Commons Sitting of 18 July 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. [BY ORDER.]
  As amended, considered.
  MR. PLUMMERsaid the question raised by the Amendment he had on the Paper was one of considerable importance, the point being whether a Committee upstairs had power to go beyond the scope of the original notice. He had received an intimation that his motion would not be opposed, and was glad, therefore, that he would not have to take up the time of the House.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Plummer.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid that, speaking as chairman of the Committee before which this Bill came, they considered it desirable in the interests of the public to amend it by providing that the boundary of South Shields should stand at the middle of the stream and at low water of the same. He had, however, been shown by the Secretary of the Local Government Board a clause of an agreement made between the Tyne Commissioners and the borough of South Shields, according to which the corporation were bound not to ask for a boundary in mid-stream or at low water. He should explain that the corporation provided for the use of the Committee a map in which the boundary in mid stream was clearly claimed, and under those circumstances
  808
  the Committee felt themselves free to deal with the matter. He was still of opinion that the decision of the Committee was a wise one, but under the circumstances he did not propose to offer any opposition to the motion of his hon. friend opposite.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid this matter was one of considerable public importance, and deserved, consequently, more than merely formal notice. This was a Bill confirming a Local Government Board Provisional Order, granted after local inquiry. But the Committee upstairs had added a clause the subject matter of which had never been inquired into, and had thereby gone beyond its powers.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid the question was submitted to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who declined to give any decision, but preferred to move that the Bill be referred to the Examiners of Private Bills. That was done, and that body came to the conclusion that there was no Standing Order applicable to the case.
  MR. WHITMORE,as a member of the Committee on Standing Orders which had the matter before it, said they were placed in a position of great difficulty. They were asked to decide whether any Standing Order had been neglected, and as a matter of fact they found there was none which applied to that particular case. This was because the Bill, although substantially a private Bill, was technically a public Bill. If it had been in form, as it was in substance, a private Bill, the particular alteration could not have been made without notice to all the parties concerned.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: That was not the opinion of the Standing Orders Committee.
  MR. WHITMOREsaid it was clear that for this reason an injustice had been inflicted, and it would be well if they could have a new Standing Order applying to cases of that kind.
  DR. SHIPMANsaid the Committee were strongly of opinion that the boundary should be fixed at

  809
  mid stream and at low water on the foreshore of the sea. He understood that the Committee, in the interest of the public, were simply declaring what the law really was. There were cases which dealt with the river boundaries of what are now North and South Shields. The presumptions of law were also in favour of South Shields, both with respect to the river and the sea shore. He would refer to the cases of McCannon v. Sinclair and Embleton v. Brown. He understood, too, that notice had been given through a map which showed the boundaries as he had stated. He was surprised they had exceeded their powers, and that their zeal in the public service had not met with the appreciation they had expected. He was sorry it was so.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERagreed with the hon. Member for South Tyrone that this was a matter which ought not to be slurred over. He was not present at the meeting of the Standing Orders Committee, so he did not speak on its behalf. The hon. Member who spoke last had very fairly admitted that a mistake had been made, though the hon, Baronet had not done so, and consequently it was necessary to make it clear that it would be setting a most dangerous precedent to allow any Committee to insert in a Provisional Order matters which had not been gone into at the local inquiry.
  MR. BAINpointed out that the Committee were misled by the map, and thus somewhat exceeded their powers.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that, representing to a large extent the interests of the Tyne Commissioners, he viewed with some alarm any interference with regard to the river, and he hoped the House would not sanction the action of the Committee. He had some knowledge of the Tyne foreshore. It had always been in dispute whether the Department of Woods and Forests, the Tyne Commissiners, or the City of Newcastle owned the foreshore.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)said
  810
  the suggestion had been thrown out that the Committee were misled by the maps shown in the course of the inquiry, but he would point out that those maps were only put in for the purpose of dealing with the southern boundary. Nobody, however, blamed the Committee for what they had done. Their intentions, no doubt, were laudable, but still it was a question whether or not their decision was in the public interest, and he was glad, therefore, that the motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle was not to be opposed. No doubt the method of proceeding adopted by the Committee was very wrong indeed. It must be borne in mind that these Provisional Orders often dealt with the taking of private property by compulsion, and it was therefore absolutely necessary that parties concerned should have full notice of any change proposed to be made. He agreed that it was desirable that there should be a Standing Order to meet these cases.
  MR. HALSEYsaid the action of the Standing Orders Committee was purely ministerial. They were asked merely to decide whether the Standing Orders relating to private Bills were applicable to this clause, and whatever their private opinions as to the wisdom or otherwise of inserting it, or as to the adequacy of the existing Standing Orders, they could come to no other decision than that the Standing Orders were not applicable. It was not for them to sit in judgment on another Committee, and so they carefully abstained from expressing any opinion as to its action. This case, however, showed the necessity for an alteration of the Standing Orders, because it was evidently in the power of a Committee upstairs at the present time to alter or add to Provisional Order Bills in a way which might give rise to great abuses, and involve serious interference with the rights of private property without proper notice to the owners thereof.
  MR. MORRELLsaid the Committee had before them at first the map previously laid before the Local Government Board at the local inquiry—a reproduction of the ordnance map, but showing in colour the county, union, and borough boundaries, as there set out, running together middle of the

  811
  river. This conveyed the impression that mid-stream of the Tyne was the boundary of South Shields for all purpose; sewer outlets and indentations into the south bank being within the authority of South Shields. Later in the inquiry a second map was produced, coloured to show the boundary of South Shields at high water mark of the river Tyne, excluding the indentations, sewer outlets, and so on. The Committee therefore determined it would be well to declare these items within South Shields, confirming the detail as to the boundary set out in the first map produced, as these items might become "no man's land." They acted solely in the public interest; but after the statements as to Standing Orders he agreed it would be well not to insist on retaining the clause.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: It was clearly and distinctly in the minds of the Committee—
  MR. PLUMMER: If the hon. Baronet speaks again I also shall have to ask the indulgence of the House.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he only wanted to say that the Committee acted in the belief that full legal notice had been given.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

TOTTENHAM AND HAMPSTEAD JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  WISBECH WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  DISTRICT MESSENGER AND THEATRE TICKET COMPANY BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STRATTON AND BUDE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords].
  Mr. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE, acting as Chairman of the Committee on Unopposed Bills this day, in the absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means, reported that in his opinion the Stratton and Bude Improvement Bill [Lords], though Unopposed; ought to be treated as an Opposed Private Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be treated as an Opposed Bill.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  HARROGATE WATER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Costs awarded]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill, without amendment;

  Torrington and Okehampton Railway Bill;

  North British Railway Bill, with Amendments.

  That they have agreed to Amendments to—

  Handsworth Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without amendment.

PETITIONS.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Salford, and Huddersfield; to lie upon the Table.
  BURGH SEWERAGE, DRAINAGE, AND WATER SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Kippen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS) BILL.
  Petition from Gravesend, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Royal, Parliamentary and Police Burghs of Scotland, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Clogher, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Return as to the Capital, Traffic Receipts, and Working Expenditure, etc., of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PILOTAGE.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Returns Telating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 265, of Session 1900), as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 268.]
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATING) ACT, 1899 (AMOUNTS PAID TO ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 8th July; Mr. Alfred Hutton]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Paper by the Secretary of State laying down the requirements from our Army, dated 1st June, 1891 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2659 to 2662 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 6, 1901).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting the Uganda Railway [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BRITISH INDIAN TRADERS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to a representation, dated 20th April, 1901, signed by a number of British Indian trading firms and residents in South Africa, complaining that the regulations directed against them by the late Boer administrators in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony were being still enforced; whether he has now discussed with Lord Milner this matter, with a view to repealing those regulations, and, if so, will he state the conclusion at which he has arrived.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): (1) The representation has been brought to my notice by my honourable friend, and I am making inquiry in regard to the allegations contained in it. (2) The status of His Majesty's Indian subjects in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony is a matter of considerable complexity, which I fear cannot be settled by a simple repeal of the laws of the late republics on the subject. I have been obliged to reserve it for consideration after Lord Milner's return to South Africa, but I may add that both Lord Milner and myself will approach in a sympathetic spirit any

  815
  proved grievances of our Indian fellow-subjects in the new colonies.
  ME. KEIR HARDIE: Do not the same regulations apply to Indian subjects in Natal as well as the Transvaal, and will consideration be given to their case also?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer the first part of that question without notice, as I do not know exactly what the regulations are; as to the second part, the Government will not interfere with regulations made by the responsible Government of the colony.

  CAPE COLONY PARLIAMENT.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has noticed that the Premier of the Cape Colony stated on 15th July to a Vigilance Committee that he hoped that the Cape Colony Parliament would meet before the second week in October, the time required by the Constitution, but that he could not promise one way or the other; and whether His Majesty's Government will advise the Governor of the Cape Colony that no violation of the Constitution can be permitted.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1) I have noticed the statement in the speech of the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony to which the hon. Member refers. (2) As at present advised, I am not prepared to instruct the Governor to refuse to act on the advice of his responsible Ministers, who are accountable to their own Parliament.

  SETTLEMENT OF THE NEW COLONIES.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Premier of Cape Colony has stated that in order to hasten the introduction of responsible government it is intended to promote a system of immigration of loyalists from Great Britain and the rest of the Empire to the Transvaal and Orange Colonies, and whether in regard to this scheme anything has been decided by His Majesty's Government; and whether,
  816
  before it is definitely decided to spend money upon any such scheme, this House will have an opportunity to express its opinion thereon.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the statement referred to. No decision has yet been come to on this subject, but if British money has to be spent for the purpose, it will, of course, be necessary to have the sanction of Parliament. I cannot, however, give any pledge that the adoption in principle of any policy will be delayed, as the hon. Member suggests.

  EDUCATION OF BOER CHILDREN.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the instructions to school teachers in the Orange River Colony, by Mr. E. B. Sargant, and printed on pp. 70 and 71 of Paper [Cd. 567], and especially to the statement that the curriculum and standards should generally be those of Cape Colony and the instruction be given in English, and that the fact that some children scarcely know any English is not a reason for speaking to them in Dutch; whether he is aware that this method of teaching the English language to Welsh-speaking children has, after a trial of some generations in Welsh schools, been abandoned in favour of utilising the mother tongue as the vehicle of instruction; and whether, in view of this experience, he will invite Mr. Sargant to issue instructions that in future the Dutch language shall be used as the medium of instructing Dutch-speaking children in the English language.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the instructions referred to, and am aware of the system in use in Wales, but I do not admit that the analogy between the Transvaal and Wales is an exact one. His Majesty's Government have not yet arrived at a final decision as to the language question, and I have asked Lord Milner for a report to be furnished as soon as he returns. Meanwhile, however, I may say that I am informed that many Boer children understand as little Dutch as they do English, and speak only

  817
  the Taal, and also that many of the parents would prefer that instruction should be given in English, as the language which will most conduce to the material benefit of their children.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Has not a similar statement been frequently made in regard to Welsh-speaking children?

  RETURN OF LORD MILNER TO SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. FLAVIN: When will Lord Milner return to South Africa from his holiday?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to state that Lord Milner returns on August 10th.

  BOER PRISONERS AT ST. HELENA— SHOOTING OF GODEFROY.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of the killing of Godefroy at St. Helena, an investigation before a coroner was demanded by the Boer prisoners, which demand was refused; and, if so, can he state why it was refused; whether at the military inquiry which did take place the friends of Godefroy were represented, and whether his representatives were allowed to cross-examine the military witnesses; whether the committee of Boer prisoners who communicated with the Governor in reference to this incident have sent in any statement; and, if so, whether such statement was considered by the court which conducted the inquiry; and whether he will allow the Member for East Mayo to have access to any correspondence which has passed between the Camp Committee, the Governor, and the President of the Court in reference to the shooting of Godefroy, and to the official record of the proceedings of the court.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,: I telegraphed last week to the Governor of St. Helena to forward by mail a full report on the circumstances of this occurrence. Until this arrives I shall not be in a position to answer the hon. Member's question.
  MR. DILLON: I will put another question down.

  BOER DEFEAT BETWEEN VENTERSDORP AND POTCHEFSTROOM.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information that he can give with reference to an attack on a convoy near Klerksdorp by 1,000 Boers, who tried to rush the two guns, and got within close range of the convoy, and within range of the fortifications of the place, and especially as to the action of the garrison of Klerksdorp on that occasion.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information of any engagement near Klerksdorp other than of one which took place about thirty miles from that place on the 26th May, when the Boers made a determined attack in superior force on a convoy between Ventersdorp and Potchefstroom. The Boers were driven off and the convoy arrived safely. Our losses were four killed and thirty wounded. I have no further details of this engagement.

  MRS. OLIVE SCHREINER.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Madame Olive Schreiner is detained as a prisoner in the Cape, and if he will make inquiries on the subject.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that Mrs. Olive Schreiner is at present interned or imprisoned by the authorities in Cape Colony, can he state where, for how long, and by whose orders she has been imprisoned; what are the reasons for, and the conditions of, her detention; whether she has been tried for alleged seditious statements or writings; if not, whether there is any intention to bring her to trial, and whether her immediate release will be ordered.
  MR. BRODRICK: In reply to the questions, I am not aware of the detention of this lady. A letter has, T understand, been published in the press by Mr. T,

  819
  Schreiner stating that the report is inaccurate.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this matter?
  MR. O'SHEE: Did not the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers state that Mrs. Schreiner was in a district under martial law?
  MR. BRODRICK: If the hon. Member can give me any authority for the statement made I will inquire, but it is impossible to do so on the strength of a newspaper report.

  VLAKFONTEIN—ALLEGED SHOOTING BY BOERS OF BRITISH WOUNDED.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the statements about the shooting of the wounded by the Boers at Vlakfontein were made by any soldiers except members of the Yeomanry; whether these Yeomanry had been engaged in any previous battle; and if he can state where, and with what result.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not prepared to answer any further questions about the engagement at Vlakfontein until I have received and read General Dixon's Report.
  MR. TULLY: Is this the first opportunity these Yeomen had of running away?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  COURTS-MARTIAL.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state in how many cases of courts-martial held in South Africa and in England respectively during the past year the findings have been reversed or altered upon the advice of the Judge Advocate General or other authority on legal grounds, and in how many instances of reversal or alteration of convictions the sentences or parts of them have been undergone by the prisoner convicted before reversal or
  820
  alteration; also in how many cases of lawful convictions the sentences of courts-martial have been wholly or in part remitted or their severity mitigated by the proper authority; and whether a report or return of the administration of military law and the proceedings of the Judge Advocate General's department is annually furnished to His Majesty or to any and which of His Ministers, or whether the department of the Judge Advocate General and the proceedings therein are left without any report or return being accessible to Parliament or the public.
  MR. BRODRICK: In ninety-eight cases of courts-martial held in South Africa and in England the findings have been wholly or partially reversed on the initiative or the advice of the Judge Advocate General. It should be understood that the reversal would in such cases be due to the want of sufficient legal evidence, and not to doubt of the prisoner's guilt. No men are put on trial unless there is a strong prima facie case. In some cases the prisoner has undergone a part or the whole of the sentence. The number of cases of lawful convictions when the sentence has been wholly or partially remitted or commuted for various reasons by the confirming officer amounted to 3,584. These cases of mitigation of sentence are due to the fact that severe punishments are necessary before the enemy, but the Commander-in-Chief at home, when the object of the sentence has been obtained, often materially reduces the punishment awarded. There is no annual report made by the Judge Advocate General's Office, but all statistics connected with that office are published annually in the Annual Return of the British Army.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: In how many cases did the reversal take place after the man had undergone all or part of the imprisonment?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot give the exact number.

