone back within the last six or seven months,
120
and we are in a worse position now thau when we had before us the last bill for borrowing money. There is a large part of our own colony in the hands of the enemy. I was looking at the reports in the Blue-book the other day. I find that in Cape Colony and Cape Town the Volunteer Defence Corps was enrolled for three months. That was to be the term of service for these Volunteers. They have already been four and a half months in the field. It shows that all these calculations are wrong. I do not know what they are based on. One would like to know if they are based on anything Lord Kitchener said, or is it some wild conjecture of the War Office?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can explain why £58,000,000 was taken in the War Estimates for the cost of the war in South Africa and China. The total cost of this war last year, ending the 1st of April, was £68,000,000. I have taken in this loan sufficient to enable me to provide as much in the current year as the war in South Africa cost last year.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know that, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer forgets that the estimate given by the Secretary of State for War is that the cost of the war has gone up a quarter of a million per week since then. That shows how these Estimates are made. It is evident that there is no sort of consultation between one department and another. That shows that even now this Estimate is wrong. What will happen as the weeks go by? We will probably be asked for Supplementary Estimates. Nobody thinks that we can carry on to the end of the financial year with the money already voted. When will we get the Government to tell the whole truth to the country? It is perfectly evident from the reports that are coming from the front that we are not getting it. We get reports of successes, but we do not get reports of reverses.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the conduct of the war. That matter is not at present before the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not challenge your ruling for a moment.

121
We are asked to add £60,000,000 to the Debt of the country on Estimates which are not correct, and I say we ought to get all the information the Government have got. They have estimated that the war would cost £58,000,000 in the course of the current year. I say that upon the facts which come, not from Government sources, but from correspondents, it is perfectly clear that things are worse now in South Africa than they were twelve months ago, and we are entitled to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, with regard to what is transpiring in South Africa, and then we will be in a position to know whether, instead of going on adding to the permanent Debt—which, as the hon. Member for Northampton points out, will eventually fall on the workmen—it would not be infinitely better to make terms with the enemy which would be honourable to both parties.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)said he wished to enter his protest against the manner in which the speakers on the Opposition side of the House had been treated by hon. Members who seemed to be in very great haste to arrive at the end of the discussion. He did not think it would be found to pay, even looking at it from the lowest motives, to attempt to bring the debate to a stop by shouting hon. Members down, or, at any rate, by strenuous interruption on the part of hon. Members on the other side. The resolution to raise £60,000,000 on loan now before the House came on the top of other loans raised since the war began. He thought there was sufficient at the present juncture to give any hon. Member pause, to make any man who had financial economy at heart think whether the proposal of the Government was justifiable or not. He was not going into the question of the war, but he would deal with the manner in which the Government proposed to raise the money. At the General Election a few months ago hon. Members were catechised by the constituencies whose suffrages they sought. He did not think any question was asked him more frequently than this: "If you are elected will you vote that as large a proportion as possible of the cost of the Transvaal War should be levied on the Transvaal and the Orange
122
Free State?" He challenged hon. Members opposite to say that the same question was not put to them. Did they not, with great promptitude and gusto, say, "Oh, yes; undoubtedly we think that, this war being undertaken on behalf of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, as large a sum of money as could possibly be levied by way of taxation, on the people of the Transvaal and the Free State, should be levied"? Now they had an opportunity of making good their pledges. The sum of £60,000,000 to be raised by loan might very well be levied on the Transvaal and Free State hereafter, but at the present juncture they were all agreed that they could not expect very much from them for several years to come. The revenues of the Transvaal would be strained, and they would not be more than sufficient to pay the charges in connection with the Transvaal Government. But statesmen had to deal not only with the present, and the immediate future, but they had to cast their eyes ahead. What would be the state of affairs in the Transvaal five or six years hence? Let them take it for granted that the war would come to an end in the next few months, and that the expenditure, so far as it concerned the military, would cease. Surely, British Government in the Transvaal ought to be what Mr. Rhodes called a financial asset. Surely, we might expect that the improved methods of our government would soon restore financial order in the Transvaal, that taxes would be paid, and that the ordinary expenses of the government of the Transvaal would be paid. But there were in South Africa gold and diamond mines, and the scheme of taxation applied to coal in the present Budget might be adopted for raising money in connection with the export of gold and diamonds.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was going far beyond the subject before the House. He was now going on to discuss the mode of taxing the Transvaal.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he was only going to suggest an export duty on gold and diamonds, but he would not proceed with that. On the question whether it was desirable that this money should be raised by loan, the hon. Member said that in his judgment it was a very

123
objectionable practice to remit to posterity the obligations we ought to meet ourselves. It was making war on the cheap, and rendering the conduct of military operations easy. It was favouring the growth of militarism through the country. If they could with a light heart plunge into war, and then, instead of finding all the necessary sinews of war in the way of financial requirements, place the cost on the shoulders of posterity, they were only encouraging these wars at the present time.
MR. O'MARAsaid that for his part he regarded this large sum as one of the least objectionable features of the Budget. If he had been an Englishman he should have regarded the loan as perhaps the weakest portion of the Budget, because he considered that the borrowing of £60,000,000 on Consols, £30,000,000 by the war loan of last year, and £37,000,000 by various short loans—in all £127,000,000—and the raising of £11,000,000 by the new taxes proposed to be imposed this year was exceedingly bad finance. It was throwing upon posterity the burden of paying for the war. The present generation of taxpayers who shouted in the streets, and whose newspapers pressed on the war, were not paying for the war. As an Irishman he was more or less pleased that there was to be a large loan instead of the imposition of fresh taxes on his already overtaxed country. He sympathised with those who said the burden of the war should be put on the gold mines of the Transvaal. He should like to see some of the cost of the war raised by a Transvaal loan secured by the £400,000,000 or £500,000,000 the gold mines were said to be worth. Referring to the way in which a former war loan was issued, the hon. Member said the large finance houses benefited, while the general public did not benefit in the way they ought to have done by the low price at which it was issued.

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Austin, Sir John

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bartley, George C. T.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Baird, John George Alexander

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Arkwright John Stanhope

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Bond, Edward

MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid Englishmen had made this war and Englishmen ought to pay for it. Irishmen from the beginning had spoken strongly against it, and now they objected to pay a share of the cost of the war. The Members on the Treasury Bench felt that if they had tried to raise the whole of the cost by direct taxation, they would alienate the people whom they had hoodwinked by false promises and pitiful excuses as to the necessity of going to war. In connection with all previous wars in which this country had been engaged the money required had been fairly divided between loans and direct taxation. In nearly all cases the proportion was a half. In the present case the proportion was ninety to a hundred per cent. The Government did not take the manly course of paying for the war they brought upon themselves, but rather handed on the debt to be paid by posterity. So far as the Irish were concerned their hands were clean. They were not stained with the blood which had been shed unnecessarily in this unfortunate and disgraceful war. The capitalists of England and the Transvaal had brought about the war. The mines of the Transvaal were the object which this country had in view when it entered upon this war. Why was it that these mines, which they all knew were worth hundreds of millions, were left scot free, and that the working men of Ireland. Scotland, and England, and future generations of these countries were to be compelled to pay for the war, which should be paid for by the mines through which the war had been brought about? He wished to enter his protest as an Irishman against this immense loan. Irishmen felt that they had had no part in this expenditure, and they had a right to enter their protest against it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Aves, 213; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 158.)

Boscawen, Arthur Gritffith-

Greene, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Myers, William Henry

Bousneld, William Robert

Grenfell, William Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Groves, James Grimble

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Brigg, John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Parker, Gilbert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hambro, Charles Eric

Pemberton, John S. G.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lrd G. (Midd'x

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Plummer, Walter R.

Butcher, John George

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cautley, Henry Strother

Haslett, Sir James Homer

Purvis, Robert

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pym, C. Guy

Gavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Helder, Augustus

Randies, John S.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Henderson, Alexander

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hermon-Hodge Robert Trotter

Reid, James (Greenock)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (W're'r

Higginbottom, S. W.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Chapman, Edward

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Renwick, George

Charrington, Spencer

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Rigg, Richard

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hope, J. F (SherIield, Brightside

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hoult, Joseph

Ropner, Col. Robert

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Howard,John (Kent, Faversh.)

Round, James

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Russell, T. W.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Cox, Irwin Edward B.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cranborne, Viscount

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Keswick, William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Cust, Henry John C.

Knowles, Lees

Smith, AbelH. (Hertford, East)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawson, John Grant

Smith, H. C (Northumb. Tynesd

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Spear, John Ward

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n)

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Stock, James Henry

Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Stroyah, John

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cocklield

Lowe, Francis William

Struct, Hon. Charles Hedley

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Doughty, George

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Thornton, Percy M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Tomlinson,Wm. Edw. Murray

Doxford, Sir William T.

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duke, Henry Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton

Maconochie, A. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Faber, George Denison

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Fardell, Sir T. George

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Malcolm, Ian

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Finch, George H.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannalyne

Massev-Mainwaring, Hon. W.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Fisher, William Hayes

Max Well, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Fitz Gerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose-

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Milton, Viscount

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Mitchell, William

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

Forster, Henry William

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Wolft', (Justav Wilhelm

Foster, Sir M. (London Univ.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Garfit, William

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Wylie, Alexander

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans.