  POST OFFICE VOLUNTEERS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether

  821
  he can state when it is proposed to release from military duty those members of the Post Office staff who, in response to an official application dated 12th April, 1900, are at present serving in South Africa with the 24th Middlesex Rifle Volunteers; and whether, seeing that capable officers could be obtained to take their places, he will cause instructions to be issued that the terms of the Army Order, No. 252, Section 8, relative to the return of Volunteer companies issued by the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa on 24th December, 1900, shall be applicable to such Post Office servants as may be desirous of returning to their civil duties.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,: One hundred Post Office employees sailed on the 6th July to South Africa to replace time expired Post Office employees.

  CIVIL SERVANTS AS VOLUNTEERS ON SERVICE.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if directions can be issued to the Post Office and other Government Departments that the Volunteers who abandoned their situations in order to take part in the South African campaign are to be regarded as soldier candidates for such posts as may be available, so as to prevent their services in the field being allowed to permanently affect their civil prospects.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Volunteers can reckon equally with regular soldiers all time spent on active service in deduction from their actual age, for the purpose of appointment to situations in the Civil Service.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the fact that the officers of Yeomanry and Volunteers taking part in the war have been accorded permanent status in the regular army, he will give instructions that non-commissioned officers and privates in those services, many of whom gave up good permanent
  822
  situations to serve their country in South Africa, are to be regarded as soldier candidates for Post Office and Civil Service employment.
  LORD STANLEY: My hon. and gallant friend is evidently unaware that this is already provided for by paragraph 4 (ii.) of the general regulations respecting open competitive examination for appointments in the Civil Service.

  BARRY RANGE GUNS.
  SIR THEODORE DOXFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that at the Barry range muzzle-loading guns only are used in the competitions, whether it is the intention of Government to supply modern artillery for these competitions; and can he state when the Volunteers of the north-east coast will be supplied with breech-loading guns for ordinary drill and practice.
  LORD STANLEY: Four 5-inch breech-loading guns were issued to Barry Links range in March, 1899, and were used for practice last year. Eight 5-inch breech-loading guns have been issued to other stations on the north-east coast for drill and practice of Volunteers there, and eleven more will shortly be issued.

  GLASGOW TRAM HORSES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether instructions were recently given to purchase for Government purposes horses now being disposed of by the Glasgow Tramways Company; and, if so, whether any of these horses have been acquired.
  LORD STANLEY: Instructions have been given to have these horses inspected, and a buyer will attend any future sales.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the noble Lord say why these "unsuitable and worn-out horses" are now to be purchased by the Government?
  LORD STANLEY: I said they would be inspected, and that buyers would be present at future sales.

  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the

  823
  Treasury is he aware of the feeling existing in the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and of Physicians in Ireland at the failure to give the Irish faculty adequate representation on the Royal Commission on Army Medical Service; is he aware that in several years the majority or a large proportion of the men joining the Army Medical Service held Irish qualifications; and, seeing that five of the Royal Commissioners represent London schools, can he explain why only one has been allotted to Ireland and one to Scotland; and would he give a Return of the doctors in the Indian, British, and Naval services, distinguishing those holding English, Irish, and Scotch qualifications, for the years 1890, 1895, and 1900; and will anything be done to increase the representation of Ireland in the composition of the Royal Commission.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The members of the Commission were chosen not with a view of representing the various nationalities, but to give the Secretary of State practical assistance in reorganising the Army Medical Service. As, however, my right hon. friend has no desire to let it appear that any school is slighted, Sir William Thompson has been invited to join the Commission, and there is every reason to hope that he will be induced to accept the invitation.

  THE RETURN OF THE SEAFORTH MILITIA.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, owing to the steamer "Lovedale," provided by Mr. David M'Brayne to convey the Seaforth Militia from Kyle of Lochalsh to Stornoway on the night of 11th June, having accommodation for only 370 of the men, the remaining 230 were left to pass the night and part of the following day on the platform at Kyle Station, with the result that having only recently returned from a hot climate they suffered through the inclemency of the weather, the night being cold, wet, and stormy; and, seeing that two of the men have since died from the effects of the exposure, while it has resulted in others also being invalided,
  824
  will he consider the expediency of making a small grant to the dependents of those who have died.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of the illness or deaths referred to; but, under any circumstances, I am afraid that the regulations would not admit of the grant of any pecuniary compensation to the dependents.

  LONDON SCOTTISH VOLUNTEERS— ACCOUNTS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state whether the accounts of the London Scottish Volunteer Corps are submitted annually to the War Office, and when and where they can be inspected by members of the corps.
  LORD STANLEY: The accounts of the public funds of the corps are submitted annually to the War Office, and a copy should be exhibited in the orderly room.

  VOLUNTEER RIFLE COMPETITION.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the order prohibiting Volunteers soliciting subscriptions for their prize-shooting funds from the public has been withdrawn, whether he will issue an official permission to the Volunteers to solicit subscriptions for prize-shooting funds.
  LORD STANLEY: The order issued prohibiting commanding officers from inviting subscriptions by circular to the expenses of annual rifle meetings and other military competitions has not been withdrawn. All subscriptions or prizes should be voluntary.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCER: May subscriptions be asked for?
  LORD STANLEY: Not by circular.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCER: By letter?
  [No answer was returned.]

  TOWER OF LONDON—ADMISSION OF SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the

  825
  Secretary of State for War if he can arrange to grant to members of His Majesty's military and naval forces, when in uniform, including Imperial and Colonial Volunteers, the privilege of free admission to the armouries of the Tower of London on all occasions when a fee for admission is exacted from the general public, and will he grant the members of these services similar privileges in the case of any other buildings or institutions under the control of the War Office, entrance to which can only be secured by payment.
  LORD STANLEY: No pecuniary question is involved, but as admission to the Tower of London is free for two days a week, I very much doubt whether the suggestion would meet with the success that my hon. friend anticipates; a Volunteer would not be likely to go in uniform on one of the days for which 6d. is charged in order to avoid payment. Any concession of the kind would, to be appreciated, have to be of more general application.

  CHARTERED TRANSPORTS.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can, consistently with the public interest, state how many steamers the Government now have on time charter and how many on voyage charter, also whether he can give a further return, in continuation of that of the 21st May, 1900, of steamers engaged by the Government as transports, with the amounts of the rates and hire paid in respect of them.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): There are now forty-three transports on time charter. Fourteen full cargo freight ships are either loading in England, at sea on their way to the Cape, or awaiting discharge. A Return, in continuation of that of 21st May, 1900, is now being prepared, and will shortly be presented. It is not considered desirable to publish the rates and hire paid in respect of the transports.

  CEYLON GARRISON—VENEREAL DISEASE.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  826
  War if his attention has been called to the rate of admissions to hospital for venereal disease at the Kandy Station of the Ceylon command, which last year were at the ratio per 1,000 of 545 cases, while at Colombo they were only 189, and at Trincomalee 105, and if he will order a careful inquiry into the cause of the rate at Kandy.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member is referring to the figures for 1899, and not those for last year, which show that the admissions dropped to 366 in 1900. Further, it must be remembered that cases originating at Colombo and elsewhere are frequently transferred to Kandy.

  BRITISH ARMY IN INDIA.—VENEREAL [DISEASE.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the ratio per 1,000 of mean strength of admissions to hospital for venereal disease of soldiers in the military districts of Allahabad, Rohilkand, Bangalore, Rangoon, Mandalay, and Bombay; if he is aware that the aggregate admissions in these six districts average 351 per 1,000 as compared with 250 per 1,000 over the whole of India, inclusive of these six districts, and only 174 per 1,000 in the six districts of Sirhind, Poona, Mhow, Aden, Quetta, and Nagpur, and if he will order a careful inquiry into the cause of this rate in the six former districts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The figures given by the hon. Member are substantially correct. The admission rate for venereal diseases among the British Army in India as a whole has, however, been reduced from 522 per 1,000 men, at which I found it in 1895, to 313 per 1,000 in 1899, a reduction of over 40 per cent. in four years, and the districts which the hon. Member instances as specially bad ones have shared materially in this reduction, the mean admission rate in them having fallen in the same period from 519 to 352. I believe that the Government of India are doing all that they legitimately can to combat this evil, and I do not think that the inquiry which the hon. Member

  827
  suggests would yield any valuable results.
  MR. CAINE: The noble Lord appears to have missed the point of my question, as to whether the rate is not excessive in one district as compared with others.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There are considerable variations.
  MR. CAINE: Will you try and remove the conditions which are the cause of it?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: That is not possible.
  MR. CAINE: It is perfectly possible.

  INDIAN CROP PROSPECTS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received any official reports regarding the rainfall throughout India up to date; whether the rains in the districts of Western India and Gujarat and Kattywar, which had been affected by famine during the last two years, are up to the normal average; and whether the official reports show the prospects of the ensuing crops to be favourable.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have received of late three or four official telegrams, which I have communicated to the press, regarding the rainfall in India and the agricultural outlook. My latest information is contained in the following telegram from the Viceroy, dated yesterday:—
  "Monsoon is irregular and weak. Rainfall much below average everywhere, except west coast districts and in part of Deccan, Burma, and Eastern Bengal. But it is sufficient for sowings generally, except in case of Punjab and part of Guzerat. Condition and prospects of crops in North Western Provinces, Bengal, and Madras, causes no anxiety, but crops are withering in part of Central Provinces and Bombay, and heavy rain is urgently needed for rice crops. Good rain has fallen in Bombay, Deccan, but Guzerat in parts has received very little rain, and usual sowings are greatly retarded. Prospects generally have not yet suffered materially."

  COOPER'S HILL COLLEGE.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING:: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
  828
  for India, in view of the fact that the Government of India sent a despatch, dated 17th January, 1901, dealing finally with the petitions from numerous Cooper's Hill officers in India, in which they complain of breach of the terms of their engagement, and that this was the last of a series of despatches on the same object extending over ten years, whether a final decision can now be given, and whether he will now consent to lay upon the Table the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Government of India on the subject.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: My reply to the Government of India's letter referred to in my hon. friend's question was given in a despatch dated the 7th June, which contains the final decision of the Secretary of State in Council on the subject. I am now prepared to lay the Government of India's letter and my reply upon the Table of the House.

  MEKRAN EXPEDITION, 1898—MEDALS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the Indian Government has recommended the grant of the frontier medal to the men who took part in the Mekran Expedition in 1898, for which the officer in command received a C.B., and two officers were awarded a D.S.O., while others were mentioned in despatches, he can explain why the grant of the medal has been withheld from the troops who, to the number of about 1,000, took part in the operations for which the officers received special recognition.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The question of the grant of a medal for the Mekran operations has been very carefully considered on two separate occasions, and has been decided in the negative. The honours mentioned in my hon. friend's question were conferred for special and personal services, in which the force generally had no share.

  CHINA—INDEMNITY QUESTION— DEPARTURE OF TROOPS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  829
  whether he can make any statement as to the difficulties which are at present causing the deadlock in the settlement of the indemnity question by the Ministers at Peking, and can he state whether the departure of the 3rd Bombay Cavalry from Tientsin has been countermanded.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): The difficulty which has arisen in the settlement of the indemnity question has reference to the selection of the revenues which are to be ear-marked for the service of the bonds; but negotiations are still in progress. The departure of the 3rd Bombay Cavalry has not been postponed.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the withdrawal of the 3rd Bombay Cavalry from Tientsin has been countermanded, and the British forces there have been increased by about 1,000 men; and if so can he state what are the reasons for these steps.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No, Sir.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR MEDALS.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say how many South African War medals were struck with the date 1899–1900 before February, 1901, how many have since been struck with the date 1899–1900, how many have been struck since February, 1901, without any date, and whether there is any precedent for striking war medals without a date.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It rests with the Secretary for War, not with me, to advise as to the design and issue of war medals; but I may say that the number of medals struck with the date "1899–1900" before 1st February, 1901, was 177,000. The number of medals struck with the date after 1st of February was 50,000, but none of these were issued. They were re-struck at the Mint without a date, and are included in the number struck since the 1st of February without a date, which amount in all to 179,830.
  830
  There are many precedents for striking war medals without a date.

  AYLESBURY FEMALE CONVICT PRISON STAFF.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what changes, if any, have recently been made at the Female Convict Prison, Aylesbury, in the personnel and duties, of the staff; and, seeing that there is not now a lady superintendent among such officers, although the deputy governorship was formerly held by a lady, can he explain why this arrangement has been altered, and will he take steps to secure the appointment at this female convict prison of a lady superintendent among the chief officers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): Owing to the very considerable decrease in the numbers of female convicts it has lately been found possible to effect a large reduction of staff at Aylesbury Prison. The office of lady superintendent has been discontinued, and a chief matron appointed in her place, and the office of deputy governor will in future be discharged by the deputy medical officer. By the economies resulting from these changes it has been made possible to appoint a trained nurse to the establishment, thus supplying a long-felt want. I do not propose to make any alteration in these arrangements.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PENSIONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a decision with reference to lodging and other allowances being taken into consideration in calculating police pensions recently given by the Recorder at Sheffield Quarter Sessions, and if he can say whether the weekly lodging allowance now enjoyed by a large proportion of the Metropolitan Police constables will be pensionable.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have received a report of the proceedings before the Recorder of Sheffield, from which I

  831
  learn that he has consented to state a case for the consideration of a higher court. The lodging allowance to certain members of the Metropolitan Police Force was granted on the distinct understanding that it would not form part of their annual pay, and consequently would not be pensionable.

  SUNDAY CLUBS IN DENBIGHSHIRE.
  MR. GEORGE KENYON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of the Chief Constable to the Joint Standing Committee for the county of Denbigh, in which he states that there has been a further increase in the number of clubs in the county; whether the police have any power to demand a list of the members of these clubs, or otherwise to exercise any control over them, and whether any legislation having for its object the supervision of these clubs, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission on the Sunday Closing Act (Wales and Monmouthshire), is contemplated at an early date.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have received a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Standing Joint Committee for Denbighshire. The police can take proceedings if a club supplying intoxicating liquors can be proved to be a "bogus" club—e.g., if it is not a properly constituted members' club, or if it is a disorderly house. I have had under consideration proposals for amending the law in relation to clubs, but there are many difficulties in dealing with this question, and I cannot make any promise of legislation at an early date.