Morrison, James Archibald

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Mount, William Arthur

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Ehun & Nairn)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Muntz, Philip A.

Tellkks fob the Ayes—

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Sir William Walrond and

Graham, Henry Robert

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Mr. Anstruther.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Ambrose, Robert

Blake, Edward

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Boland, John

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Boyle, James

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Burns, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Malley, William

Burt, Thomas

Kennady, Patrick James

O'Mara, James

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Partington, Oswald

Caine, William Sproston

Leamy, Edmund

Paulton, James Mellor

Caldwell, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Pirie, Duncan V.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leng, Sir John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Causton, Richard Knight

Levy, Maurice

Reckitt, Harold James

Cogan, Denis J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Reddy, M.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lloyd-George, David

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Crean, Eugene

Lough, Thomas

Rickett, J. Compton

Crenier, William Randal

Lundon, W.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee

Delany, William

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Robson, William Snowdon

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roche, John

Dillon, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Schwann, Charles E.

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Duffy, William J.

M'Fadden, Edward

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

M'Govern, T.

Sullivan, Donal

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Fenwick, Charles

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Tennant, Harold John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mooney, John J.

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Flynn, James Christopher

Morton, Edw. J. G (Devonport)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Moss, Samuel

Tully, Jasper

Grant, Corrie

Murphy, J.

Ure, Alexander

Griffith, Ellis J.

Newnes, Sir George

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Nolan, Col. John P. (Gatway, N.)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Hammond, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Weir, James Galloway

Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Harrington, Timothy

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Holland, William Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Doherty, William

Yoxall, James Henry

Joicey, Sir James

O'Donnel'l, T. (Kerry, W).

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Channing and Mr. George Whiteley.

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.

LOAN BILL.
"To provide for raising Money for the Service of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Two," presented accordingly, and read the first time: to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]
WAYS AND MEANS [18th APRIL]—REPORT.
Resolutions reported.

SUGAR.—CUSTOMS.
1. "That there shall be charged on and after the nineteenth day of April,
128
Nineteen Hundred and One, the following Customs import duties:—

s.

d.

Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98 degrees the cwt.

the cwt.

4

2

Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 76 degrees and intermediate duties varying between 4s. 2d. and 2s. on sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 98 and exceeding 76 degrees

the cwt.

2

0

Molasses (including all sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be tested by the polariscope)

the cwt.

2

0

Glucose

the cwt.

1

8

Saccharin (including sub stances of a like nature or use)

the oz.

1

3

"And that duty shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1876, on goods containing, as a part or ingredient thereof, any article liable to any of the above duties.

129
"And that the exemption under the same Schedule from the duty on plums of plums preserved in sugar shall cease."

COAL.
2. "That there shall be charged on and after the nineteenth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and One, the following Customs export duty on coal:—

s.

d.

Coal (including culm, coke, cinders, and manufactured

pen ton

1

0"

Resolutions read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution."
MR. KEARLEY: At this stage of the Budget I do not propose to raise the policy of the duty on sugar, nor do I propose to go into detail as to the effect the duty may have in the future in connection with various manufactures in which this article is used largely, and which have really come into existence because of the supply of cheap sugar. But, whatever may be said about the duty at some future time, I think I am fully entitled to discuss at the earliest available possible moment, and to condemn, the methods adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the levying of the duty, because it shows clearly either that he had no knowledge of the wide and far-reaching effects of the duty, or that he intentionally neglected to take steps beforehand to protect the mercantile interests that would suffer unless they were protected. I am prepared to assume that all that has happened has arisen from lack of knowledge on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I noticed in his speech that the right hon. Gentleman displayed an easy confidence that there would be nothing to complain of on the part of the various trades concerned, that the duty would be easily collected, and that there would practically be no dislocation of trade at all. The right hon. Gentleman stated that refined sugar would pass direct to the distributor without delay on paying the full duty. That is not the case at all. Distributors and merchants dealing
130
in refined sugar have been harassed in a most unhandsome way, to put it mildly, since this duty was levied. Red tape is rampant at the Custom House, and instead of refined sugar passing without any delay to the distributor, the Customs authorities have been insisting on the sugar being bonded and re-weighed, and have put all sorts of extraordinary difficulties in the way as regards an article which comes into this country in packages of a uniform weight of two hundredweights, and for which the importer has tendered the full amount of duty, but has been unable to receive it. If this is an example of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks is the manner in which goods pass direct to the distributor, I think I am justified in accusing him of having no knowledge whatever of what will be the effect of this duty. The right hon, Gentleman pointed out that the duty arrangements would be very easy to work, because the shipments consisted of large parcels; which again demonstrates that he had not contemplated for a single moment the wide range of articles affected, or the treatment to which the various interests concerned have been subjected during the last ten days. What has happened is that a most important industry has been thrown into chaos, and that merchants and importers have been subjected to wholesale pillage—that is not too strong a term to use—and if it occurred in any other country in the world except a civilised country it would be denounced as brigandage. The unfortunate merchants have been left to struggle with the edicts issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer first elected to do was to instruct his representatives at the Custom House to levy the highest duty on the full bulk weight of any article containing a dutiable quantity of sugar, irrespective of its other components, coming into the country. I describe that as brigandage, nothing more nor less, and all the consolation those treated in that way are given is that it is only a question of time, and that they will get their money returned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to justify his conduct by saying that it was a legal proceeding on his part, and he invoked

131
an Act of Parliament—the Customs Tariff Act—to support him in his contention. Before I refer to that Act, let me say that the right hon. Gentleman himself was responsible for issuing these instructions. He issued instructions to the Custom House officials two days before the Budget was introduced—I do not make any complaint on that score—and he also issued confirmatory instructions on the 19th April, after the Budget resolutions had been passed. By these instructions the Customs officials were entitled to levy as I have explained, duty on the full weight of any article that contained the smallest possible proportion of sugar. I deny that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the authority of any Act of Parliament behind him. The Customs Tariff Act, on which he relies, states that, goods composed of any article which is dutiable shall be charged the full duty charged on such article. I maintain that that does not mean that the whole bulk should be charged with the duty, and the Act further states that if composed of more than one article, then duty can be levied on the full duty on the article, charged at the highest rate of duty. Then with reference to spirits, the Act states that on the importation of any article in the manufacture of which spirits are used, duty shall be charged in respect to such quantity of spirits as shall appear to the Treasury to have been used in the manufacture of such article. I think that all these provisions should be read together. It is perfectly clear, that as regards spirits, at all events, only the percentage of the spirits present in the article shall be charged duty. So much for my rendering of the Act; but I am able now to argue most assuredly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in his contention that he had the support of an Act of Parliament, because, as an outcome of steps taken in this House a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman has modified his own orders to the Customs authorities, and whereas he alleged he had the authority of an Act of Parliament to levy duty on the full bulk weight, he has now issued an amending order to the Customs authorities to levy duty not on the bulk weight, but on 60 per cent. of it. Therefore, if he argued that he had an Act of Parliament to
132
support him in the first instance, he is now committing an illegality in amending his first order.
I should like to point out what will be the effect of this wholesale levying of the duty, independent of the quantity of sugar in the article levied upon, I will take a few articles to illustrate what I wish to convey to the House. Condensed milk is imported into this country to the value of two millions sterling, and to the weight of one million cwts. I am informed that the percentage of sugar in condensed milk varies from 30 per cent. to 45 per cent., whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer has levied duty on 100 per cent. Similarly with condensed milk and cocoa, which is imported to the value of half a million sterling; the percentage of sugar is 12½ per cent. to 20 per cent., but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has insisted on these consignments paying a duty of 4s. 2d. per cwt. on the whole bulk. Again, cocoa and chocolate represent a value of half a million, and the percentage of sugar is not more than 10 per cent., yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer has insisted on the full duty being paid on the full bulk weight. I could mention many other articles, but these are typical. It is not a case of these articles being analysed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given that alternative now, but in the meantime the goods have been practically held in durance vile by the Chancellor of the Exchequer until he has extracted his full pound of flesh. Perhaps I might be permitted to refer to a letter from one of the largest importers of one of the articles I have referred to, in order to show the effect of what the Customs are doing. He states that one of his ships arrived in the Thames on Thursday last, that he was compelled by the Customs to land the cargo and bond it at considerable expense, and that he had been unable to ascertain from the Customs authorities even the amount of the duty that they required to be paid. The goods are lying at the quay, and the importer will be unable to obtain them until the net weight of the tins, cases, etc., has been obtained, although he offered to pay 4s. 2d. per cwt. on the net weight of the goods, He was prepared to guarantee by a declaration the exact weight of each case, which declaration is accepted all over the world to be correct. This

133
merchant does not complain of the duty. I have never heard any particular outcry against it on the part of the trade, but is it right that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should so disorganise business in the manner I have indicated? I say that however red tape may suit in Government departments, it will not work in commerce. If applied to commerce it will simply strangle it, or you will have such a revolution against your methods as will teach you to limit the scope of red tape to Government offices, and not to extend it to commercial affairs. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to avoid a continuance of these harassing conditions, he will really have to pay some attention to persons who understand their own businesses. As far as I can ascertain, he sought advice with regard to the sugar duty from sugar refiners. They would be able to give most- excellent information about their own particular industry, but outside that they know nothing of the multitudinous ramifications that affect various other trades. Therefore I must ask him to give those concerned an opportunity of putting before him suggestions to bring to an end the serious harassing to which I have referred. In this connection I would suggest to him that he would facilitate matters very much if he instructed the Customs to accept a declaration from the shipper as to the percentage of sugar present in goods manufactured abroad, and shipped to this country in very large quantities. The right hon. Gentleman has informed me that he cannot see his way to do that, and I presume that he will also refuse to accept a similar declaration from British exporters who will before long be asking for drawbacks. But if he will not accept a declaration as to the quantity of sugar present, he will land himself in interminable difficulties, and will finally have to capitulate. There are difficulties which cannot be got over in the way he himself thinks, and I wish to mention that if he will not accept the declaration it means that all goods must be detained and analysed, both coming into this country from abroad and on shipment out of this country for export, and the delay will be well nigh destructive of trade.
Our present experience leads us to suppose that the analytical department of the Customs is not quite adequate
134
to cope with this matter, and that in fact it has already broken down. I had mentioned to me on Friday a case where an importer declined to pay duty, and preferred to have his goods analysed. The Customs promised that the analysis would be finished at the end of the week, and when the importer went to ascertain the result of the analysis he was told that they were very sorry, but that he would have to come again on Monday, when they thought they would be able to let him know the amount of the duty. The only alternative to that state of affairs is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept my suggestion, and take a sworn declaration from the importer, and again from the exporter. The reason I press this is because he will never be able to obtain by analysis the quantity of added sugar contained in certain articles. The importation of fruits preserved in syrup from America and Canada is an enormous trade, representing hundreds of thousands a year. I asked him the other day how he proposed to ascertain the amount of added sugar in fruit, which has a natural sugar itself. He replied, by chemical analysis. This is another evidence of the lack of knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers as to what can be done by chemical analysis. Fresh fruit, as everyone knows, contains a considerable percentage of natural sugar, and when boiled with the ordinary sugar of commerce, there is an acid thrown off, which acts on the added sugar and entirely changes it. It is no longer the sugar of commerce, but becomes what is known as invert sugar. I am assured by the most competent analytical experts in this country, including four past-presidents of the Society of Public Analysts, that it is absolutely impossible when sugar has become chemically changed in this manner to ascertain how much is due to the natural sugar in the fruit, and how much to added sugar. The right hon. Gentleman said that this could be ascertained by chemical analysis, but I challenge his authority. We know that Dr. Thorpe, the head of the Somerset House laboratory, is a man of great eminence, and is recognised by analysts as a reliable authority. But I doubt very much if Dr. Thorpe gave the right hon. Gentleman his information. If he did it will be challenged. Beyond

135
question it is perfectly impossible to tell. Then the right hon. Gentleman is placed in this dilemma: if he will not accept the declaration of the importer and exporter, he will be levying duty on a certain percentage of sugar natural to the fruit, and if he does that he will have to levy duty on fresh fruit imported into this country, because he told us that he had not the slightest intention of subsidising any industry. Bananas contain 20 per cent. of sugar, oranges 8 per cent., raisins and dates 50 per cent., and figs 60 per cent. I am sure, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to levy duty on all fresh fruit imported into this country. I challenge his statement that he proposes to ascertain and discriminate between natural and added sugar by chemical analysis. Then there is another kind of sugar contained in condensed milk. Crude milk contains a percentage of sugar amounting to about 4½ per cent., but in the process of condensation the milk is evaporated to about one-third of its volume, and consequently there is about 14 per cent. of natural sugar belonging to the milk. In this particular case, I am told it is possible to differentiate between natural and added sugar. There is a test known to analysts whereby this can be ascertained, so that there is no difficulty in the matter. In the confectionery trade there will be enormous difficulty, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the sworn declaration of the importer and exporter. A large proportion of the sweets imported and exported contain various proportions of materials other than sugar, and in a single case of sweets there may be as many as ten varieties, each different so far as the percentage of sugar is concerned. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to accept a sworn declaration he will be thrown into such difficulties as will either inflict great hardship on the trade, by underestimating the percentage of sugar, or will do an injustice to the Treasury. I addressed a question to the right hon. Gentleman the other day as to what he proposed to do with regard to honey. It may appear trivial, but, as a matter of fact, it is important. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had no intention of levying a duty on honey unless sugar was added to it. What is honey?
136
Honey consists of 80 per cent. of sugar, and 20 per cent. of moisture. The bee, when it extracts the nectar from the flowers, extracts pure cane sugar, and when that sugar passes into the honey stomach of the bee it meets an acid, and precisely the same thing takes place as in the boiling of fruits, and the sugar becomes invert. If honey is not taxed, brewers, distillers, fruit preservers, confectioners, and jam-makers will fasten immediately on it, and they will use it in preference to the sugar of commerce, on which they would have to pay a high duty. Again, it is chemically impossible to tell the difference between invert sugar and honey. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was advised that it could be determined by the pollen that existed in the honey, or by the smell. Ask any good public analyst as to whether those who are in the habit of shipping adulterated honey to this country have not been alive to the weakness of their case, and have not introduced into invert sugar the necessary amount of pollen, so as to throw analysts off the scent when it is subjected to microscopical examination.
The final example I will give as to the lack of knowledge on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the effect of these duties is that of glucose. Want of inquiry has shipwrecked Chancellors of the Exchequer before now. I suppose Mr. Lowe did not make the necessary inquiries before he imposed the match tax. Another Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed the van and wheel tax without adequate inquiry, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took the duty off tobacco, and the tobacco manufacturers reaped the full benefit of it. Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer levies a duty of this kind, it behoves him to accurately examine what its effect will be, and how a trade may be seriously affected if not protected. My final case is that of glucose, which has got to be well known in this House in connection with arsenic in beer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assumes that glucose contains 40 per cent. of taxable sugar, because he has imposed on it a duty of 1s. 8d. a cwt., which is 40 per cent. of the full tax. He is quite right as regards one kind of glucose, but he has omitted

137
altogether from his reckoning another kind of glucose, which is not liquid but solid. This solid glucose contains not 40 per cent. but 80 per cent. of taxable sugar, and the result will be, unless the matter is rectified, that the users of solid glucose will get 50 per cent. of their sugar free of duty. I have an Amendment on the Paper which I do not propose to press at this point. I have sufficient confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer to expect him to give us some assurance that the matters of which I have complained will be rectified, and that he will abandon the attitude he took up the other day, of justifying the swooping down on all consignments under the cloak of an Act of Parliament. I hope he will see his way to put into his Finance Bill some such sort of protection as that foreshadowed in my Amendment. It is taken from one of the schedules of the Customs Tariff Act, although it is faulty in one or two particulars. If I can get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that these matters will get his attention I will not move the Amendment.
COLONEL MILWARD: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman opposite in some of the remarks he made, because I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown a wonderful adaptability in placing these new duties on the country. The introduction of a tax on sugar and on all articles containing sugar must have created great difficulty at the Custom House, and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts invoices, which are accepted in many countries, or whether he proceeds by analysis, I am perfectly certain that he will give that consideration and care to the matter which it demands. It must be remembered that sugar enters into a very large number of articles of commerce, and that therefore there must be great difficulty in arriving at the exact taxation to be placed on each article. I have great faith myself in the Board of Customs, and I have no doubt they will pay great attention to the difficult subject that confronts them. With reference to the question of honey, raised by the hon. Member, it appears to me that there will be very little difficulty about that. Honey costs about 8d. per lb., and entirely differs from sugar at 1d.
138
per lb. With reference to glucose, I am very glad that the hon. Member called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that there are two kinds of glucose, and that one requires to be taxed more than the other. Solid glucose contains a larger percentage of sugar than liquid glucose, and therefore should be taxed heavier. I rise really to say that I think there is some little misunderstanding with reference to the position of sugar refiners in this matter. It was thought that refiners would get some considerable advantage from the new scale of taxation, but I am told on good authority that, on the contrary, a great many refiners are losing by the scale adopted. I do not suppose that anyone would wish to protect refiners, but still, on the other hand, I am sure from all I have heard that if the refiners can make out that their position is in some respects worse than it was, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will at all events consider their case. There is one class of sugar which comes into this country, and is refined by two or three large refiners—I mean cane sugar, which contains more than 98 per cent. of polarisation. It will be called in the existing scale refined sugar. It is in reality unrefined sugar, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will endeavour, if possible, to make some difference in the duty as far as it is concerned.
MR. LOUGH: I am well aware that at the stage we have reached in these resolutions it is sometimes inconvenient to go into a detailed criticism of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but this is an exceptional occasion. We are now dealing with the reversal of the policy of this country with regard to this particular article for the last twenty-six years, and therefore we are entitled at the earliest possible moment to go into the questions raised by the resolution read from the Table. I think the House is very much indebted to my hon. friend the Member for Devonport, who brings a knowledge to this discussion which many of us do not possess. He has illustrated the difficulties of the course we are asked to follow by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he has referred to a great number of imports and trades of this country which will be affected by the duty it is now proposed to impose. I do