  REPORTS OF FACTORY INSPECTORS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a statement made on the 4th August, 1899 by his predecessor, to the effect that he thought that it would be possible to present early in the session the reports of the factory inspectors, and that he had obtained the consent of the Treasury to an increase of the staff of clerks in the Factory Department for
  832
  the purpose of bringing out the reports, and can he state when he expects the report, long in the printers' hands, to be circulated.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the statement referred to. Since that time both my predecessor and myself have considered how it could be arranged that the factory report should come out earlier in the session, and I had hopes that it might have been presented at any rate in June this year. But I have been disappointed, owing mainly, I think, to the fact that the printers have not co-operated effectively with the Factory Department. The matter is now entirely in the hands of the printers, and I am told that the report cannot be issued before the 26th of this month.

  THE "EURYDICE"—DEATH OF ROBERT POWER.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any further information has been received regarding the death of Robert Power, sixteen years of age, an apprentice on board the "Eurydice," who was found on the 25th November, 1899, in the harbour of Bahia with a cut on his head; whether he will cause inquiry to be made regarding this occurrence; and whether he is aware that the ship "Eurydice" is on her return vovage.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: No, Sir; no further information beyond that communication to the father of Robert Power has been received with regard to the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. The Board of Trade obtained statements from members of the crews of the two vessels lying near the "Eurydice," and also from the master and four of the crew of that vessel on her return to this country. They have also communicated with His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Bahia Blanca, and the Foreign Office have made inquiries through His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres, but I regret to say that no light has been thrown upon the circumstances of Power's sad death. There seems, however, no sufficient reason to believe that the lad met with foul play, and I fear

  833
  that further inquiries would not be likely to lead to any useful result.

  THE STORNOWAY MAIL STEAMER.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when the M'Brayne's mail steamer "Clydesdale," which is forty-one years old, and carries the mails between Mallaig, Kyle, and Stornoway, was last surveyed, where surveyed, and by whom.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The "Clydesdale," which was built in 1864, and is therefore thirty-nine and not forty-one years old, was last surveyed at Glasgow in October last by one of the Board of Trade surveyors at that port.

  TIUMPAN HEAD LIGHTHOUSE—TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH LAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it has now been decided to place the lighthouse at Tiumpan Head, Island of Lewis, in telephonic communication with the post-office at Portnaguran, and has an estimate of the cost been obtained; will he state on what date the lightkeepers commenced to keep a diary of cases of illegal trawling coming Tinder their notice; have any such cases been recorded in the diary; and, if so, how many.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Fishery Board that the diaries were issued by them on 26th March, and that up to the present date only one vessel believed to be a trawler, but which cannot be identified, has been recorded. This vessel was observed on the 5th of April. In these circumstances there is no reason for altering the decision, not at present to put the lighthouse in telephonic communication with the telegraph office; which was intimated to the hon. Member in the reply made to him on this matter on 22nd March last.

  PARLIAMENTARY AND FREE GRANTS TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Parliamentary Annual Grants
  834
  and Free Grants paid to elementary schools are calculated in different ways, though both are based on the average attendance; and, seeing that in estimating the Parliamentary Annual Grants attendances allowed under Article 101 of the Code are included, but are excluded in calculating the Free Grants, whether he can explain why, notwithstanding the passing of the Elementary Education Act, 1900, the Parliamentary Grants are still calculated in different ways; and whether he will refer the interpretation of the clauses affecting this matter to the law officers of the Crown.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,: Free Grants and Annual Grants are based upon average attendance calculated for both exactly the same way. Article 101 does not provide for either annual or free grants, but for a special grant estimate at the discretion of the Board of Education. No legal question is involved suitable for reference to the law officers.

  VOLUNTARY EVENING SCHOOLS.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the managers of an evening school established and maintained by voluntary school managers or other persons, not being a school board acting as such, will be required to publish their accounts, limit the average fee to 9d. per scholar, and observe the Conscience Clause, or whether these provisions of former codes are abrogated in respect to schools not carried on under the Elementary Education Acts.
  SIR J. GORST: The provisions of the Elementary Education Acts do not apply to such schools. But the Board of Education has ample power to secure the keeping of proper accounts and the charging of reasonable fees, and to protect scholars against religious interference.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under the Minute now before Parliament, it is possible for the members of a technical

  835
  education committee, or the managers of a voluntary day school, or any other body of persons not being a school board acting as such, to institute and maintain evening schools free from any limitation as to age excepting those contained in paragraph 5, and free to give instruction in and receive grants for all the subjects mentioned in the schedule of the aforesaid Minute, assuming that the persons so acting as managers comply with the conditions mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 20 of the Minute.
  SIR J. GORST: The answer is in the affirmative.

  APPEALS UNDER THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he can state how many appeals have been brought in cases arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords respectively, and how many of these appeals have been determined in favour of the workmen.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): There were seven appeals to the House of Lords in 1900 from the Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed in five cases, in one it was dismissed, and in one it was not prosecuted. In six out of the seven cases the decision was in favour of the workman. One other case has been decided this year, also in favour of the workman. I have not got the figures as regards appeals from county courts to the Court of Appeal, but, if the hon. Member desires it, I will endeavour to get them.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to supply this information before the Second Reading of his Bill to take away this right of appeal.
  MR. JOHN BURNSasked whether, in view of the remarkable decisions come to, the Government would take an early opportunity next session of bringing in an amending Bill.
  [No answer was returned.]

  POSTAL UNION RATES.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the present rate of postage on letters from the United Kingdom to the Continent, namely, 2½d. per half ounce, exceeds the foreign postage rate in force in any other country, and, in view of the fact that in order to place the British service on an equal footing with that of other nations the rate should be reduced from 2½d. to 2d. per half ounce, will efforts be made to induce the Postal Union to assent to this reduction; and will he state when and where the next meeting of the union will take place.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There are several countries in the Postal Union (some even in Europe) in which the foreign postage rate on letters exceeds 2½d. per half ounce. The rate fixed by convention for letters passing between European countries is 25 centimes per 15 grammes, or its virtual equivalent in local currency; and the nearest British equivalent, 2½d. per half ounce, is slightly higher than that sum. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech in 1897, the Government desired to reduce generally to 2d. per half ounce the letter postage from this country to places abroad. But for this change the consent of the Postal Union is necessary; and, though every effort was made by the British delegates to the Postal Union Congress held at Washington in the summer of 1897 to obtain that consent, it was refused. It cannot be stated at present whether the attempt will be renewed. The next Congress of the Postal Union is appointed to be held. at Rome, early in the year 1904.

  SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS IN POST OFFICES.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that male counter clerks and telegraphists have been obliged to perform duty at certain post offices under female supervision; and that no adequate lavatory accommodation exists in such places for the male portion of the staff; and whether,

  837
  in view of the fact that the Tweedmouth Committee expressed its disapproval of female clerks supervising males, steps can be taken to carry out this suggestion in the E.C. district.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was arranged some time ago that, at certain offices in the Eastern Central district where a female staff is employed, a male counter clerk and telegraphist should assist with the parcel work for an hour or two daily when the duty is heaviest; but the men objected, and they have been withdrawn except in one case, where a male counter clerk has been in the habit for some years of assisting in the parcel work during a small portion of the day.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the principle embodied in my question, namely, that male clerks shall not be under the supervision of females?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, and, as I have said, the men have been withdrawn in these cases except in one case, where, as I understand, the practice has gone on for many years without complaint.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the British Postal Medical Officers' Association has recently issued a statement in which it is contended that sanitary defects in post offices, when reported upon by them, in many cases remain unremedied; and whether, in view of the fact that the Tweedmouth Committee expressed its opinion that the demands of the medical officers should be carried out, the Postmaster General will direct the Office of Works to carry this injunction into effect.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware of the statement referred to. Every report by a local medical officer on the sanitary condition of a post office is fully investigated, and, if alleged defects are confirmed, remedies, as far as practicable, are
  838
  applied. The opinion quoted was not expressed by the Tweedmouth Committee, but appears in a statement put in by the medical officers themselves before the Committee. No good reason is seen for changing the present practice in this respect.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank on 31st December last, and the amount due to depositors, the number of accounts showing a balance on that date of not less than £50, and the approximate amount due on these accounts; and will he say how many accounts show a balance not exceeding £100, and how many a balance not exceeding £150.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The number of accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank on the 31st December, 1900, was 8,439,983, and the amount standing to the credit of those accounts was £135,549,645. The classification of so many accounts according to the balances due is a laborious operation, and the last occasion on which it was undertaken was in respect to the balances at the 31st December, 1899. Applying the proportions then ascertained to the figures at the end of 1900, the information asked for would be approximately as follows (the figures including all accounts of societies):—Accounts with balances exceeding £50: Number, 844,842; aggregate amount, £91,265,576. Number of accounts with balances not exceeding £100, 8,061,872; number of accounts with balances not exceeding £150, 8,259,367.

  EARL RUSSELL'S TRIAL.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state what amount is being expended in converting the Royal Gallery into a court of law for the trial of Earl Russell, the amount sanctioned by the Treasury for this purpose, and to what Vote the sums expended will be charged.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,: I am informed by my right hon. friend that the expense of converting the Royal Gallery into a court of law for the trial of Earl Russell will be between £300 and £400, and will be charged to the Vote for Houses of Parliament Buildings.

  TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SHREWSBURY AND BIRMINGHAM.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that telephonic messages between Shrewsbury and places south thereof have to pass through Liverpool or some towns far to the north of Shrewsbury; and whether direct communication by telephone can be provided between Shrewsbury and the city of Birmingham and other towns in the Midland counties in substitution for the present circuitous arrangement.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Communication with Shrewsbury over the trunk wire system has recently been improved by the provision of new circuits from Liverpool to Birmingham and other places, but the Postmaster General is also considering the question of providing a more direct route to the Midlands and the south.

  DIDSBURY SUB-POSTMASTERSHIP.
  MR. GROVES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the sub-postmastership of Didsbury, in the Manchester district, recently vacant, was filled without giving the staff an opportunity of competing for the position; and whether he is in a position to give any assurance that in future all such vacancies shall be open for competition, and that petitions in favour of persons not in the employment of the Post Office shall not be considered to the detriment of established members of the staff.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Postmaster General is not in a position to give an assurance such as that described in the second part of the question. Owing to the circumstances under which sub-
  840
  offices are held, it is not often possible to appoint persons who are already in the service.

  MANCHESTER POSTMAN'S GRIEVANCE.
  MR. GROVES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can say when an answer will be given to the application made by Postman J. E. Frost, Manchester, in December, 1900, and repeated in March and June, 1901, for the restoration of a deferred increment arrested under the rules of the service in December, 1898.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINPostman Frost was appointed in December, 1897, on probation; but owing to irregular attendance his probation was extended twice, and it was only in August, 1899, that his appointment could be confirmed. No increment is allowed before confirmation of appointment, and Frost's increment was allowed when it next accrued, namely, in December, 1899. Readjustment of pay or date of increment does not extend to any time prior to the confirmation of appointment. This has now been explained to Frost.

  NORTH DEVON POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the inquiries recently made with reference to proposed improved postal facilities at Berrynarbor, in North Devon; whether he is aware that farmers in this district suffer inconvenience and loss by the lack of a daily delivery of letters, and that at some farms within the district there is a delivery of letters; twice a day, whilst at other farms within five minutes walk from the first-mentioned farms there is a delivery on four days a week only; and whether he will, having regard to the profits made by the Department, consider the advisability of improving the postal facilities in Berrynarbor and other agricultural districts, even though these improved facilities may not be immediately remunerative to the Department.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Department is already spending

  841
  on the delivery of letters at the farms referred to on four days a week a sum greater than the whole of the postage derived from the correspondence delivered, and under these circumstances the Postmaster General would not be justified in sanctioning any further expenditure in order to afford a daily delivery.
  MR. SOARES: Has the Post Office adopted the policy of a trading monopoly—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  POSTMEN'S PENSION DELAYS.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that postmen awaiting the settlement of their pensions are frequently left for many weeks without any kind of wage, which often entails on the men and their families want and suffering and, seeing that officers on the clerical staff receive their pensions immediately on retirement, will similar arrangements be made for postmen and other members of the minor establishment when they retire from the service.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The superannuation of postmen is dealt with in precisely the same manner as that of members of the clerical staff of the Post Office, and delay in obtaining the award of pension or gratuity is in both cases minimised as far as possible; but it is frequently unavoidable, owing to the necessity of furnishing full details as to the whole of the officers' past service.

  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES' MISCONDUCT —CASE OF MURRAY.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state under what rule of the service a sorter named Murray, employed at the South Eastern District Post Office, has been called upon to explain, and subsequently punished for, alleged misconduct in the public streets on Monday, 17th June last; whether the officer was allowed to call witnesses to prove his innocence, or was confronted with his accuser.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Officers of the Post Office are expected
  842
  so to conduct themselves, whether on or off duty, as not to bring discredit on the Department. The case of the officer now in question was dealt with in accordance with the usual practice. He has been guilty of a similar offence last year, and the Postmaster General was satisfied that the charge made against him on the present occasion was well founded.

  NEW PUBLIC BUILDINGS—ARCHITECTS' REMUNERATION.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the remuneration fixed by the agreements entered into with the architects for the new War Office, Whitehall, the new Public Offices, Westminster, and the Science and Art Buildings, South Kensington, and whether such remuneration has been fixed as a lump sum or by way of commission on the total cost; if so, at what rate per cent., and whether the commission is subject to variation in respect of additional, substituted, or abandoned works; and can he say who are the architects appointed under the agreements above referred to, and what is the amount of commission payable to each, assuming that the work is carried out on the present plan.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed by my right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works that the amounts in each case were fixed by agreements with the architects as follows:—for the new War Office, £23,750; for the new Public Offices, Westminster, £26,000; for the Science and Art Buildings, South Kensington—(a) Victoria and Albert Museum, £25,000, (b) Royal College of Science, £10,000—total, £35,000. These lump sums were arrived at by taking a percentage of 5 per cent. by way of commission on an agreed total estimated cost, and they are subject to variations as stated by the hon. Member. If more details are desired the First Commissioner will be happy to show the agreements to any hon. Members who may wish to see them. The architects were in each case respectively the late Mr. W. Young, the late Mr. J. M. Brydon, and Mr. Aston Webb, A.R.A.