139
not propose to follow my hon. friend into these details, because I am not fitted to do so. We have had another duty imposed by this Budget—the coal duty, and the trades interested are bringing a great deal of pressure to bear on the House with regard to it, but I think the House ought to receive with considerable reluctance arguments brought forward by interested persons. I have no interest whatever in the subject now before the House. I approach the subject from the standpoint of an amateur, and I am indebted to hon. Members like the hon. Member for Devonport for the little detailed knowledge I have. I approach it from the standpoint of an economist, and I see great difficulties in the future if we approve of this resolution.
In the first place, it is a very complicated resolution. There was a very simple alternative before the Chancellor of the Exchequer of putting on a tax of, say, 4s. 2d. per cwt. on all sugar coming into the country. When one of my hon. friends suggested that we should have a graduated duty on tea, we had a most clear, emphatic, and almost eloquent protest from the Chancellor of the Exchequer against graduated duties. He was good enough to pay me some compliments, and he said I was economically sound on the question of a graduated duty with regard to tea. But there is no difference in this matter between tea and sugar, and as regards sugar the Chancellor of the Exchequer has departed from the sound principles he laid down with regard to tea. The first fault I find with the proposal is that instead of being a simple proposal to tax sugar at so much a hundredweight, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought in a graduated tax, against which all the economists of the country have protested for many years past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer justified this graduated tax on sugar on the ground that sugar was an article regarding which it was easy to discover the proportion of essential matter it contained. Therefore, he says, I must graduate sugar, but I cannot graduate tea and coffee, because it is not easy to detect the exact merits of these articles. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of the Treasury, but I must say that is mostly nonsense. It is just as easy to detect differences in tea as it is in sugar, and as
140
easy to detect differences in coffee or cocoa as in sugar. The principle of graduated taxation has been rejected by this House as far as these articles are concerned, and the chief fault of the present proposal is that it is an attempt to bring back graduation into the Customs of this country. It is perfectly easy to detect differences in tea and coffee. Everyone in the market knows the difference between coffee at 30s. or 35s. a cwt. and coffee at 100s. a cwt. It is just the same with regard to tea. There are certain broad distinctions, and it would be quite easy to divide tea into separate classes, one class worth, say, 4d. per lb., another 8d., and a third 2s. Why did the country reject graduated duties on tea? The reason was that it put a premium on the importation of a low quality of tea, and repressed the importation of the higher qualities. What is the interest of this House? It is to do the best it can for the people of this country. Their interest with regard to food is to get the highest quality possible. Strictly speaking, with regard to sugar, tea, coffee, and butter, there is only one idea, and that is to have the best. As far as this House interferes in the matter by legislation, it should endeavour to secure a high standard of excellence. The objection to a graduated duty is that when you let in a low quality at a cheap price you tend to bring everything down to the low quality in order that it may get in at the lower duty. The policy of the House ought to be exactly the opposite. We ought to penalise this low, bad quality rather than put a premium upon it. The great fault of this proposal is that it does not put a definite duty on sugar, and declare that all sugar coming into the country shall pay that duty, and that is the end of it. Instead of that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been tempted, by some ingenious person, into a morass in which he has twenty-five different kinds of sugar, with twenty-five different rates of duty. It is one of the worst proposals ever made to this House. We have had another Paper circulated to explain the proposal, but the more explanation we have the worse the proposal itself appears. A little study of this Paper explaining the question of polarisation, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer founds the duty, will repay the House. There are twenty-five different

141
qualities of sugar specified, beginning with qualities exceeding 76° of polarisation, and ending with qualities exceeding 98°. The eight lowest qualities of sugar, ranging from 76° to 83°, will be admitted into this count? at a duty of 8d. There are six qualities in the next grade, with 1d. duty per degree of polarisation. Then we have six more at 1s. 2d. per degree of polarisation. We see, therefore, that the cheapest sugar is admitted at the lowest rate, but as you get to the better qualities, which are what the people of the country want, the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts upon it a higher rate per degree of polarisation. That is a very objectionable system. If any difference at all was made it should be in favour of the better article, but here the preference is given to the lower quality.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The lower quality is only half sugar.
MR. LOUGH: I will deal with that in a moment. If hon. Members will look at the lowest degree of polarisation mentioned, they will see that, whereas in the beginning the duty is only 8d. per degree of polarisation, in the last degree there is actually a rate of 5d. Sugar polarising up to 97° will get in at 3s. 8 8d. per cwt., but if it exceeds 98° it will have to pay 4s. 2d., so that in the last degree there is an extra duty for the one degree of polarisation of no less than 5d. It will therefore be to the interest of the fraudulent persons abroad to send sugar which will polarise at 97° rather than at 98°, because they will save 5d. per cwt., or 8s. 4d. per ton, which is a tremendous profit in the sugar trade. The tendency all down the scale is, the lower the quality the greater the inducement the Government gives to bring the sugar to this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that sugar which would polarise at, say, 75° or 76° is not sugar. The same argument might be applied to tea—that tea which is sold at 4d. per pound is not tea. But with regard to this sugar, I submit, with great respect, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is wrong. All this black, moist, damp sugar is still sugar, and out of it a certain proportion of the finest refined sugar can be made. After the refined sugar is produced there will remain what are called "pieces," and Various kinds of crude sugar, and finally
142
molasses. Every pound weight that comes in as sugar is sugar, and the market prices the difference between the qualities. That coarse sugar, which the right hon. Gentleman says is not sugar, before the duty fetched 9s. per cwt., while the best fetched 13s. The difference placed upon that sugar by the market, with the free play of competition and supply and demand, is 4s. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings in his scale, and in twenty-four hours the 9s. sugar, with a duty of 2s., goes up to 11s., while the 13s. sugar, with a duty of 4s. 2d., goes up to 17s. 2d., so that where on one night there is a difference of 4s., the next night there is a difference of 6s. 2d. That is how the market is affected by unsound economic proposals of this kind. If a duty of 4s. was placed upon both the 9s. and the. 13s. sugar, the prices would be 13s. and 17s., and the difference which the free play of the market creates would be continued.
I think I have shown that this is a complicated duty, that it puts a premium on the lower qualities of sugar, and that it will tend to reduce the quality of the sugar introduced into this country. Why is this done We have in this Resolution protection in a bad and aggravated form. What is the reason that this sugar is allowed to come in at a low rate? It is that the British refining industries may be resuscitated. Hon. Members opposite saw what was the object of the Budget the very night it was introduced. The hon. Member for Greenock stood up and welcomed it with open arms. He said: "This is what we want; protection for our own interests and industries."
MR. JAMES REID: I said nothing of the kind. We do not want protection. We want free trade. We do not want bounty-fed sugar interfering with honest refiners in this country.
MR. LOUGH: I do not wish to enter into a dispute with the hon. Member. What I said was that he welcomed the Budget with open arms in the name of the sugar industry at Greenock.
MR. JAMES REID: For the reasons which I gave.
MR. LOUGH: Quite so; he recognises the advantage which the Budget gives to that industry. We now see the mischief of this Budget. It will set up