  INTERRUPTING MASS AT KILCUMMIN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 30th June a man named Ryan interrupted divine service at each of the Masses at Kilcummin, county Tipperary; that a constable, in consequence, asked him to leave the church during the first Mass; that the sergeant removed him at the second Mass, and that when outside the church Ryan made use of bad language in the presence of the police, and whether any prosecution will be instituted.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAW,): I am informed that the officiating clergyman, in the course of his sermons at these two services, made some allusions to a claim by Ryan for compensation for malicious injury to a horse, his property. Ryan resented the allusions, and the rev. gentleman called upon the police to remove him. He left quietly. Outside the church he used abusive language towards the clergyman. It is open to the latter to take proceedings if he so desires, but the case is one of a class in which the police do not prosecute.

  HORSES FOR ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY OFFICERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Commandant Singleton, Royal Irish Constabulary depot, traffics in horses, and has sold horses to newly appointed officers in the Constabulary, and will the Government secure that inferior officials of the Constabulary shall be allowed to buy their horses in the open market.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Singleton has given many officers, at their request, the benefit of his advice and experience in the purchase of horses; but he does not "traffic" in horses, and has never sold one to an officer of the force. All officers are free to buy wherever they wish.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OF MEN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  844
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of Roman Catholic and Protestant recruits, respectively, called up for service to the Royal Irish Constabulary depôt during the five years since Mr. Singleton was appointed commandant, and in the previous five years, when Mr. Pennington was commandant; what is the number of Roman Catholic and Protestant officials in the commandant's office, and the salaries paid to each; is he aware that the barrack-master and his staff, the adjutant's clerk, the musketry head constable, the assistant schoolmaster, the majority of the drill staff, the librarian, canteen men, mess waiters, buglers, and gymnastic instructors are all Protestants; and can he explain such religious disparities in the depôt staff of a force where the Roman Catholics are three to one amongst the rank and file.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONasked if the adjutant, the musketry instructor, the veterinary surgeon, and many other officers were not Roman Catholics.
  MR. WYNDHAM: My hon. and gallant friend may be correct. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that there were 1,532 Roman Catholic and 613 Protestant recruits called up in the first mentioned period, and 1,848 Roman Catholics and 538 Protestants in the second. There are four Roman Catholic officials in the commandant's office, with salaries amounting in the aggregate to £280 16s.; and three Protestant officials, with salaries amounting to £265 4s. As regards the religious composition of the depôt staff, the proportions are not as stated in the third paragraph. Of the forty-six members on this staff, twenty-five are Roman Catholics.

  BELFAST VALUATION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the first list of Griffith's Valuation for Belfast, in the year 1860, was printed and published by the Government in one volume, which could be obtained by the ratepayers; and will he state why that precedent has not been followed

  845
  on the present occasion of a new valuation; and will he order the publication in a similar way of the present valuation lists for that city, having regard to the fact that, owing to the number of appeals arising from the new valuations, such publication will be a convenience to ratepayers concerned.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to my replies to the similar inquiries addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 30th April last.†

  CORK JURORS.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many jurors are on the jurors' list for the city of Cork for the current year; how many jurors have been ordered by the Crown to stand by at the three last winter assizes held in Cork city; and how many of the jurors are Roman Catholics.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are 913 jurors on the jurors' list for the city of Cork for the current year. I have no information which would enable me to reply to the remainder of the question.
  MR. O'SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in one case alone forty-five jurors were ordered to stand aside?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no records.

  KILCLOONEY ESTATE, GALWAY.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how the tenants on the unsold portion of the Kilclooney estate hold the lands; have any of the graziers who previous to last November merely held under agistment contracts been since made tenants for the purpose of selling the lands to them; whether, in view of the proposed legislation extending the powers of the Congested Districts Board, he will ask the Irish Land Commission not to force a sale until the Congested Districts Board has an opportunity of further considering the matter; and whether he
  †See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xciii., page 271.
  846
  will ask the Congested Districts Board to communicate with the Irish Land Commission on the subject.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he-is aware that several tenants on the Irish Land Purchase and Settlement Company's estate at Kilclooney, county Galway, have purchased their holdings, and that some tracts, to the extent of 400 acres, which have been let for grazing purposes, are still unsold; whether he has received a memorial from the principal shareholders in the company praying that the said grazing lands should be sold to the tenants in convenient lots, thus carrying out the original intentions of the company; whether he is aware that the Land Commission, at the request of the late Chief Secretary, sent an inspector to the estate, who reported in favour of the project; and that the tenants agreed to pay whatever price the Land Commission fixed on the grazing traces without in any way interfering with those lands held under regular tenancies; and whether, in view of the proposed legislation to extend the powers of the Congested Districts Board, he will ask the Land Commission to stay the sale of these particular tracts so as to enable the Congested Districts Board to negotiate for the purchase of them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This estate was purchased by the Irish Land Purchase and Settlement Company in 1885. The Land Commission advanced £42,300, of which £35,000 is still due. The company has been wound up in a liquidation suit, and the attention of the Land Commission has been directed on several occasions by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the necessity of realising its securities and paying off the debt. Fifty-two tenants purchased in 1887 and 1891. There remain unsold—

  1. Some sixteen or seventeen small holdings which occupiers have agreed to buy.

  2. (a) 185 acres under a fee farm grant for ever; (b) 305 acres on unexpired lease of thirty-one years from 1880;

  847
  (c) 126 acres under a statutory tenancy; (d) 234 acres under a yearly tenancy; (e) 260 acres under a sixty-one years lease; (f) 80 acres of which the occupier was stated in the Landed Estates Court Rental, printed twenty years ago, to have been a yearly tenant. He has been in occupation for more than thirty years, and now holds under a court letting. [There can, I think, be no question of using the above six holdings for increasing the size of other holdings.]

  3. Three court agreements, to which the hon. Member for Waterford probably refers, consisting of eighty-seven, sixty-nine, and fourteen acres respectively. The Land Commission was advised that these 170 acres are so far away from the small holdings, and so difficult of access, as to render them unsuitable for the purpose of increasing the latter. Having regard to the fact that the occupiers had held them for ten years and were anxious to buy at good prices, the Commission offered them, and the offer was accepted.

  4. There is a demesne of 264 acres. It does not appear that the company intended to divide this land. On the contrary, it offered the demesne to a single purchaser for £14,000.

  This land is let to grazing tenants, but, in any case, no offer to sell to them has been made, nor is it proposed to make one. No question of urgency, therefore, arises.
  The Congested Districts Board has been in communication with the Land Commission on the subject, but I cannot undertake to say whether that Board will eventually decide to purchase in view of its obligations to assist migration from a congested district.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for sending me a document containing the information he has just read to the House, and also a map which enabled me to follow his answer. I may perhaps be allowed to say that the lots in which my colleagues and myself are mainly interested are three, which apparently the Land Commission has agreed to sell. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these sales are not confirmed until we have had an opportunity of laying before the Government and the Congested Districts Board as well as the Land Commission, a full statement of our views?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think I can give an unconditional undertaking, as it may be that the matter has gone too far. Still, if there is an opportunity for delay, I shall think it only reasonable to avail myself of it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Then the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with the Land Commission at once?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes; and, if they are not irrevocably committed, will delay further proceedings.

  NOONAN'S CONVICTION.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of the emergency man Noonan, who was released from prison one month before his sentence of two months imprisonment with hard labour for an aggravated assault had expired, and he can state the reasons advanced for the reduction of the sentence and the grounds of a petition praying for his release presented by Noonan or on his behalf by his friends to the Lords Justices.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It would be contrary to invariable practice to make a statement such as that suggested in the second part of this question. I can add nothing to my reply of the 17th inst., namely, that the Lords Justices, upon a consideration of all the facts and the previous record of the prisoner, remitted a portion of the sentence.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What harm would there be in showing the petition?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It would create what I think would be an unfortunate precedent.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, for the Government.
  MR. FLAVIN: Was not the only recommendation of this man the fact that he was an emergency man? It is a case of one law for the landlords.

  STRANGFORD DISPENSARY DISTRICT.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to

  849
  the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an inquiry has been held in Downpatrick by a medical inspector of the Local Government Board as to the necessity of providing a qualified midwife for Strangford dispensary district, and that it was proved that there had been from time to time deaths from puerperal fever from improper nursing before a regularly qualified midwife was appointed, and, seeing that since the resignation of the last holder of the position on 1st May, 1900, the guardians have persistently refused to appoint a successor, can he say whether there is arty power in the Local Government Board to compel the Downpatrick Guardians to make the appointment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Board has frequently exhorted the guardians to appoint a midwife for this dispensary district since the occurrence of the present vacancy in May, 1900. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The Board will again communicate with the guardians insisting on the necessity for such an appointment. I would prefer not to allude to more drastic measures which might be taken until the guardians have had an opportunity of giving a reply, which will, I trust, be satisfactory.

  FAIR RENTS IN COUNTY LOUTH.
  MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in January last the Land Commission issued a list of fair rent applications for the county of Louth in which seventy-nine of the holdings were situated in the Ardee Union, that these cases were heard in Dundalk or in Drogheda instead of in Ardee, and that this arrangement caused inconvenience and expense to the parties concerned, and whether in future cases connected with the Ardee Union will be listed for hearing in the town of Ardee as in former years.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In fixing the sittings in question, the matter was discussed at Drogheda between the chairman of the sub-commission and the solicitors acting for the majority of the tenants. It was then decided that it
  850
  would be most convenient for the greater number of those concerned that the cases should be heard in Drogheda and Dundalk. No objection was made to this course, and no application was made to hear any of the cases at Ardee. I cannot give any undertaking such as suggested at the end of the question; but I will bring the matter under the notice of the Land Commission

  IRISH SANITARY CHARGES.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when he will be able to inform the House as to the decision of the Local Government Board on the question of sanctioning the areas of charge for sanitary expenses in rural districts on lesser areas than the dispensary districts, as requested by so many rural district councils.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A Circular will be issued forthwith for the purpose of eliciting the views of local authorities throughout Ireland on this subject. A decision will be come to by the Board as soon as the views of these authorities shall have been ascertained.

  MALICIOUS BURNING OF FURZE ON THE CLANRICARDE ESTATE.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, at the late quarter sessions held in Loughrea, two applications were made by Lord Clanri-carde for compensation for the malicious burning of furze and mountain heather, and that the county court judge dismissed the application, the only evidence being put forward in support of the claims was that given by a bailiff named Murphy; whether the police authorities have in their possession, since 5th May last, evidence to prove that Murphy was actually seen in the act of firing the mountain heather, and what steps the Government intend to take in this case.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): On the 24th June I informed the hon. Member that the question of prosecuting Murphy for alleged perjury was under consideration. Directions have since been given to pro-

  851
  ceed against him on that charge, and the case will probably be heard at the next petty sessions at Loughrea, on the 25th instant.

  TRIAL OF MR. P. F. WALSH, J.P.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can explain why he and the Solicitor General for Ireland were prevented from attending the Cork Assizes, and can he state what will be the total cost of sending Mr. Bushe, K.C., to prosecute for the Crown at those assizes, and out of what fund such cost will be defrayed.
  MR. ATKINSON: To the first question I cannot at present give a fuller reply than is contained in the answers already given by me to similar questions on the 12th and 16th instant, to which I would refer the hon. Member.† I have on several occasions stated that Mr. Bushe has not been sent to the assizes by the Crown, but that being on circuit the briefs which would have been held by Mr. Ronan under my directions have been transferred to him. Mr. Bushe's fees, which are those Mr. Ronan would have obtained had he been present, will be paid out of the Law Charges Vote. At present their amount cannot be ascertained.
  MR. O'SHEE: Ought not the brief to have been given to Sir Francis Brady?
  MR. ATKINSON: That has nothing to do with the question.
  MR. O'SHEE: But he is the chief Crown Prosecutor for Cork.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has answered the question.
  MR. O'SHEE: On a point of order—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not ask the same question over and over again:
  MR. O'SHEEremained standing.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member
  †See pages 260 and 597,
  852
  persists I shall have to name him to the House.
  MR. O'SHEE: But it is a point of order.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not a point of order to claim to renew the same question again and again.

  CORK AND FERMOY RAILWAY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in reference to the proposal to release the Great Southern and Western Railway Company from their promise to begin the construction of the Cork and Fermoy line on or before the 31st instant, whether the Treasury will ascertain the views of the traders and general public of the districts interested before consenting to release the railway company from their statutory obligation under the Act of 1899.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Treasury cannot release the company from any of its statutory obligations, and have never proposed to do so. This could only be done by Parliament itself, and such a proposal would have to be embodied in a Bill, upon which all the interests concerned would have an opportunity of having their case heard.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain the views of the public in the districts interested?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Treasury already have pretty full information on that subject. Perhaps it would be as well to defer any other question pending the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury presently.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland have expressed their intention of constructing a line of railway from any point on their system in the county Waterford to connect with their branch lineat Youghal in case Parliament releases them from their engagement to construct the direct line from Fermoy to Cork as already sanctioned; if not, can he state on what conditions would the Treasury, in case the Fermoy

  853
  to Cork direct line is abandoned, assent to the payment of the £93,000 granted in respect of the county Waterford railway to the company.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is in the negative. The answer to the second question must depend upon the decision of Parliament upon the proposals brought before them, if any such proposals are made.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Hybrid Committee of 1898 reported in favour of the scheme of the Fishguard Company; and, having regard to the effect of such a scheme on the industries in the South of Ireland, and to the fact that the local boards in West Cork and South Cork and the fishing and other industries in the west and south of Cork are in favour of the construction of the connecting line through Cork, which would develop their several industries, and as the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, under the Amalgamation Act, 1900, were bound, as part of their scheme, to make the connection referred to, whether he will take steps to oblige them to do so and to make the Cork and Fermoy Railway.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member in these questions, but the pledge of the company to make the connecting line through Cork with the railways of the west and south was dependent upon their being able to secure the co-operation of the local authorities of Cork in the scheme, and this, as I understand, they have been unable to obtain. I fully appreciate the importance of this connecting line over the Lee to the industries of the South and West of Ireland, and have had evidence of the interest of those districts in the scheme which would give them an alternative route to England and a continuous line to Dublin. But I have unfortunately no power whatever to compel the company to make the connection, and I understand that the suggestion of the company to
  854
  substitute an obligation to construct a bridge over the Lee for the existing obligation to construct the Fermoy line does not meet with the approval of the hon. Gentleman, or his colleagues in the representation of the county and city of Cork.
  MR. GILHOOLY: May I be allowed to say that the opinion in the county of Cork is in favour of the scheme.
  MR. O'SHEE: Will the Treasury insist on the immediate payment of the £93,000?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That has nothing to do with the question.
  MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the Amalgamation Act of 1900 or otherwise, there is any existing obligation on the Great Southern and Westerns Railway Company to construct a line between Cork and Fermoy or any connecting railway passing through Cork.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The agreement scheduled to the Act of 1898 recited that the Fishguard and Rosslare Company and the Great Southern and Western Company had undertaken "the construction, with the sanction of Parliament and the cooperation of the local authorities in Cork and the railway companies west of Cork, of a line to connect the systems of the companies west of Cork with the system of the Fishguard Company and the Great Southern and Western Company." I am informed that the company has been unable to obtain the co-operation of the local authorities.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the question of a through route between England and the South of Ireland occupied the attention of Hybrid Committees of this House in 1898 and 1899, and of a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons in 1900; and that the Committee of 1898 sanctioned the absorption by the Great Southern Railway Company of the Waterford and Lismore Company and the Lismore and Fermoy