143
again a bad industry, which will not on the whole serve the wants of the people of this country. I assure the hon. Member for Greenock that if, on taking a broad view of the question, I felt that the proposal of the Budget would advance the general interest, I would be the last to say a word against it. But its effect will be to set up in this country an industry which is not the least likely to succeed. The tendency of protection is to create in different countries industries which are not well suited to those countries, and to make the inhabitants pay for the unreal advantage which they appear to enjoy.
Now, what is sugar? Sugar is an agricultural product, and can be, and is, at present, best made in the countries where it is produced. One-third of the estates in the West Indies, which are the worst sugar estates in the world, because machinery has been introduced so slowly, produce a perfect sugar and send it into this country, where it will polarise at 98°. There are also many places on the Continent where the sugar is grown and refined on, and sent from, the estate into the market in a perfect condition for consumption. That is the ideal state of things. Every agricultural product can be most economically managed in the place where it is produced, the conditions being right for doing it. I ask the House to look at the Budget from that standpoint. I have said that this proposal gives protection to the British refiner. It also gives protection to the lowest and worst quality of sugar produced in the West Indies, and gives a very hard blow to the best qualities produced in those islands. In the West Indies there is a quality of sugar produced on the open pan system—a black, moist sugar. The open pan system has been abolished where new machinery has been introduced, but it still remains in two-thirds of the West Indian estates. Under this system only 33 per cent. of the sugar contained in the cane is extracted, while by improved machinery you can get 95 per cent. What does the Budget do? It gives a premium to this lowest quality of sugar, which can be brought into this country and refined or adulterated or made to look like good sugar, while, on the other hand, the best sugar is penalised to a corresponding extent. The tendency will be to give protection in this country
144
to an unnatural industry, which has had painful vicissitudes. No one sympathises more than I do with any industry which falls into decay, but there are some industries which are destined to decay. I say that an industry of this kind, in which sugar is refined away from the estate, after great expense has been incurred, is bound, sooner or later, to fall into decay, and it is a great mistake for us, at this time of day, to try to prop it up. At what cost will this experiment be made? It will be made at the cost of the British public. It was with great difficulty that Protection was got rid of, and we ought not, after these years, to be introducing it again. Assuredly we gave an unnatural advantage of 2s. 2d. to one kind of sugar about a fortnight ago, when we passed this resolution. We did it at the expense of the public, so that in addition to the heavy duty we are imposing to-night, there will be a considerable additional cost because of this element of Protection.
With regard to Ireland, this tax is the heaviest blow you could strike at the Irish taxpayers, with the exception of a duty on salt or potatoes. I admit that the English poor as well as the Irish pay the tax, but it is English statesmen who have adopted the policy which has led to the tax, while Irish statesmen have protested against it. What is the condition of Ireland in regard to their ability to bear additional taxation? We were told six years ago that Ireland ought to be taxed by an honest Government to the extent of about £4,750,000 or £5,000,000. Since then her population has gone down, but her taxes have gone up to £10,000,000. They were about £9,750,000 before this sugar duty was proposed, and this will impose an additional £600,000 a year.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
MR. LOUGH: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says no; I will accept his figures, whatever they are. In this country there are 91 pounds of sugar consumed per head of the population. I put the amount in Ireland at 60 pounds per head. At ½d. per pound that would be 2s. 6d. per inhabitant, or a total of nearly £600,000. Let us say £500,000, that is a moderate calculation. I admit that Ireland is considered in the coal tax. Ireland will now be the cheapest foreign country—for, after all, she is a foreign

145
country—as regards coal; but the sugar tax will hit her very hard.
I must apologise for detaining the House at such length, but it seems to me that these proposals are the worst we have had in any Budget for many years past. They embody Protection in a very bad form. There are two principles upon which we have proceeded with regard to taxation in this country since 1845. The first is that we will not tax any great article of food. Sugar is the third greatest article of food in this country, grain being the first, and meat the second. Sugar has found its way into every home; it is the delight of young and old; and yet, after twenty-six years experience of the substantial advantage of the abolition of the sugar tax, we are to-night re-introducing it. The second canon upon which we have proceeded is that we should not tax any article which is the raw material of an important industry. Sugar has become the raw material of important industries, such as those connected with jam, confectionery, cocoa, etc., in which we are trying to build up a trade in competition with Holland, France, and Germany. All these industries will be destroyed by this Budget. While I approve of some of the proposals in the Budget—the income tax and the coal tax, for example—I think the sugar tax is a blot upon it. I would appeal to my right hon. friends on the Front Opposition Bench. If they would arouse themselves from their lethargy, they have here a point which would not separate their followers, and if they offered an energetic opposition to this tax I believe they would win the regard of their fellow countrymen.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member with ever-increasing interest and, I think, with ever-decreasing comprehension. The only point I could make out was that, in the hon. Member's opinion, everything should be manufactured where it is grown, from which I infer that all the Lancashire cotton mills ought to be transported to the Southern States of America. I am no particular friend of this sugar duty, because I apprehend that it will do a considerable amount of mischief to very young but very vigorous and growing industries. I do not think, however, that it is open to the animadversions of
146
the hon. Gentleman opposite. So far as I gathered the import of his speech, he complains that it is a differential duty, that it differentiates between various classes of sugar, and that, he says, is very objectionable. But I believe I am right in saying that sugar duties have always differentiated between different classes of sugar. The only difference is that the differentiation in former times was founded almost solely on the colour of the sugar, which was an eminently unscientific process, whereas now it is founded on polarisation, which indeed I do not thoroughly understand, but which I believe professes to be accepted as a scientific method. What does the differentiation amount to? It amounts to this, that you tax the article according to the amount of sugar, or sugary matter, or sucrose, or saccharine, or whatever you like to call it—the essential part of sugar—contained in it. Can there be any fairer differentiation than that? The hon. Gentleman says that this duty is protection. Protection of what?
MR. LOUGH: Bad quality.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not understand. I thought protection implied the levying of a duty at your ports in order to protect your home manufacturers or your home growers. Are there any home growers of sugar?
MR. LOUGH: There are homo refiners.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Are there many of them?
MR. LOUGH: A good many.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think there are very few of them. But how do you protect the home refiner by levying this duty upon sugar? I can quite understand that, if you levy a sufficient amount of duty to keep the manufacturers of any particular article going, you are giving them a certain amount of protection. If you levy a duty of 10s. a quarter on wheat you protect the British farmer; but if you levy a duty of ¼d. a quarter you do not protect him at all. Therefore I entirely fail to apprehend how this duty on sugar will protect the British refiner; although I perfectly understand how it will injure the British manufacturer of goods for export into the manufacture of which sugar enters. Nothwithstanding

147
the economic lecture which the hon. Member has given us I think that, if a duty is to be levied on sugar at all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has levied it in precisely the proper way.
But I really rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. I observe in the resolution that he proposes that the exemption from duty of plums preserved in sugar should cease. On reference to the Act of 1876, in which the exemption is contained, it will be found that the duty on plums not being plums preserved in sugar is 7s. 6d. per cwt. Plums preserved in sugar are excluded, but they are now to be included on the ground that they contain sugar. It seems to me—I shall be glad to be told whether or not I am right—that the effect of doing away with the exemption will be to bring plums, if preserved in sugar, not into the 4s. 2d. per cwt. scale, but into the 7s. 6d. cwt. scale. I submit that if they are to be taxed because they contain sugar they ought not to be taxed at a higher rate than 4s. 2d. per cwt.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHwas understood to explain that plums preserved in sugar were excluded from taxation under the Act of 1874, and now they were simply to be placed in the position in which they would have stood but for that Act.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I submit that is hardly fair on the plum. It is now only brought in for taxation because it contains sugar. According to the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman opposite, it is only the sugar and not any part of the plum that is to be taxed. If you are going to tax it at all you ought not to tax it at 4s. 2d. per hundredweight. At present plums are absolutely exempt and absolutely free of duty, and if you are going to bring them into taxation it is only because they contain sugar. I assume that they are entirely composed of sugar, and therefore the duty ought to be on the 4s. 2d. scale. But owing to the astute referential manner in which the tax is imposed, plums, instead of being charged 4s. 2d., although entirely composed of sugar, are charged 7s., and that is not fair.
*MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid (having asked that indulgence
148
that the house so readily and with so much courtesy always accorded one who addressed it for the first time) his apology for taking part in the debate was that he did so on behalf of the poorer members of his constituency, upon whom the tax on sugar would press most heavily, and who were least able to bear the burden. It would be felt most cruelly by the working classes, and more by the women and children than by anyone else. Those who had lived amongst the poor, and knew their mode of living, were aware that sugar was almost as great a necessity of life to them as bread, and in many poor localities the children and the babies were almost entirely fed upon it. Sugar was one of the most important articles of general consumption, and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose conduct of this debate and whose patience and courtesy were the admiration of all, by this tax, sought to accentuate the wretched misery and constant battle for life of these people he did not know. He did not see why the poor people should be called upon to share the burden of a debt which the country had contracted through no fault or voice of theirs. He did not know how this proposal would affect the different interests of the country, as he was not a commercial man; but he had lived all his life on his own estate, with a vast number of poor around him, and he was acquainted with their wants and mode of living, and he knew that if this tax was insisted upon it would bring frightful deprivation to the very babes and sucklings of those who already live from hand to mouth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that beer, wines, and spirits showed a falling revenue, and that there was no margin left for taxation. They had it on very excellent authority that for weeks before the Budget was introduced merchants had been making most elaborate preparations in the confident anticipation almost amounting to a certainty of certain articles being taxed, and they were now much annoyed to find that they had had their trouble and expense for nothing. He contended that those were the very articles which ought to have been taxed. They were luxuries which men could do without, and they ought to be taxed heavily. He