  855
  Company, on an express pledge that the Great Southern Company would construct a line from Fermoy to Cork, and a further pledge to connect their system at Cork with the lines south of the river Lee; is he aware that the Committee, on 1st July, 1898, reported strongly in favour of the Bill, and, in addition to this report, took the further security of inserting in the Act temporary provisions for the construction of the Cork and Fermoy line, and placed on the company the statutory obligation of applying for powers to change the route in the next session; is he aware that the Act of 1899 expressly recited this statutory obligation and sanctioned the change of route without in any way relieving the company from its statutory obligation to connect at Cork with lines south of the River Lee; is he aware that in 1900 the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons sanctioned the absorption by the Great Southern Company of two other railway companies (the Waterford and Limerick Company and the Central Ireland Company) on the basis of its adherence to both the Parliamentary contracts of 1898 and 1899; is he aware that before this Amalgamation Bill passed this House the Secretary to the Treasury, on 26th July, 1900, stated he would require the immediate payment of the £93,000 payable to the Treasury in respect of one of the lines absorbed under the Rosslare Act, 1898, unless he received satisfactory assurances that the Cork and Fermoy Branch would be undertaken without further delay, and completed before August, 1904; is he aware that before the Third Reading of the Amalgamation Bill, on 1st August, 1900, the Secretary to the Treasury received assurances that the line would be commenced within twelve months, and therefore did not insist on the payment of the £93,000; is he aware that the Great Southern Company lately applied to the public bodies of Cork to excuse them from making the Cork and Fermoy line, but were refused; have the Treasury now sanctioned the attempt to escape from constructing this line; and will the Government, in view of the valuable concessions made by Parliament in three sessions to this company, and the non-enforcement of the payment of its debt
  856
  of £93,000, insist that its statutory obligations shall not be impaired.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that the Cork Chambers of Commerce and Shipping, the Cork Corporation, and the Cork Harbour Board have passed resolutions protesting against this attempt of the Great Southern and Western to evade their obligations?
  MR. GILHOOLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several resolutions in favour of the alternative scheme have been passed by local bodies in the south and south-west of Cork?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As regards the last question, I understand what the hon. Gentleman means by "alternative scheme" is a route which would cross the river Lee at Cork. I am not quite sure how far the phrase "alternative scheme" is right, but there is no doubt the south and south-west of Ireland are naturally and very properly desirous of seeing this scheme carried out. As to the question on the Paper, there is no doubt that this company are pledged to construct the line from Cork to Fermoy, and the Treasury neither have the power, nor would they exercise it if they did possess it, of sanctioning any escape from that parliamentary obligation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, I beg to give notice that when the Great Southern and Western Bill comes up on Monday for Third Reading, I shall move its rejection unless the House gets a distinct pledge from the promoters that they will at once proceed with this line.

  DERRY CENTRAL RAILWAY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state where the Treasury advertisements appeared asking for tenders for the purchase of the Derry Central Railway.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The advertisement appeared in fourteen papers—the Belfast Newsletter, Northern Whig, Evening Telegraph (Dublin), Irish Times, Daily Express, Independent, The Times (London), Manchester Guardian,

  857
  Liverpool Courier, Scotsman, Railway News, Berry Sentinel, Standard, and Journal.

  IRISH BOARD OF WORKS—DISCHARGES OF WORKMEN.
  ME. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a man named Moore, a smith employed by the Board of Works at Kingstown for the past twenty-seven years, has been discharged without any notice or pension; and seeing that another smith who has only a few years' service has been retained in the employ, whether he will see that Moore is reinstated, or that he is granted such compensation or pension as will be commensurate with his length of service.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Moore was employed from 1871 to January, 1899, when his services were discontinued. He was then re-employed in November, 1899, and, after repeated cautions for unsatisfactory conduct, he was finally dismissed on the 7th of May last. I can hold out no hope that he will be reinstated. He is not qualified for either a gratuity or a pension.

  LARAGH POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a notice has been affixed to the letter-box in Laragh village, Glendalough, stating that in future there will be no Sunday collection there, and seeing that Laragh village is the principal distributing and collecting centre for the whole of the sub-district of Glendalough, and that the mail car stops, both on its outward and homeward journey, at the spot where the letter receiver is erected, whether he can state why such instructions have been issued, on whose advice were they issued, and whether it is intended to discontinue the Sunday service to Glendalough.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It appears that on a manuscript notice temporarily affixed to the letter-box in Laragh village it was incorrectly stated that there was no Sunday collection.
  858
  The matter has since been set right, and the Sunday collection will be made as usual at 6.40 p.m.

  BALLYVAUGHAN POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the reason for the delay in establishing telegraphic communication between New Quay and Bally-vaughan, county Clare.
  MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A guarantee was given in May for a telegraph office at Burrin, the office to which it is understood the hon. Member refers. Delay has been caused by difficulties in regard to way leave, but it is hoped that the matter will shortly be settled, and the extension will then be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.

  NAVAN POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can now say if the inquiry on the question of improving the postal service to Navan has taken place: and, if so, will he state the result.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The inquiries which the Postmaster General has instituted on the question of improving the postal service to Navan are not yet completed. The result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when he proposes to ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Light Railways Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is one of the Bills of which I do not think long notice is necessary. I shall bring it on at the first convenient opportunity.

  POSTAL TELEGRAPHS VOTE.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether an opportunity will be given for a discussion of the Postal

  859
  Telegraphs Vote on one of the allotted days.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If possible, I will put down this Vote first on one day allotted to Supply. At any rate, I hope there will be an opportunity for its discussion.

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that the majority of the Scotch Votes have not yet been discussed in Committee of Supply, will he now state when an opportunity will be given for the discussion of the remaining Votes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I can make no statement.
  MR. WEIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that Scotland will receive more favourable treatment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Faint.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask as to the business for next week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to bring on the Education Bill next Monday. I cannot say how long that discussion will last, but the Second Reading of the Agricultural Rating Bill will be the second Order. I will make a fuller statement to-morrow or Monday.

NEW BILL.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)rose to move—
  MR. COGHILL: I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in introducing in one Bill a provision to continue two Acts which have on previous occasions been brought in separately. They are Bills of a very
  860
  contentious character, and one of them I wish to vote for, but to the other I am opposed.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not see any point of order. The right hon. Gentleman can bring in the Bill, and the hon. Member at the proper time can move to strike out a part of it.
  MR. COGHILL: I do not think you quite understand my point. I wish to know how it is possible for me or any other Member to vote on this Bill when we have these different opinions with regard to the two Acts.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter the hon. Member must decide for himself.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have to ask leave to introduce a Bill which has for its object the renewal of the two Acts to which my hon. friend has just referred—namely, the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and the Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Act, 1899—and also two Acts of Parliament which provide for the distribution of money in Scotland, and which are not similarly applicable in this country. It is not necessary for me to do more than refer in one or two words to the history of this rating question. The difficulty, which has been admitted by all, whatever may be the exact view that they take of it, has existed for a very long time, and it is a difficulty which applies to all classes of rateable property, and not alone to the two particular classes covered by the Acts. That view was taken by the Government in 1896 when they appointed a Royal Commission to inquirer into this question, and when they passed in that and the succeeding years the two measures which it is now proposed to renew by the Bill I am asking leave to introduce. The grievance in connection with rating is that the incidence of rating upon realty as compared with personalty presses with much greater weight—with, as we contend, unjust weight—upon the one class of property. The rating system as originally devised was undoubtedly intended to east the burden of payment for the objects secured by the rates upon all classes of property, whether real or personal, movable or immovable. That this was so is clearly proved by the

  861
  fact that personalty was liable up to 1840. But it was found difficult to define personalty in order to make it pay its contribution to the rates, and, therefore, in the year 1840 an Act of Parliament was passed which finally released personalty from its obligation to contribute to the rates. That Act subsequently found its way into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and has been annually renewed. I am bound to say that, when faced with that fact, I do not think that those who are mainly interested in the question of personalty ought to grumble at the partial relief given under these measures, remembering that personalty has escaped altogether the burdens of which it was originally intended it should bear its share.
  Many attempts have been made to deal with this question, and nobody has ever contended that those attempts have been more than very rough and ready efforts to solve partially a very difficult and complicated problem. Licence and other duties have been transferred, and the State has borne partially the burden that at one time was borne entirely locally. But the difficulty of dealing with the burden of the rates upon agricultural land and tithe rent-charge was not met by those allocations of Imperial revenue. It was still found that agricultural land and tithe rent-charge suffered under the same disabilities that affect ordinary realty as compared with personalty, and there was also the fact that the income value or ability is not so great in regard to agricultural land or tithe rent-charge as it is in the case of other classes of property. This aggravated the injustice of the burden, and led the Government in 1896 to deal with the matter by the two Acts to which I have referred, and which enact that agricultural land and tithe rent-charge not separated from the benefice should pay only half of the rates. It will be remembered that by these Acts a deficiency was created in respect of the money which had hitherto been contributed out of the rates, and which, if some special arrangement had not been made, would in fact have had to be borne by other ratepayers. In the case of the Agricultural Rates Act the Imperial
  862
  Revenue contributed a sum to make up the deficit created by the Act, and in the case of the Tithe Rent-charge Act the money is taken from the Local Taxation Account. In that way, in respect of all rates up to the passing of these two Acts, the deficit created is met by these contributions—except that in the Agricultural Rates Act there are some of the smaller rates, amounting altogether to, comparatively speaking, a small sum, which are not included in the contributions made out of Imperial funds. I think I need only give three ordinary examples to satisfy the House that the injustice to which I have referred really exists. First I take the rent of a house at £400. The rateable value, roughly speaking, for assessment purposes would be £360. Assuming the house to be in an urban district, with the rates at 6s. in the £, the amount paid in rates would be £108. The income of the occupier, taking his rent to be one-tenth part of his income, would be £4,000, so that the proportion of income paid in rates would be one thirty-seventh. But if, instead of being in the town, this property was in the country, the rates would have to be taken at 3s. in the £, and the proportion would, of course, be one-seventy-fourth of the income. Then take the case of the tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice. Assume the income of the incumbent derived from tithe rent-charge to be £400, and the estimated value of the parsonage for rating purposes, say £60. The amount paid in rates at 3s. in the £ would be about one-eighth of his income as compared with one-thirty-seventh in the first case to which I referred. If I go to the occupier of agricultural land the case is still harder. Take a farm the estimated rent of which is £400. The assessable value for rating would be £360. At 3s. in the £, the amount paid in rates would be £54. Taking the estimate made by the Board of Inland Revenue for the purposes of income tax, namely, that the income of an occupier of agricultural land would be about one-third of his rent, that gives you an income of £135, and the proportion paid in rates would be considerably more than one-third.
  I think those three cases illustrate the special hardship of the present rating system upon this class of property, and

  863
  I may say that the relief given by these Acts does not by any means dispose of the injustice. It lessens it, but, after you have enacted that agricultural land and tithe rent-charge should pay only half the rates, you still leave the owners of such property paying a great deal more to the rates in proportion to their income than do the occupiers or owners of any other class of property. I am happy to say that the Bill is a very short one. It only consists of two clauses, the first of which renews the Agricultural Rates Act and the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, and the second and other Acts to which I referred, the Congested Districts and Burgh Land Relief (Scotland) Act, and the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act (1898), both of which were passed for the corresponding relief to Scotland. The only change now made is that, whereas in the two original Acts the time was five years, we have had to consider in this case whether a limitation of a similar kind should be reimposed, or whether a measure should bere-enacted leaving the duration to be until Parliament should otherwise determine. Now, Sir, the position is not the same as in 1896. In 1896 we were dealing with an Interim Report, and the authority of our own examination of the question. Now you have had the Report of the Royal Commission. Nobody will contend that it was not a strong Commission and an efficient one. Out of fifteen members thirteen reported that the case of agricultural land and tithe rent-charge was a strong case, and that relief should be given; but they recommended that relief should be given in a different way. It is the hope and the desire of the Government to deal with the whole question. What is the advantage of fixing a limit of time? It will not force the Government ment's hand; it will only result in the Government insisting on further time being given to the discussion. What we want to do is to deal effectually with the whole rating question; but, meanwhile, we ask the House to give us leave to introduce the Bill, which I now ask leave to do.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to continue the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899, the Agricultural Rates, Congested
  864
  Districts, and Burgh Land Tax (Scotland) Act, 1896, and the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898."—(Mr. Walter Long.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have long ago ceased to be at all surprised at any use which the present Government make of the forms and procedure of this House. I venture to say that there has never been a case in which those forms and that procedure have been more, as I submit, obviously misused than on this occasion. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a point on which I shall have to appeal to you before I sit down, because you are invested with a certain authority and discretion in this matter, of a very difficult and peculiar kind. I will state plainly to the House the matter as it suggests itself to me. I will lay down two propositions. The first is that this rule under which we are now acting was intended to be applied to non-contentious measures. It is quite possible that of late years that practice has been largely extended to measures which can be quoted and referred to which ought not to be described as non-contentious, but that does not interfere with the fact that the original intention and purpose of the rule was that this mode of procedure should be confined to non-contentious measures. And what do I mean by non-contentious measures? I do not mean a Bill as to which there are no two opinions in any quarter of the House. One can hardly conceive a measure which in that sense would be non-contentious. But if you have a measure on which the whole force of the Opposition is on one side and the whole force of the Government is on the other, it is a farce to say that that measure can under any circumstances be a non-contentious measure. But my second proposition is this: Is this a non-contentious measure? Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has airily disposed of it by saying that it is a continuation Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I never said that it was non-contentious.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was