149
thought it was only fair that men in his position in life should take a fair share of the burden of taxation. The poor had no luxuries, and subsisted from hand to mouth, and it was only fair that those who lived upon luxuries should pay for their extravagance, and pay their fair share of taxation. Personally, he would have cheerfully paid 2d. or 4d. more on the income tax to spare the necessities of the poor. It had been said by Members of this side of the Honse, let the working man be punished for his "Mafficking"—it would teach him not to vote for a Tory Government and a jingo policy. Such an opinion, if really held and meant, was poor and contemptible in the last degree. If by taxation they punished the working man for his "Mafficking," they would be punishing and taxing what had hitherto been the support and backbone of the British Empire—the patriotism and loyalty of the working man for his King and country. The working man was not to blame; the blame, if blame there were, was theirs who aroused that element in his national character and used it for their own ends. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to reward the workingman for his response to his country's appeal by taxing him, If that were done that patriotism and loyalty would be smothered and perhaps lost for ever. It was a pearl without price, which we should rather cherish, nourish, ahd perpetuate to the future glory of the British Empire and the unborn generations of those who were yet to come
*SIR MARK STEWART: contended that it was doubtless a hardship that the working classes should have to pay more for their sugar than they had done hitherto. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have overlooked the important fact that the working classes, instead of feeding their children on porridge and milk and oatcake, and so forming sinew and bone, now brought them up in a great measure on sugar, and they used large quantities of jam and marmalade. Although he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had put a tax on sugar, he was glad that it would tend to curtail somewhat the enormous quantity of sugar now consumed by the working classes.
SIR JOHN LENG: The hon. Baronet who has just sat down is
150
the representative of an agricultural constituency, and in that respect I wish to draw his attention to the fact that the imposition of this duty may very seriously affect a young and growing agricultural industry. I refer to fruit growing in our own country. This is an industry which is remarkably healthy, which can be engaged in by the young people in our villages and hamlets, and the development of which would add to the wealth and resources of this country. As the representative of a city famous for products in which sugar is a large ingredient, I have had my attention directed to this practical fact—that in the neighbourhood of Dundee there has been, in recent years, a very considerable development in fruit growing for the purpose of supplying the fruit preservers of Dundee with the articles which they wish to preserve. I hold in my hand a letter from the secretary of the Blairgowrie Fruit Growers' Association, which I think should be submitted to the House. He says—
"There is very considerable feeling in this district, which, as you know, is a fruit-growing district, in consequence of the tax to be put upon sugar. It is impossible at the present time to say what the effect will be, but there can be no doubt whatever that it will, to a greater or less degree, tend to damage the fruit grower. This is a matter of great importance to the fruit grower himself, but I think it is also a matter, as you point out, of national importance. The fruit-growing industry is one of the few industries which at the present time are tending to get people 'back to the land.' The necessity for the repopulation of the country seems to have impressed itself upon the public mind generally. It is one of the natural results of the agitation against overcrowding in the slums of our large cities, and I am afraid it is almost a necessity, if the breed of the race is to be kept up, and if we are from a commercial, as well as a military point of view, to keep pace with the nations of the world."
I do not think sufficient attention has been directed to the rapid growth of the very important industry of fruit preserving and the making of jam and marmalade. Upwards of 100,000 persons are now engaged in this industry, and several millions of capital are employed in it. It is also an industry which affords employment for a large number of girls and young women who are well paid, and who add largely to the income of their parents thereby. I also hold in my hand a report from the Produce Committee of the Dundee Chamber of Commerce, who say—
"One point on winch they see a likelihood of considerable friction and disturbance to

151
business is in regard to the interference with packages, especially barrels containing molasses and glucose and cases containing tins, such as fruit and condensed milk. A parcel of condensed milk was landed yesterday (April 23) by the steamer from Rotterdam, and a considerable number of the cases have been broken up and a tin extracted from each by the officer, the packages thereby being made unsightly and reduced in value The tins so extracted have been sent to the laboratory of the Customs in London for the fixing of the percentage of sugar in the goods."
It is obvious that, whenever you place under Customs articles imported from abroad—whether they are raw material, or partly or entirely prepared goods—they necessarily inflict considerable harassment upon those engaged in the business. One of my correspondents made a very brief suggestion which seems to him of great value, and which I will bring before the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This correspondent says—
"It occurs to me it will be a somewhat costly and inconvenient business if the sugar as it arrives at the port of debarkation has to be transferred into a Customs warehouse, and I would suggest that some simple plan be devised for bills of lading being presented at the Customs House, where a certificate or receipt would be granted that duty had been paid on the sugar represented by the bill."
[Hear, hear, and some Ministerial cries of "Divide."] Some gentlemen opposite seemed a little impatient of the discussion of this subject. This is a very simple suggestion which would greatly facilitate the importation of sugar, and which, if adopted, would go far to lessen the objection which I have taken to the proposed tax. In that sense I bring it before the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. DILLONsaid that as an Irish Member he desired to enter his protest against this tax because it pressed severely upon the poorest classes of the population. He had listened with amazement to the doctrine laid down by the hon. Baronet opposite, who said that he welcomed this tax because it would tend to discourage the unwholesome custom of using jam and marmalade and sugar, instead of porridge and milk. In many parts of the country the poor people could not get milk. The working classes of Ireland were unable to give milk to their children because they could not afford it, and consequently they had to fall back upon jam and marmalade. There was no more necessary food than
152
sugar for young children if they could not get plenty of milk and butter. Milk contained a good deal of sugar, and if they could not get the natural sugar contained in milk they were driven to buy sugar, and to supply it in that shape. A tax upon sugar was a tax upon one of the prime necessities of life, and that was a departure from the traditional policy of this country for the last fifty years, which was to remove all taxes from all the necessary articles of food. If they agreed to tax sugar he could not see why they should not tax corn. If they were not prepared to tax flour they had no right to tax sugar, because there was no difference in principle. If this tax was put on sugar, the Government would find themselves face to face in the future with an almost irresistible demand in favour of a tax on flour. It was on that ground that he based his opposition. Those who had been following the disastrous and ruinous fiscal policy of the last five years would have read the articles by an expert in The Times on "Twenty Years of British Finance," published three or four years ago, when this system was compelling the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look round for fresh sources of taxation. This expert claimed that the financial policy of this country should be revolutionised and altered to broaden the basis of taxation, and he pointed out that the policy of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone was a totally mistaken policy and ruinous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was an extraordinary Minister. He laid down sound principles of finance in his speeches, but his action was just the opposite, for he had now put a tax upon one of the primary articles of food of the people. Once they admitted the principle they had no logical foothold for resisting the full application of the principle, and there would be a growing demand from Members opposite representing agricultural constituencies in favour of a tax upon corn.
He was astounded at the small amount of opposition to this tax from members of the Liberal party sitting on the Front Bench. He warned the House that if they admitted the principle of taxing the food of the people by taxing sugar, there was nothing for Ireland but a tax upon corn, which would do a great deal for Ireland. If he were forced to make a choice between taxing sugar and corn,

153
although he was a free trader, he was not sure that he would not vote for taxing corn, for that would put money into the pockets of the people of Ireland. The tax upon sugar violated the great principle of not taxing the necessities of the people, a principle which had been the pride of England for years, and he believed one of the main reasons of England's success. And it violated another great principle which lay at the root of the trading prosperity of England, because it taxed a raw material of manufacture, an article which was most important in the manufacture of confectionery, jam, and preserves of all kinds. This industry had enormously increased within the last ten or twelve years on account of the cheapness of sugar. They were going to strike at all these manufactures by this tax. Sugar was a peculiarly unsuitable article for taxation, because it entered into so many and so varied manufactures. Enormous quantities of preserved fruit were imported into this country. How were they going to arrive at the quantity of sugar in these imports? Yet they must tax them. How were they going to deal with the sugar in condensed milk? He did not believe that all the ingenuity of the Custom House would be able to ascertain the amount of sugar in condensed milk. This tax would create an amount of annoyance and dislocation of trade which it was almost impossible to exaggerate. What were they going to do in the case of hams? There was an enormous and valuable industry in Ireland in hams, and he had come to the conclusion that there was no bacon to equal Irish bacon. But sugar was used in curing the hams. How were they going to determine the amount of sugar in hams imported from Chicago and Denmark? He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quite realised how many articles contained sugar, but he was bound to say that the Irish Members would insist upon foreign hams being charged the full duty in respect to the sugar they contained. This sugar tax united in itself all the vices a tax could possibly have. It was against all the principles of English finance. It put a new tax on an article which it was the pride of previous financiers to have freed. It was a departure from the well-established principles of British finance. Although he was not an admirer of the House of Commons or of the British Government,
154
he had been an enthusiastic admirer of British finance. One point in which England stood above all other countries had been the soundness of her finance. It was that which lay at the root of her great commercial prosperity.
*MR. CAINEsaid he was sure the House felt under deep obligation to the hon. Members who had spoken for the way in which they had put the matter before the House. It had now become abundantly clear that this country had launched itself on a career of revenue by tariff, and it was quite certain that we should not stop at sugar. If the present Government continued in power they would certainly have successive duties imposed on various articles of import. It was a great mistake for the House to treat sugar as a manufactured article. It was the raw material in its second stage, and if they entered upon a career of taxing raw material in its second stage they would, as their own raw material ran out, be landed in a position for which they would be very sorry indeed. He instanced the case of ores from the United States. Our own ores were rapidly becoming exhausted, and if we were to continue our manufacture of steel we must be largely dependent on those countries which had big deposits of ore. Ore for importation was a raw material in its second stage. They had already twenty-four different duties established with regard to sugar. There was no article in any tariff that was so elaborate as this list of intermediate duties on the one simple article of sugar. The tariff in the United States was a model of simplicity. They gave a bounty on sugar grown and manufactured in the United States, and they settled that bounty by polarisation. But there were only two items—home-grown sugar over 90° polarisation, 2 cents.; and sugar not less than 80, 1¾ cents. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should adopt some such system. Much of the sugar came into this country on what was known as a through bill of lading. If that through system were interfered with the amount added to the cost of imported sugar would be at least 5s. per cwt. Moreover, the Custom House expenses would be very great. Not only would the importer have to pay the interest on fresh capital raised, but they would lay on him the cost of having special Custom House clerks