  865
  a fitting measure to be dealt with in this manner, because it was a continuation Bill; but what does it continue? Now we have to go back; now we are told that it is not a continuation Bill, but a Bill for making permanent these Acts which have been so strongly opposed. We all remember very well what happened on a previous occasion not so many years ago. We remember that there was a Commission sitting to inquire into the distress in agriculture. That Commission did not initiate a proposal of this kind. It was suggested to the Commission by two members of the Government who were members of the Commission, so that, although it acquired in the course of its life a sort of sanction at the hands of the Commission, it was originated and was as much a Government measure as if it had been brought in in the first place by a Minister on that side of the House.
  ME. CHAPLIN: What is the authority for that statement?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My authority is my own recollection of what happened, refreshed not very long ago—
  MR. CHAPLIN: Allow me to say that your recollection is entirely wrong.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to dispose of that theory of the origin of this Bill, but he cannot altogether succeed. At all events, it came before the House and it was treated in no sense as a non-contentious measure. I will refer to the first Bill. There are other Bills which followed in its train, but we need not speak of them now. The first Bill was strenuously and determinedly opposed in a way in which Bills are seldom opposed. It gave rise to two all-night sittings, so vigorous and determined was the opposition which we entertained then and which we entertain now. We took the strongest possible objection to that measure, and this on several grounds which I need not recapitulate in detail. It seemed then and it seems now to create a great injustice as between town and country. It creates great injustice between one kind of property and another
  866
  in the country. When it was put forward as a relief to agriculture, that excuse had to be dropped at an early stage. If it had been a relief given to agriculture, surely the greater part of the relief would have been given where it was most wanted, and some discrimination would have been made between those parts of the country where deep and dire distress prevailed and those parts which were very flourish and where rents were high and profits great. [Cries of "Where?"] This was in many parts of the country, and all parts in the neighbourhood of large towns, because this was pointed out to the Government in the course of the debate, and they had to abandon the theory and the plea altogether that it was a measure in relief of agriculture. ["No, no!" and cheers.] I do not say that the hon. Member who says "No" abandoned it, but I say the Government abandoned it. And we have the further objection that we urged that this relief which was alleged to be given—and possibly may have been intended by those who are blind to the inevitable consequences of such Acts to be given—to the bona fide occupiers and tenants must redound to the benefit of the landlords. I remember that this theory of it was explained by a distinguished member of the present Government in terms more clear than any of us adopt. He said that any proposal to relieve the rates of the occupying tenant would be merely robbing Peter to pay Paul, and to do so in the worst possible way, because Peter would be the landless millions of the country, and Paul would be the great landowners who were ready to shift the permanent burden on the heads of the less fortunate of their fellow-countrymen. That was the opinion of one of the most distinguished members of the Government. [AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?] The Colonial Secretary.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Who says that I ever said that? I would like to inquire whether I rightly understand what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said, as I understand him, that while I was a member of this Government—[Cries of "No, no!"]
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh! I understood that the right hon. Gentleman said that I used the words as a member of the Government when the Act was passed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No. What the right hon. Gentleman said—[Cries of "When?"] In 1883. [Ministerial cries of "Oh," and laughter.] What the right hon. Gentleman said was—
  "Lord Salisbury coolly proposes to hand it (the produce of certain new duties he advocated) over indirectly, if not directly, to the landlords of the country."
  What does it matter from what source?
  "In the shape of a contribution in aid of local taxes. I must say I never recollect any public man propose in a franker, I might even say in a more audacious, manner to rob Peter to pay Paul. And what makes it worse is that in this case Peter is represented by the landless millions who have no other wealth than their labour and their toil, while Paul is the great landlord with 20,000 acres who is seeking to relieve himself of his share of taxation by shifting it on to the shoulder of his less fortunate countrymen."
  About two years later I find that the right hon. Gentleman said again of this same proposal to give something in relief of rates on agricultural property—
  "It may enable the landlord to extract a higher rent. There is only one thing that can benefit the farmer, and that is a fair rent fixed by an impartial tribunal."
  These were the old doctrines, the sound doctrines, of the right hon. Gentleman before he got into his present company. The answer that was made to us when we used this argument against the Bill was that, as a matter of political economy, this result would not take place, because the Bill was a temporary measure, and it would not reach that position of affairs in which the benefit would pass to the landlord. As far as I know, the sole argument against the theory or principle that relief given in this way to the tenant passes to the landlord, and benefits the landlord, now disappears, so that if this was a contentious matter five years ago it is infinitely more contentious now, because it is more serious. I therefore
  submit to you, Sir, that this by no means exhausts the objections we have to the Bill; but I, at least, have said enough to show what the character of the discussion of the Bill must necessarily be, and with the greatest deference, as you have power to adopt either of two courses—either without further debate to put the Question on the motion for the introduction of the Bill, or the Question that the debate be now adjourned—I venture to hope that you will take the view that, in consideration of an opposition to the measure, which does not exist in my frantic imagination, but which is supported by the practical experience of five years ago, the latter course will be taken. [Cries of "Move!"] There is no such motion can be made as that the debate be adjourned, but Mr. Speaker has the power to adjourn it now if he thinks fit.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid I must decline to follow the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I have on previous occasions expressed my view of the action of the Chair on this rule. The option is given to me to put the Question that leave be given to introduce the Bill, or the Question that the debate be now adjourned. The only effect, in my experience, of the latter course is that I should be supposed—although the rule does not say it—to be in effect expressing an opinion on the motion, and immediately afterwards I should have to invite the majority to override my opinion. That is a course which I think is derogatory to the authority and dignity of the Chair, and which I do not propose to follow. I have declined to take that course on other occasions, and I decline to take it now. It must be understood, however, that in doing so I am not expressing an opinion whether the Bill has been properly introduced under Standing Order No. 16 or not.
  Mr. SPEAKER put the Question in pursuance of Standing Order No. 16, that leave be given to bring in the Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 176. (Division List No. 340.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'nds

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Balfour, Rt, Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh-

  Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Mitchell, William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Hain, Edward

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Bigwood, James

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Bill, Charles

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld G. (Midd'x

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brassey, Albert

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Myers, William Henry

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Helder, Augustus

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby shire

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hoult, Joseph

  Penn, John

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Percy, Earl

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Perks, Robert William

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Purvis, Robert

  Colston, Chas. Ewd. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Randles, John S.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kemp, George

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimber, Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Renwick, George

  Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

  Knowles, Lees

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lambert, George

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Robinson, Brooke

  Doughty, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Russell, T. W.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rutherford, John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Finch, George H.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynesd.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Spear, John Ward

  Flower, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Foster, Phillips S. (Warwick, S W

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G Ellison

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stroyan, John

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlets

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  870

  871

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Tollemache, Henry James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell (Birm.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Younger, William

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

  Webb, Col. William George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Weir, James Galloway

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

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

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Asher, Alexander

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelley, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Bell, Richard

  Harwood, George

  O'Malley, William

  Blake, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Boland, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Palmer Sir Chas. M. (Durham

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Holland, William Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Burt, Thomas

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Priestley, Arthur

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swan sea

  Rea, Russell

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kinloch Sir John George Smyth

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rigg, Richard

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Langley, Batty

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barrett, Francis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Crombie, John William

  Levy, Maurice

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomaa

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Cann, James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Dermot, Patrick

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants)

  Dillon, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Tennant, Harold John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Mather, William

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duncan, J. Hastings.

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, Gower

  Elibank, Master of

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n, N

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tully, Jasper

  Fenwick, Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wallace, Robert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon, Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  872

  873

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Young, Samuel

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long, Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Grant Lawson.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
  "To continue the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899, the Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896, and the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, ETC.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, that they have power to consolidate the Factory and Workshop Acts Amendment Bill and the Factory and Workshop Acts Consolidation Bill into one Bill."—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
  MR. TULLYasked whether the adoption of this Instruction would do away with the right to raise discussion on the Report stage.
  MR. RITCHIE: No.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
  MR. CLANCY: In rising, Sir, to move the resolution which stands in my name, I am happy to think that it will not be necessary for me to occupy the time of the House for any lengthened period. I merely intend to present to the House in broad outline the grievance under which the Irish representatives of all parties, with about half a dozen exceptions, and ninety-nine hundredths of the Irish people believe their country labours and has laboured for many a
  874
  year. At the same time, the subject is too important and complicated to be very briefly or lightly dealt with, and, as this is a new House of Commons, I presume that it will be only proper that, in telling our story to it for the first time, I should endeavour to make it comprehensive, if not complete. I may, perhaps, be permitted to hope that the result of this discussion may be somewhat less unsatisfactory than that of similar discussions on this subject in the past. I think we have gained something which we would not have gained without those debates and the agitation in Ireland, of which they were the outcome; but, on the whole, our grievance has hitherto been denied and redress has been directly refused. Our experience, therefore, has not been encouraging, and in connection with it I cannot help thinking how applicable to our position is Sydney Smith's parody of a popular quotation—
  "Thrice is he armed who hath his quarrel just, and ten times may he be over-taxed."
  I repeat that I hope that this House of Commons will show itself, at least on this subject, more disposed than the last to view things from an impartial standpoint and to act and to compel Ministers to act accordingly. Now, on this question, we Irish Members take our stand on certain provisions in the Act of Union, and here, perhaps, I may anticipate one criticism which this fact evoked last session, at my own expense, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which may possibly be forthcoming again this evening. When I stated that I stood upon the Act of Union, the right hon. Gentleman sarcastically welcomed me in the novel character of a recruit to the cause of the Union. I thought at the time and I think now that for a man of his serious temper and demeanour mere joking of this sort was somewhat out of place on such an occasion. As for the inconsistency which he implied, I cannot see it. I am opposed to the Union root and branch. I consider it a usurpation which no man in Ireland is morally bound to obey. But,

  875
  while it is maintained, against my will, am I forbidden by the fact that I would get rid of it if I could from taking advantage of any of its provisions which may work out good for Ireland? Of course, I am not, and if I considered myself so forbidden I would be justly laughed at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for my simplicity. Therefore, though I abate not a jot of my hostility to the Union, I have no hesitation whatever in availing myself of the provisions of its Seventh Article. But, before I enter on the special grounds, on the basis of which we assert the existence of this Irish grievance, I wish to direct attention to the actual consequences of the system of taxing indiscriminately two countries so dissimilar in their circumstances as Great Britain and Ireland. The figures, to put it mildly, are striking. In 1893–4—the last financial year of which the Royal Commission to which I shall presently refer took note—our population was 4,600,599, and the total of our Imperial taxation was £7,568,649. Since then our population has been steadily declining, and our taxation has been steadily mounting up, till at the close of the last financial year the figures stood thus: Population, 4,456,5460; taxation, £9,505,000. If the current year be taken into account, our population will have in all probability still further declined at the close of the next financial year and our taxation will certainly have amounted to over £10,000,000. In other words, our taxation on the 31st March next year will be larger than it was in 1893 by almost as much as the Commission then declared us to be over-taxed in comparison with Great Britain. To Irishmen, Sir, all this is simply appalling. It means a double drain—a drain of wealth and a drain of the greatest of all the sources of wealth—which to an admittedly poor country involves in the long run such an abstraction of capital as must fatally cripple all its efforts after industrial development.
  Why is this the case? The necessities of Ireland alone do not supply the answer. The answer and the explanation are to be found in the fact that a poor country is linked financially with a rich one, and that the rich country chooses to embark in costly Imperial enterprises and drags
  876
  the poor one after her. The rich country may be able, and no doubt is able, to bear the resulting pecuniary strain; but who will pretend that the poor one will be, if the process I have described of increasing the taxation of Ireland while the resources of Ireland are decreasing, is much further continued? Suppose that the ten millions and over which we Irish shall pay this year to the Imperial tax-gatherer be raised to twelve millions next year and fourteen millions the year after—what then? Would anyone in that event pretend that we were treated with consideration or justice, and that the final result to our people could be other than destructive? I may be told that Ireland suffers because she is poor, and that there are poor localities in Great Britain which suffer also. I do not know that the poor localities in Great Britain suffer so much, for in normal times at least far the greater part of the whole revenue of the United Kingdom is spent amongst the rich and poor of England. But let me grant for the sake of argument that this indiscriminate system of taxation hits severely some localities in Great Britain, is that any reason why Ireland should continue to be hit? Do two wrongs make one right? I say therefore in the first place that, apart from the Union altogether, and independently of any rights which we possess under it, it is perfectly plain that the present system of indiscriminate taxation is a grievance of the first magnitude as far as Ireland is concerned, and must necessarily be so as long as the circumstances of the two countries remain dissimilar, and as long as a yearly increasing expenditure remains a necessity for the richer of the two. We simply cannot follow you British in your extravagance, and if you persist in your present course we must necessarily fall by the way. This consideration ought to be enough, even if there were nothing else to induce this House to devise some other system of taxation; but we also appeal to the letter of the law, and say that this House is bound to take that course at the risk, if it refuses to do so, of being guilty of breaking another treaty with Ireland.
  The Act of Union, which England has always insisted on regarding as a treaty made between two nations, and which, therefore, according to the English view

  877
  itself, is more solemn and binding than any ordinary Act of Parliament—which, indeed, cannot according to that view be abrogated except with the consent of both the parties by whom it has been made—that Act or Treaty, if faithfully observed, would have saved us from some at least of the injustice of which we complain. What does the Act of Union provide? The Seventh Article is a very elaborate but a very plain series of provisions. It contemplates two distinct possibilities. It contemplates in the first place separate financial treatment for Ireland after the Union. The policy of separate treatment may be spelled out of almost every line of it. Separate treatment was a necessity—at least for the moment, because of the disproportion between the Irish and British debts and the difference in the circumstances of the two countries. The framers of the Union were daring and unscrupulous enough, but with all their daring and unscrupulousness they would hardly have carried the Union if they had not solemnly promised Ireland that as long as that disproportion and that difference existed the two countries would never be taxed the same. Lord Castle-reagh, notwithstanding that he had spent millions on the corruption of the Irish Legislature, still thought it necessary to give that body the most solemn assurances to that effect. "As to the future" he said "it is expected that the two countries shall move forward and unite with regard to their expenses in the measure of their relative abilities." "Ireland" he said again, explaining the Financial Article of the Act of Union, "has the utmost possible security that she cannot be taxed beyond the measure of her comparative ability, and the rates of her contribution must ever correspond with her relative wealth and prosperity." I pause here for a moment to notice a surprising statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last debate on this subject in connection with this particular point. Because the Seventh Article of the Act of Union contemplates another possibility—namely, indiscriminate taxation—he professed with this declaration of Lord Castlereagh and many others like it before him to think that separate treatment in fiscal matters was not the main note of the financial arrangements
  878
  made by the Act of Union. With what, for want of a severer term which would be at the same time Parliamentary, I may be allowed to call a perverse and incurable blindness to certain realities, he fails to see in the Union arrangements what is writ large—what is as big as a mountain, open, palpable—but has the keenest eye and the clearest vision for the things that are writ small and that are, by comparison, entirely insignificant. The dominant idea, I repeat, was separate treatment; common treatment was regarded merely as a remote possibility; and, accordingly, it was provided that until the debts of Ireland and Great Britain came to bear to each other a certain ratio, and until the circumstances of the two countries became similar, the Exchequers of the two countries were to be kept separate, Ireland was to pay two parts to every fifteen parts paid by Great Britain to the common expenditure of the Empire; the taxation in Ireland was to be regugulated accordingly, and this arrangement was not to be altered or revised except at the end of every twenty years. As to whether the contribution of Ireland was fixed at too high a figure, I will discuss in a moment. But, if it were fair, the arrangement would have saved us from being taxed during the last century beyond our relative ability to bear taxation. It would not have been possible to say with the economist Nassau Senior, quoted with approval by Sir Stafford Northcote in the Report which he drew up in 1864 for General Dunne's Committee, that England was the most lightly taxed and Ireland the most heavily taxed country in Europe, though both were nominally liable to equal taxation. It would have saved us from being plundered of some hundreds of millions in the shape of excessive taxation from 1800 to the present year. But the contribution which Ireland was called upon to pay was not fair. All the opponents of the Union, including the whole body of the Irish House of Lords, protested against its unfairness, and it is now universally admitted to have been excessive, and the result was what might have been expected, and what I, for my part, believe was expected by the authors of the Union. Ireland could