155
for sugar—he was not sure that they would not have to have a chemist as well. All these costs would have to be met by the consumer, for the merchant had capital, and would take good care to get his profit. He was talking the other day to one of the largest wholesale grocers, and asked him what the tax meant to his firm. His friend replied that they had decided to add £50,000 to their capital. They would require two or three Custom House clerks. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that the margin between 4s. 2d. and 4s. 8d. was sufficient to allow the same sugar to be obtained at ½d. per lb. more, he was very greatly mistaken. What would happen would be that the sugar now sold at 2d. a lb., and hereafter sold at 2½d., would be manipulated before it was introduced to the grocer, and inferior stuff would be put into it. There were twenty-four differential duties on sugar, and if jam, preserved fruits, confectionery, sugar-cured hams, and all the different articles were to be carefully tested and their various percentages of sugar settled, the staff necessary would be enormous. Were they to polariscope every parcel? [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] HOW were they going to treat it? If he were a merchant dealing in preserved fruits he would rather pay his 4s. 2d. and be done with it. He was sure the nuisance would be very great indeed. If this Government continued its career of reckless extravagance they would have a tariff such as the world had never seen. The United States tariff was the most elaborate in any foreign country. In the United States tariff there were only four duties on sugar, namely, sugar above No. 16, Dutch standard of colour, 2s. 4d. per cwt.; sugar candy, 23s. 4d. per cwt.; confectionery, 50 per cent. ad valorem and glucose, 3s. 6d. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should withdraw this resolution, and put into the Bill a reasonable tariff.
*SIR. HICKS BEACH: This Resolution has been attacked on two grounds, and opposition in the first place is to the principle of the duty in its entirety. Of course, I expected that a duty on sugar would meet with some objection, but I also expected there would have been some consideration for the fact that it is necessary, as hon. Members will admit, to raise a considerable sum by additional
156
taxation. The money has to be raised by some tax or another, and this source of taxation is expected to produce more than five millions in the present year. It is useless, if I may venture to say so with all respect, to object to a proposal of this kind and to all proposals for additional taxation and not suggest anything in their place. [An HON. MEMBER: It is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do that.] I have made such proposals as I thought best, and it is for the House to accept or reject them, but I do not believe if you are to adopt any new indirect taxation at all—there is any indirect taxation that could be suggested with so much to be said in its favour. I do not believe there is a tax producing anything worth having that could be substituted for this tax on sugar. It is objected that it will impose a considerable burden on the working classes, and no doubt, it will; I frankly admitted that in explaining the Budget. In fact, I pleaded it as a reason in favour of the tax, because I hold the opinion strongly, it is right and necessary that the working classes, like every other class, should bear a reasonable share in the cost of the war and preparation for the war. My proposal has been criticised, but throughout the country generally it has had a favourable reception. Of course, there are objections to it; of course, I do not suggest for a moment that all the working classes are in favour of it, but I will venture to say that in the large centres of population the proposed tax on sugar has been received, I will not say with pleasure, but, at any rate, with approbation as a fair proposal. That reception contrasts favourably with some of the observations made by those who suggested that the working classes were not prepared to pay a fair share of the expenditure on the war. Of course, there is another line of opposition, and this comes from the hon. Member who has just sat down and the hon. Members for Devonport, West Islington, and Camborne. They have criticised the tariff. Undoubtedly it has the appearance of being somewhat complicated, but it is an exaggeration to say that there is a list of twenty-four different duties. It is a scale of duties based according to the crystallisable amount of sugar in a parcel of so-called raw sugar, starting from the basis of 4s. 2d. per cwt. on refined sugar. That may seem complicated, but in working it will be found after very limited

157
experience perfectly simple, for it is based on the present custom of the trade. It is based on the scale adopted and accepted by the trade itself.
MR. KEARLEYremarked that it was only a refiners' arrangement.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is adopted by the persons who have to estimate the amount of crystallisable sugar in a parcel of raw sugar. Working in that way, the number of degrees of polarisation will be accepted by the Customs as the basis of calculation for the duty, and I do not believe that, after a very short experience, there will be any difficulty in the matter. Of course, I admit the scale is a tentative scale, and I said so when explaining the Budget. We have drawn it up to the best of our power, and I believe it will be neither protective to the refining interest here nor will it be unfair to them as compared with refiners abroad. To charge one duty on all kinds of sugar, raw and refined, as proposed by the hon. Member for West Islington, would be absolutely unfair, and would only tend to the benefit of foreign refiners. Why should we do that? The hon. Member for West Islington spoke of Protection. I have already said I recognise nothing of Protection in this scheme. It was not framed with a view to Protection; it was not framed as the refiners desired to see it framed. If it can be proved by experience that there is any Protection in it it would be necessary to rearrange the scale.
MR. LOUGH: I said the other night that I would allow 10 per cent. for refined sugar, and all there sto none scale
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: But if the cwt. of raw sugar contained only half the crystallizable sugar that there is in a cwt. of refined sugar would that be a fair thing? The hon. Member for Camborne asked me what I considered would be the cost of collection. It is impossible accurately to forecast that, but I estimate that it will not amount to more than £40,000 a year. That includes the whole additional staff. Raw sugar is imported into no very large number of ports in the country, so that any difficulty as to raw sugar would occur in only a few places. Refined sugar would pass easily into the country. I come to the question of manufactured articles containing sugar. Of course, that is a very difficult question, When you first
158
impose a duty on an article like sugar or tobacco, which is the raw material for manufactures, you must have very considerable difficulty in allocating the precise amount of duty to be imposed on these manufactured articles, and the precise drawback to be allowed when they are exported. I do not, for a moment, deny that there has been delay and inconvenience to traders during the last week or ten days since the duty was first imposed. It is necessary that that should be so. It is a great change in the Customs tariff, and undoubtedly there must be inconvenience in the beginning. At the first we attempted to impose the duties in the same way as under the Customs Tariff Act of 1870, which is to charge the duties upon all materials imported into this country containing a certain amount of sugar by the weight of the object itself. A very short experience proved that that did not work. The articles brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Devonport showed very soon that that would not be a fair system to the consumer. We have started analysing these articles, and before long that will be completed, and we will be able to settle the amount of the duties and the drawback on these articles which will fairly correspond—they cannot correspond in all cases—to the amount of sugar which they contain. The hon. Member suggested that in certain cases, instead of arriving at a settlement through an analysis we should accept a sworn declaration, either from the exporters or importers, as to the amount of sugar contained in the manufactured articles. That proposal will be very carefully considered, and if it is found that it can be done without a risk of loss to the Revenue by fraud, I should be glad to adopt it. I quite admit that it would save a great deal of trouble. The hon. Member referred to the question of liquid and solid glucose, and said that they differed largely in the amount of taxable sugar which they contain—the solid 10 per cent. and the fluid 40 per cent. If that be so we shall have to revise the scale. But in imposing a duty of this kind, I do not think that hon. Members quite realise how extremely difficult it is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Revenue Department to ascertain everything that can be said before the duty is imposed. I cannot take everybody into my confidence. If I could have gone to the

159
hon. Member for Devonport with his vast expert knowledge of the trade, it might have been of very great assistance; but I am afraid it would not have met the requirements of the Revenue or the necessities of the imposition of duties in this country if I had consulted the experts in the trade before attempting to get a resolution from the House.
MR. KEARLEY: It was pretty well known that the sugar duty was to be imposed a fortnight before the Budget.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think I have referred to the principal points raised during the debate.
COLONEL NOLAN: What about the Limerick hams?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not myself feel sure that although hams are advertised as cured with sugar, they
contain an amount of sugar worth estimating and taxing. That is no reflection on those who are engaged in the industry in Ireland. I do not wish to underrate the difficulties of imposing a tax of this kind. The Treasury must ask for a little patience, and I think that the hon. Members for Islington and Devonport have rather criticised the proposal from the point of view of opponents of the Government and of the tax than from the point of view of the traders. There must be inconvenience at first, but I hope that the traders will bear this inconvenience with as great patriotism and self-sacrifice as the great mass of the working classes have borne the imposition of the duty; and I am quite sure that they will.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 148. [Division List No. 159.]

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Parker, Gilbert

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Lowther, Rt. Hn. W. (Eskdale

Pemberton, John S. G.

Stock, James Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Percy, Earl

Stroyan, John

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Pretyman, Ernest George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Thornton, Percy M.

Macdona, John Cumming

Purvis, Robert

Tollemache, Henry James

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Pym, C. Guy

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Maconochie, A. W.

Randies, John S.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carrie

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col Edward

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Valentia, Viscount

Majendie, James A. H.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Malcolm, Ian

Rentoul, James Alexander

Warde, Col. C. E.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Renwick, George

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Rickett, J. Compton

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

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

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

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifton)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Melville, Beresford V.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Milward, Colonel Victor

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Round, James

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wills, Sir Frederick

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Russell, T. W.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Morrison, James Archibald

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Seton-Karr, Henry

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

Mount, William Arthur

Simeon, Sir Harrington

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wylie, Alexander

Muntz, Philip A.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Spear, John Ward

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

NOES.

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

Donelan, Capt. A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Doogan, P. C.

Lundon, W.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Duffy William J.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Ambrose, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Asher, Alexander

Edwards, Frank

M'Crae, George

Atherley-Jones, L.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

M'Dermott, Patrick

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

M'Fadden, Edward

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Govern, T.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Kenna, Reginald

Black, Alexander William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Blake, Edward

Flynn, James Christopher

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

Boland, John

Furness, Sir Christopher

Mooney, John J.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Boyle, James

Hammond, John

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Moss, Samuel

Brigg, John

Harrington, Timothy

Moulton, John Fletcher

Broadhurst, Henry

Hayden, John Patrick

Murphy, J.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Helme, Norval Watson

Norman, Henry

Caine, William Sproston

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Caldwell, James

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Holland, William Henry

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Causton, Richard Knight

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cawley, Frederick

Joicey, Sir James

O'Doherty, William

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

O'Dowd, John

Colville, John

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Crean, Eugene

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Malley, William

Cremer, William Randal

Kitson, Sir James

O'Mara, Janies

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lambert, George

Partington, Oswald

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Langley, Batty

Paulton, James Mellor

Delany, William

Leamy, Edmund

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dowar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Leng, Sir John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dillon, John

Levy, Maurice

Price, Robert John

Priestly, Arthur

Sullivan, Donal

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Rea, Russell

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Whiteley, George (York, W. R)

Reddy, M.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Rigg, Richard

Tomkinson, James

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Robson, William Snowdon

Tully, Jasper

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Roche, John

Ure, Alexander

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Yoxall, James Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Kearley and Mr. Lough.

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

White, George (Norfolk)

Strachey, Edward

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Further Proceeding on Second Resolution deferred till to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

WAYS AND MEANS [23RD APRIL].
Resolution reported—
WAYS AND MEANS [23RD APRIL].

  INCOME TAX.
  "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, Maj. E.-(Tow'rH'mlets

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

  Goschen, Hon. George J.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Chapman, Edward

  Greene, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gretton, John

  Asher, Alexander

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Groves, James Grimble

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Bagot, Capt. Joscoline Fitz Roy

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Cast, Henry John C.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

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

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingheld-

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

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

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Coekfield

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Helder, Augustus Henry

  Bill, Charles

  Doxford, Sir William T.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Black, Alexander William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Henderson, Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Bond, Edward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir E.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Edwards, Frank

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Brigg, John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorg'n

  Holland, William Henry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Faber, George Denison

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Finch, George H.

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Bull, William Jas

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Billiard, Sir Har

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Joicey, Sir James

  Caine, William Sproston

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Caldwell, James

  Forster, Henry William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Keswick, William

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

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

  Kitson, Sir James

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Knowles, Lees

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Lawrence, William F.

  April, nineteen hundred and one, at the rate of one shilling and twopence."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 276 Noes, 72. [Division List No. 160.]

  Lawson, John Grant

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

  Norman, Henry

  Stock, James Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stroyan, John

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Parker, Gilbert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Leng, Sir John

  Partington, Oswald

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Pretynian, Ernest George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Price, Robert John

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt-.Col. Edward

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Randies, John S.

  Ure, Alexander

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rea, Russell

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  M'Crae, George

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Renwiek, George

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rigg, Richard

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whiteley, H. (Asbton-u.-Lyne

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. E.

  Rothschild, Hon Lionel Walter

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)

  Round, James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Boyds, Clement Molyneux

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Seeton-Karr, Henry

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Wodehouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Smith, H C (Northum, Tyneside

  Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-

  Moss, Samuel

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Young, Commander (Berks, E

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Spear, John Ward

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Allen, Charles P (Glone., Stroud

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, William

  Boland, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Boyle, James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jonian, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kennedy, Patrick Jamas

  O'Mara, James

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Lambert, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Loamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Colville, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Roche, John

  Callinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Tomkinson, James

  Delany, William

  M'Eadden, Edward

  Tully, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  M'Govern, T.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Duffy, William J.

  Murphy, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

WAYS AND MEANS [25TH APRIL] REPORT.
Resolutions reported—
WAYS AND MEANS [25TH APRIL] REPORT.
  TEA.
  1. "That the Customs duty now charged on tea shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and two, that is to say, tea, the pound sixpence."
  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF CUSTOMS.
  2. "That the additional duties of Customs on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by sections two, three, four, and five of the Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by section five of that Act), shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and two."
  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL DUTY OF EXCISE ON BEER.
  3. "That the additional duties of Excise on beer imposed by section six of the Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and two."

  GLUCOSE AND SACCHARIN (EXCISE).
  4. "That there shall be charged on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and one, on glucose and saccharin (including substances of a like nature or use), Excise duties equivalent to the Customs duties charged on those articles.
  "And that there shall be charged on and after the same date, on a licence to be taken out annually by the manufacturer of glucose, invert sugar, or saccharin, an Excise duty of one pound."

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  5. "That it is expedient to prolong the term of certain annuities, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt, the Customs, and the Inland Revenue."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution."
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I only rise for the purpose of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will be good enough to clear up one point which is in rather an unsatisfactory condition. He has proved to-night to the satisfaction of the majority of the House that it is possible to graduate sugar, and that it is desirable that the duty on sugar should be graduated. I wish to ask why it is not possible to graduate the duty on tea in a like manner. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, when the matter was before the House on a previous occasion, that it was possible to scientifically graduate sugar but not possible to scientifically graduate tea. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that gentlemen associated with the tea trade can tell what quality a particular tea is, and what is its price, even with their eyes blindfolded. I would also ask him whether he could not appoint a Government valuer with whose appraisement the tea trade would be completely satisfied, and whether it would not be quite as possible to divide lea into various grades as it is to divide sugar. Moreover, all the tea imported into this country practically comes into the port of London, which would make it still more easy to deal with it. I ask for information on this subject, because I am informed that it is perfectly easy to graduate tea.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one further question, and that is if he gets this resolution after a very brief debate and a perfunctory division, will he kindly let us go to bed.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, I will inquire further into this matter, but I would remind the hon. Member, as has been already stated in Committee, that an attempt to graduate the duty on tea was tried and was found so difficult to carry out in practice that it was given up. So far as I am aware I do not think it is practicable, but I will inquire further. With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question I should like to go to bed as well as anyone else. May

  169
  I remind the House that I have given opportunities, and I am sure the hon. Member for Waterford will agree with me, for discussion on all the resolutions on which discussion was desired, and it would be really a very great convenience if the House would agree to the remaining resolutions to-night. Then after the debate on the coal duty resolution, I shall ask leave to bring in the Bill, and read it a first time. I am very much obliged to hon. Members for the manner in which they have discussed the Resolutions.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think that the proposition of the Chancellor

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Knowles, Lees

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Disraeli Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, William F.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Asher, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Finch, George H.

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bond, Edward

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Brigg, John

  Gretton, John

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Bull, William James

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Butcher, John George

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G. (Midd'x

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mst'w

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Woc'r

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Helder, Augustus

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

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

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Colville, John

  Higginbotttom, S. W.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Norman, Henry

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hoult, Joseph

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Parker, Gilbert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Peel, Hon. Win. R. Wellesley

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  of the Exchequer is a very reasonable one. It is quite true that he has given us a fair opportunity for discussion, but what I am anxious for now is that the Bill should be introduced, in order that on the Second Reading we might be able to discuss a wider aspect of the subject. I am quite sure my hon. friends do not desire to prolong the discussion, and the sooner we get to the Second Reading of the Bill the better I will be pleased.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 202; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 161.)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, H C (Northumb, Tynes'd

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

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

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Randles, John S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Renwick, George

  Stock, James Henry

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Rigg, Richard

  Stroyan, John

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestorsh., N.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

  Round, James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Seely, Charles H (Lincoln)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  NOES.

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

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  O'Mara, James

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Partington, Oswald

  Ambrose, Robert

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John

  Black, Alexander William

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Priestley, Arthur

  Boland, John

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell

  Boyle, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Leng, Sir John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw; Thomas (Hawick, B)

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cawley, Frederick

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Delany, William

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moss, Samuel

  Tomkinson, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Murphy, J.

  Tully, Jasper

  Edwards, Frank

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Ure, Alexander

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry, N.

  White, Luke (York., E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  While, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Hammond, John

  O'Doherty, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  O'Dowd, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Remaining resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.

PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WARNED.
Quarterly Returns ordered, "by counties, of the Public Elementary Schools (1) which have been warned by the Board of Education under Article 86 of the Code, including Schools from which the grant has been withheld under
172
that article; (2) which have been warned by the Board of Education that the annual grant will, in future, be withheld unless defects in the school premises are remedied; (3) the annual grants to which have been suspended for three months or more from the date of the receipt by the Board of Education of the inspector's report on account of defects in school premises (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 217, of Session 1900)."—(Sir Francis Powell.)
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One of the clock.