  879
  not pay the whole of it any single year, and the deficiency had, of course, to be made up by borrowing. The result was that about £90,000,000 were added to the debt of Ireland in sixteen years after the Union. Then came the opportunity of the simple-minded, honest gentlemen who devised or supported the Union arrangement. I have referred to the alternative financial plan which alone the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see in the Seventh Article of the Act of Union. That plan was that, as soon as the two debts came to bear to each other a certain proportion, and as soon as the two countries became similar in circumstances, the two Exchequers should be amalgamated and the two countries might be taxed alike. This plan was put into operation in 1816–17.
  The Act of 1816 was a flagrant violation of the Union. The alternative plan of indiscriminate taxation was only to be adopted on the occurrence of two contingencies. Neither of those contingencies had occurred then or has occurred since. First, the contribution of Ireland was deliberately fixed too high; secondly, the consequent borrowing which, by the Act of Union, ought to have been made on the joint account of the two countries, was made on the account of Ireland alone. In other words, the Irish debt was fraudulently inflated. The debts, indeed, had reached the prescribed ratio to one another; but how did this particular contingency happen? The transaction was as infamous to my mind as was the addition of ten millions to the Irish debt for the crushing of the insurrection of 1798, which the English Ministers in Ireland had deliberately provoked for ulterior purposes. It was far worse, in its consequences at least, than the earlier addition to the Irish debt of the cost of the English pensions, of which John Philpott Curran spoke when he said that the Irish pension list made in England—
  'comprised every description of man, woman, and child, from the exalted excellence of a Hawke or a Rodney to the debased situation of the lady who humbled herself that she might be exalted."
  So far for the first of the two conditions which should be fulfilled before the Union arrangement for separate financial
  880
  treatment could be set aside. As for the second, it is a very curious thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division, and almost every opponent of the Irish case in this matter who has spoken in this House House have always most carefully ignored. Not one of them can be got to look at it. No wonder, for no one can for one moment pretend that it has ever been fulfilled from 1800 to this hour. Will any man in this House deny that, instead of the circumstances of the two countries having become similar, they have become more and more dissimilar, year by year, for the last hundred years? The second condition, therefore, was no more fulfilled than the first, and the Act of 1816, with its consequent system of indiscriminate taxation, was, for that reason, a fraudulent violation of the Union, and, consequently, every penny taken from us since 1817, in excess of what would have been our proportionate contribution to Imperial expenditure, has been taken, and is now being taken, fraudulently. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, of course, his answer. He says that the Irish representatives of 1816 assented. What a paltry piece of special pleading! How valid the assent can be regarded of a body of Irish Members elected fifteen or twenty years before Catholic emancipation! The corrupt majority of them would have assented to anything proposed by an English Minister. Another answer generally given is that, despite all that I have said, the transaction of 1816 was really an act of benevolence on the part of England to Ireland. Ireland, it is said, could not pay its debt, and Great Britain took it on its own shoulders, asking only in return that henceforward it might be at liberty at any time to make indiscriminate taxation the rule. A pretty sort of benevolence. It was well illustrated by the late Mr. O'Neill Daunt, who had thoroughly mastered this subject long before the Childers Commission was appointed. "Suppose," he said, "a money transaction between two merchants, A and B. On making up their accounts B discovers that A has overcharged him £1,000. A admits the error, and transfers the £1,000 to his own debit. But he then says to B, 'Well, my dear fellow, as I have gener-

  881
  ously taken the onus of that £1,000 on myself, you must really allow me to fleece you some other way.'" One would imagine that if mere justice, not to talk of benevolence, had been the guiding motive of English policy in the matter, English statesmen, instead of acting as they did, would have reduced Ireland's contribution to the Empire, which was found, and is now universally admitted to have been, excessive, and would have relieved her of at least a portion of the addition to her debt caused by an admitted over-estimate of her relative taxable capacity. But that was not done, and something very different had always been contemplated.
  I have read and heard it said that the contribution fixed by the Act was not paid, and therefore it did not matter whether it was fair or unfair. But the English politicians with whom I am dealing never expected that it would be paid. That it would be paid was what they neither expected nor hoped. What they both hoped and expected was that it would not be paid, with the view that some time or another the bankruptcy of Ireland might bring about the system of common taxation under which Ireland could be fleeced at will, and without any regard to the protective stipulations of the Act of Union. I solemnly declare that in my opinion history does not disclose a more dishonourable series of transactions, and certainly none have been attended by more disastrous results to the victims. What have been the consequences to Ireland? When we complain of these financial grievances we are usually met with the answer that there cannot be any grievance, because every individual in the three kingdoms is treated alike. But everybody sees the Irishman's rejoinder, that to be taxed alike is our grievance, because we were guaranteed lighter taxation by the Act of Union on account of our lighter indebtedness and our smaller ability to pay. Again, it is said that it is not England, Ireland, or Scotland that is taxed, but the individuals who live in those countries respectively; and again the rejoinder is that the particular individuals who happened to live in Ireland at the time of the Union were granted rights which were not granted to individuals living in the other parts of the
  882
  Kingdom. Again, it is said there are poor classes in England, and if Ireland deserves special treatment England deserves the same thing; but to that we reply that no treaty was made in 1800 between the slums of London and the rest of the country, or between Dorset-shire or Wiltshire and the other parts of the United Kingdom. The financial provisions of the Act of Union were the price which England agreed to pay for Union, and the price ought to be paid if England is to retain a shred—and there is little more than a shred left—of her reputation for honesty. How have we been treated since 1817. I admit that from 1817 to 1853 some effect was given to the provision in the Act of 1817 for separate treatment. During that period differential treatment, now supposed to be impracticable and impossible, was the rule; but I cannot admit that that differential treatment was another illustration of British generosity. The plain truth is that you could not get any more out of Ireland. British policy had so impoverished Ireland that the squeezability of Ireland had during that time been exhausted. I am reminded of a story of a well-known member of the Munster Circuit who had defended a prisoner at the Cork Assizes, and who had taken for his fee £1 instead of £1 1s. He was arraigned before the circuit bar for having accepted an unprofessional fee, but his answer was conclusive: "My God, I have taken all he had." But a time came when the screw could be put on afresh with some profit, and accordingly Mr. Gladstone began the process in 1853, and he was faithfully imitated by Mr. Disraeli in succeeding years. I wish to guard myself at once against making any attack upon one side or the other. Both have acted the part of plunderers of Ireland, and the question of who began it and who continued it is to me a matter of indifference—they are both equally bad. Between 1853 and 1864, while the taxation of England was increased by only 17 per cent., that of Ireland was actually increased by 52 per cent.; though at the same time, while England's population was going up by leaps and bounds, Ireland's was steadily decreasing. Moreover, at what time did this increase of taxation begin? Ireland

  883
  was still reeling, as it were, from the effects of the famine, was just recovering, just showing a little symptom of life. One would have thought that such a time would have been selected for fostering her industry, instead of crushing it by increased taxation. A ruthless and a cruel blow, in fact, was levelled at the prosperity of Ireland between 1853 and 1864, and the process of taxing indiscriminately Ireland and Great Britain, which was then commenced, has since continued, with the result that in 1894, according to the report of the Royal Commission of that year, Ireland was every year taxed to the extent of nearly three millions beyond what her relative taxable capacity justified.
  I now have to say a few words in reference to the Childers Commission. It was a body of the highest possible authority; it contained representatives of Great Britain and Ireland, those of Great Britain, of course, largely preponderating in number; all political parties in both Great Britain and Ireland were represented upon it; it had amongst its members such financial experts as Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, the late Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir David Barbour, and Mr. Bertram Currie. No commission could possess greater weight in respect of the subject which it was required to investigate, and it was practically unanimous in its findings, for, though two members dissented, one of them admitted most of the main facts in his special report, and the other in his special report did not deny them. What did the Commission find? I need only quote three of the conclusions: (1) That, as I have striven to show, the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear; (2) that the increase of taxation laid upon Ireland between 1853 and 1860 was not justified by the then existing circumstances; and (3) that whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland was about one-eleventh that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland was very much smaller, and was not estimated by any of the Commissioners as exceeding one-twentieth. Now if the positions of the two countries were changed—if it were Great Britain which was seeking relief, and not Ireland, and if such a report were made in favour of the claim of Great Britain—I ask any candid
  884
  Englishman who listens to me, would he not consider it absolutely conclusive? Why, then, is it not regarded as conclusive when its verdict is in favour of Ireland and Ireland is the claimant? The only answer to this question I have ever seen given is that, forsooth, the Commission considered the question of the alleged over-taxation of Ireland in connection with the question of Home Rule. I may be very stupid, but I have never been able to see in that contention any relevancy whatever, or anything else but sheer absurdity. What does it matter whether the Commission looked at the question submitted to them in connection with the question of Home Rule or not? Is not the real point whether or not its findings are true? Are its findings any the less true because they followed the example of Mr. Goschen in considering Great Britain and Ireland for the purpose of the inquiry as separate financial entities? [The fact of the matter is that those who seek to discredit the findings of the Commission, because it took the course it did, virtually give up their case, and admit that of Ireland, for they show that they cannot deny the really essential facts as to the relative taxable capacity and the actual taxation of Ireland. For myself, the one point on which I think the findings of the Commission have been unjust to Ireland is that of taxable capacity. It is manifest that most of the Commissioners set it down in their own minds at far less than one-twentieth. Sir Robert Giffen placed it long ago as low as one fifty-third, and his authority on such a subject is of the highest. But, when I think of the vast industries of England, of her enormous foreign and colonial trade, of the millions upon millions of money which she is able to lend to or invest in every country under the sun, and when I then turn to the wretched remnant of Irish trade and commerce which is now left, when I see the roofless warehouses in our towns and the idle mills on the banks of our streams—there are twenty of them in my own constituency—I begin to suspect that even the most apparently reliable statistics are illusory, and that even Sir Robert Giffen's estimate is too high.
  But, adopting the highest estimate, we were, according to the Commission in

  885
  1894, taxed to the extent of two and three-quarter millions beyond what was just. How does it stand now? Our contribution to the Imperial Revenue last year, according to the Paper issued yesterday, was nine millions and a half, or all but 7 per cent. of the whole—in other words, though our relative capacity, was at the highest, one-twentieth—and very probably one-fiftieth—we paid about one-fourteenth of the taxes raised. It is said that this contribution, though larger by nearly two millions than in 1893–4, is relatively less than it was in that year. That is so; it cannot be denied; but what is the inference? What but that Ireland has been exhausted? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking all we have, and he does not take more simply because he cannot get more.
  Now, what answer is given to this case? I know of only one which has in it any substance whatever. It is the argument of the set-off. It is said that the greater part of the revenue raised in Ireland is returned to Ireland in the shape of Imperial expenditure, and that a greater proportion is so returned than in England or Scotland. I myself have so often dealt with this particular point that I shall not repeat in detail what I have said in previous sessions. I shall make only one or two remarks upon it. First, I say that the net contribution of each of the three countries, as stated in the Return, is arrived at in a system of book-keeping which would do credit to the firm of Pattisons, Limited. Two different principles are adopted almost throughout. Certain expenditure, which is really English, is set down as Imperial, and, on the other hand, a host of items, which are really Imperial, are put down to the debit of Ireland. I impeach the accuracy of this Return. I say that it is not worth the paper upon which it is printed, so far as that particular item is concerned. Secondly, by the Act of 1816, you have no right to make what is called local expenditure anywhere a set-off. All expenditure out of the Imperial Exchequer was to be spent in any part of the country where it was needed, and was not to be counted as local expenditure at all. Thirdly, I say that if expenditure is to be regarded as a set-off to over-taxation, there cannot be over-taxation
  886
  anywhere. Italy is supposed to be overtaxed, but it cannot be on the set-off theory, because all that is raised by taxation in Italy is spent in Italy. Turkey is supposed to be over-taxed; but it cannot be if the theory of the set-off is to be accepted, because all that is raised in Turkey is spent in Turkey. The truth, of course, is that you are holding Ireland by force and by corruption. Every man in Ireland, outside of a few fanatics in the North of Ireland who are sincere, is paid for his loyalty. I mean that every man who professes loyalty is either paid for his loyalty or overpaid for it; he is either paid in actual cash, or has very good expectations of payment. You, therefore, naturally find it more costly in proportion than the government of England or of Scotland, which are governed by consent. But that is no reason why you should seek to burden Ireland beyond the limits of what you call a solemn contract, and then pretend that you are giving back something for Ireland's benefit when, as a matter of fact, you are spending it for your own Imperial purposes. How much comfort does the peasant in Connemara, or Kerry, or West Cork, or on the hills of Donegal, feel when he hears that £1,400,000 is spent on military police, or a million on the administration of the law? The set-off idea is absurd, and I will not labour it further. Now I shall be asked what remedy do I propose. I answer that I propose none. I have not the power, and, therefore, I have not the responsibility of devising a remedy. It is for the majority of this House, who have both the power and the responsibility, to find a remedy. All that we Irish representatives are called upon to do is to demonstrate the existence of the grievance of which we complain, and to ask you, if we do demonstrate it, to remove it. We have demonstrated it, and we now appeal to the representatives of Great Britain to say whether the time has not come to acknowledge our claim, the redress of which, though it would benefit us much indeed, would involve no more than a feather's weight of additional charge for this rich and powerful country. Sir, I beg to move the resolution which stands in my name.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: My hon. friend has treated this subject with his usual ability, and in saying that I must express my regret on my own behalf that he has left me very little to say. This question being largely, though not entirely, a historical question, it is necessary that we should go into what is to some Members a chapter of ancient history. I am reminded that this is a new Parliament, and that, although to a considerable number of Members the statement of the Irish financial grievance is not a new one, there are a number who have not heard it before, and that must be our reason for, perhaps, making it at somewhat greater length than we otherwise should do. The Irish financial grievance has now been discussed for a considerable number of years. Previous discussions have produced no effect so far as the provision of a remedy is concerned, and probably our debate to-night will not be any more successful; but, at all events, we must do our best to state our case, and then upon the English Members who compose the majority of this House will lay the responsibility.
  The Act of Union is regarded by a great many people in the country as having been a great benefit to Ireland. It is supposed that Mr. Pitt, Lord Castle-reagh, and the other gentlemen who proposed and carried the Act of Union, were actuated by an earnest desire to promote the prosperity of Ireland. It may surprise hon. Members to know that when Ireland had a Parliament of her own, that Parliament, when left alone, managed to conduct its affairs fairly well and to the satisfaction of the people in those days. It was not thoroughly representative, but, as Parliaments went, it conducted its affairs very satisfactorily. It managed the financial business of Ireland with a considerable amount of success. Taxation in those days was extremely low, and we have it on the authority of the Speaker of the Irish Parliament that the Irish people were more lightly taxed than any other people in Europe. The first thing the Act of Union succeeded in doing was to pile up to an enormous extent the Irish National Debt. When Ireland had a Parliament of her own
  888
  she had a small debt, the amount at the time of the proposal of the Union being some £6,000,000. The Act of Union, however, amongst other things, added £21,000,000 to the Irish National Debt. Bribing the Irish Parliament cost £1,500,000; compensation to loyalists amounted to another £1,500,000; and compensation to officials took £500,000. Then there was a secret service fund, State trials, and things of that sort, which cost an enormous amount of money, and all of it was added to the National Debt of Ireland. The Union was in reality conceived for the benefit of England, and in its working has conduced materially to the financial advantage of England.
  The Act of Union was introduced with numberless promises, and it might not be amiss to remind the hon. Members of the definite pledges which were given, on the strength of which England is supposed to govern Ireland. The first pledge in Article 7 was that the pre-Union debts of Ireland and England should remain distinct. Then that the revenue of each country should be applied in the first instance to the payment of the annual charge of its separate debt. As soon, however, as the Act of Union was passed, Ireland was charged more than a million a year for the service of the debt of England. The next promise was that the joint expenditure of the Empire should be divided into seventeen parts, of which fifteen should be charged to England and two to Ireland. That undertaking has never been fulfilled, and Ireland has had to pay very much more than the proportion there laid down. The fourth promise is very important—namely, that if either country had a surplus that surplus should be applied to the exclusive use of that country. That is an extremely valuable provision, and is quite sufficient in itself to dispose of the argument of the "set off" to the Irish contribution to the Imperial exchequer. The next pledge was that all moneys to be raised after the Union by loan should be a joint debt, and the charge thereof borne by the two countries according to the proportions I have just mentioned—namely, fifteen-seventeenths by England and two seventeenths by Ireland. That is a provision which

  889
  would have assisted Ireland to a very large extent, but, like all other provisions in the Act of Union, it was not observed. It would be especially usefully now that the National Debt of this country has increased to such an enormous extent. The sixth provision was that England's proportion of contribution to the joint expenses should be periodically revised—at the latest in 1820—and her taxation adjusted according to her ability. This provision, of course, was not carried out any more than the rest. The seventh provision was that indiscriminate taxation should be allowed only when by remission of taxes, or by reudction of debt, British taxation and British indebtedness had been reduced to the proportion of fifteen British to two Irish, but that provision has been deliberately violated.
  The next pledge was that under no circumstances whatsoever should Ireland be made liable at any time for British pre-Union indebtedness. Those were the pledges of the Act of Union, and I apologise to the House for reminding it of the principles on which it is bound by law to regulate its fiscal dealings with Ireland. My hon. friend the Member for North Dublin has quoted the various promises made by Castlereagh, and I do not think I need detain the House by quoting any more of his pledges. The Act of Union is as the ark of the covenant with the present Government. Neither they nor any of their predecessors have ever paid the least regard to its provisions. Perhaps I may be allowed to give a short summary of how the Union pledges were kept. From 1807 to 1817 Ireland under English administration paid £68,000,000 for her own charges, an average of £4,000,000 per annum; while under the Irish Parliament the cost was invariably under £2,000,000 a year. In addition to paying this £68,000,000 under English management, Ireland during the same period contributed for British purposes £91,165,654 out of revenue. At the end of that period, from 1801 to 1817, Ireland was in addition saddled with a debt of £112,684,773 for England's benefit solely. How the Union promises to Ireland in financial matters were carried out I will deal with briefly as I go on. I may, however, summarise England's observance of her promises
  890
  in the following extract from Returns in the library of this House—

  Irish Debt.

  Irish Taxation.

  Irish Expenditure.

  £

  £

  £

  1797

  …

  5,800,000

  …

  1,988,818

  …

  3,311,702

  1800

  …

  28,541,157

  …

  3,445,718

  …

  7,201,231

  1815

  …

  108,871,184

  …

  6,937,558

  …

  13,326,433

  1817

  …

  112,684,773

  …

  7,090,453

  …

  14,714,034

  My hon. friend the Member for North Dublin has explained how this great increase was made in Irish taxation, and how this large amount was added to the National Debt by reason of this unfair proportion, and therefore I need not go into that matter. This is how the thing was done. The Union proportion of two-seventeenths of joint liability was too high. The promises given at the time of union were violated, and Ireland was taxed for England's pre-Union debt. Various other charges due by England alone were placed on Ireland's back, and the accounts were manipulated. England borrowed for her wars and charged Ireland with the repayment of the money, borrowed without Parliamentary authority. Money borrowed for Irish purposes was spent by England and charged to Ireland, and money paid by Ireland into joint account was not credited to her. Irish moneys in the British Treasury were disappearing constantly, and no account was given of them.
  Then came in 1817 the amalgamation of the two Exchequers. The amalgamation of Exchequers has been described as an act of English generosity to Ireland. It is curious that though Ireland is said not to have kept her Union obligations—unjust though they were—she actually did pay up to 1817 £13,057,719 more than she was bound to pay by the Act of Union—even in these times of unparalleled extravagance. The amalgamation of Exchequers was a violation of the Union pledge that indiscriminate taxation should be allowed only when by remission of taxes or by reduction of debt British taxation and British indebtedness had been reduced to the proportion of fifteen British to two Irish, meaning Irish debt and Irish taxation raised for Irish purposes. Precisely the opposite of what was pretended by the Act of Union had taken place. The taxation and indebtedness of Ireland under English management had increased to

  891
  such an inconceivable degree that they bore the proportion of two to fifteen to the taxation and indebtedness of England. Though the situation was exactly opposite, the result was exactly the same. Ireland was promised exceptional treatment at the time of the amalgamation of the Exchequers, and it is quite true that she got it. Before amalgamation England had been increasing Irish taxation. After amalgamation she began decreasing her own. In 1818 £17,000,000 of English taxation was taken off, but none was taken off Ireland. From 1817 to 1843 the taxation taken off England amounted to £45,549,683, while the amount taken off Ireland was only £2,416,000. Let me point out very briefly what has been described as the advantage of the amalgamation of these two Exchequers, which is said to have been such a great boon to Ireland. During five years before 1817, Ireland paid one-thirteenth of the total taxation; but for five years after Ireland paid one-twelfth. From the year 1817 to 1843 Ireland paid one-sixth of the whole taxation of both countries. Therefore the amalgamation of the Exchequers made the Irish nation pay one-sixth of the whole taxation of the two countries instead of one-thirteenth.
  Now we come to the third period, from 1853 to the Commission. In that year the next great increase in Irish taxation was effected. The period was well chosen. It was the period of the Irish famine, during which 1,000,000 persons died and 1,000,000 emigrated. Local taxation was incredibly high. It was at this time that the income tax, the death duties, and the increased spirit duties were imposed upon Ireland. I will tell the House the story of the income tax. During the Irish famine the sum of £4,000,000, in terminable annuities, was being paid off by Ireland, but the people were dying of starvation, and it was suggested that Ireland should be relieved of this burden. This generous gift was made to Ireland on the condition that it should be paid back at the rate of £200,000 a year. A Committee of the House of Lords recommended that that £4,000,000 should be wiped out altogether, but as a quid pro quo Ireland was to make an annual contribution of £460,000 for seven years, to end in the
  892
  year 1860. That seven years elapsed, but that charge was not taken off, and this tax still remains, and it has been increased from year to year. In repayment of this £4,000,000 of terminable annuities, which was money advanced by the British Treasury, the Irish people have paid no less than £32,000,000 in income tax. By that act of generosity the British Treasury did extremely well.
  I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that whisky is taxed so highly at present that it cannot be taxed any higher, while beer has been let off very lightly. For every sixpence spent by an Irishman in whisky the Exchequer gets 5d., and for every 6d. spent in beer the Exchequer gets 1d. From the year 1853 down to the time of the Financial Relations Commission Ireland paid one-fifth of the general taxation of the country. This year, judging by the figures, I should imagine that Ireland will find itself overtaxed to the extent of some £4,500,000. I think the situation is sufficiently serious to invite the careful attention of the House to the matter. Nobody will hold that Ireland is a rich country, or that her industries are in a prosperous condition. The population of Ireland is decreasing to an alarming extent, and taxation is at the same time increasing to a corresponding extent. What earthly hope is there for the Irish people if this kind of thing continues? It is very easy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get up here and propose additional taxation, but what is the Government going to do in Ireland to stop the emigration of the people? The reason the Irish people are leaving their native country in such large numbers is that they have no means of living in their own country, and they cannot find employment at home. I firmly believe that the over-taxation of Ireland is the most potent force in regard to the emigration from Ireland. Over-taxation is paralysing every industry in Ireland, and if the object of the imposition of additional taxes upon Ireland is to turn out the people by over-taxation then the British Government are going the right way to accomplish their object.
  If hon. Members opposite are serious in considering this question of over-

  893
  taxation in a country suffering from extreme poverty, they ought to bear in mind that, although it may seem to them a small thing to impose an increased tax in this country, the same tax falls very severely upon the poor people of Ireland, who have not the same opportunities of making money as the people have in England. I had intended to deal with several other matters, but I will not do so now, as I know that other Members wish to speak. We are always hearing of the great generosity of England towards Ireland, and of the vast amount of money which is spent in Ireland. May I point out that all the money which is spent in Ireland is Irish money? When the Irish Church was disestablished certain grants were commuted and paid off out of Irish money, which was taken out of the Irish Church surplus. That was a typical case of the great generosity with which Ireland was treated. There were many other sums of money which I could mention, which ought to come to Ireland for Irish purposes, but which had been taken away from Ireland and spent in ways which we know nothing about. These are small details of our financial grievances, to which I invite the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I thank the House for the attention which hon. Members have accorded to me, and I will formally second the motion of my hon. friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the over-taxation of Ireland, established by the recent Royal Commission on Financial Relations, constitutes a serious and pressing grievance as regards that country, and demands the early attention of His Majesty's Government with a view to its removal."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I think it is quite natural that hon. Members below the gangway should desire to take this opportunity in the first session of a new Parliament to bring to the test of debate and division that which they consider to be an injustice in the over-taxation of Ireland.
  894
  I am a little surprised, however, that, having regard to the views expressed by the two hon. Members who moved and seconded this resolution, the subject has been allowed to remain comparatively unnoticed for nearly three years. I think that it is as long ago as 1898 since we had a formal discussion in the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: No, no; last year a motion was made similar to this.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And what have you done since?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Then I am afraid the discussion did not make much impression upon me compared with the debates which took place between 1896 and 1898. I own that I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Dublin should have rested the whole of his case on the Act of Union, which he so bitterly denounced. He applied to that Act and its framers every epithet the English language could supply. It was fraudulent, infamous, and dishonorable, and since that date the action of Great Britain towards Ireland has been a mixture of plunder and corruption. Well, I have no doubt the hon. Member spoke his sincere opinions on the matter. But does he think the use of such language really forwards the cause he has at heart? I hope he will allow that we have a right to look at history from an opposite point of view to his own.
  I hope that my statement this evening, which, I fear, will be absolutely opposed to the views of hon. Members below the gangway, may be received by them with the patience we have extended to the hon. Member for North Dublin. I must, in the first instance, record my entire disagreement with the view of the hon. Member for North Dublin that the Act of Union required that Ireland should have separate financial treatment, and that that was as much the dominant idea after the passing of the Act as before. I read the Act of Union quite differently. So far as I can judge

  895
  —and I have endeavored to arrive at an honest and unbiased opinion on this matter—the Act of Union deliberately contemplated the abolition of separate financial treatment, except on one point, to which I shall afterwards allude, and made it clear that anything approaching to a system under which the revenue to be raised in Great Britain and Ireland could be decided according to the taxable capacity of the two islands, or by any specific proportions, belonged to political relations between the two countries which came to an end with the Act of Union and the financial arrangements which the Union was intended to extinguish, and which were extinguished with the complete assent of the Irish representatives of the day in this House when the Act of 1817 became law. I know that the mover and secondary of the motion have described the action of the Irish representatives in 1817 as of no value. They represented Ireland as fully as any hon. Members elected to Parliament before that date. Hon. Members from Ireland are never tired of praising the action of the Irish Members who opposed the Act of Union in the old Irish Parliament, and of other Irish representatives—elected solely by Protestant suffrage—who at various times upheld their views in that and other matters. The representatives of Ireland in 1817 no doubt were elected before Catholic emancipation. But they represented Ireland. [Nationalist cries of "No."] Do hon. Members really mean to say that no action which the Irish representatives have ever taken could bind Ireland until after Catholic emancipation? ["Hear, hear" from Nationalist Members.] I am afraid the further I go the more I find myself in discord with the extraordinary views of Irish Nationalist Members as to the history of this subject.
  Ever since the Act of 1817, that is, more than eighty years ago, this has been the financial system of the United Kingdom—common taxation throughout the whole country. At first, no doubt, the taxes were in some respects different. By degrees they were nearly equalized, and that is what hon. Members complain of. But why? The hon. Member for North Dublin referred, almost with derision, to what many have said, and I have
  896
  ventured to say, in regard to the incidence of taxation. I maintain, as I have stated before, that the incidence of taxation is on individuals and not upon countries, and I defy anyone to show that an individual residing in Ireland is more heavily taxed than an individual of the same circumstances in England or Scotland. Take a person who pays income tax in any part of the United Kingdom. He is in a more favorable position in Ireland than in Great Britain, because the assessment of income tax in Ireland is more favorable to the taxpayer than in Great Britain. The assessment of income tax in Ireland is based on Griffith's valuation. In cases where the rent is lower than that valuation the income tax is assessed on that rent, but if the rent is higher than that valuation the tax is assessed on Griffith's valuation. I am speaking of Schedule A. Everyone knows that a person in that class is exempt in Ireland from house duty which he has to pay in Great Britain, from land tax, which many owners of property pay in Great Britain, and from taxes on servants and carriages, and if he travels on railways his fare is not increased by railway passengers' duty. All these are advantages which such a person enjoys in Ireland as compared with a person who lives in England.
  MR. CLANCY: All these taxes only amount to £4,000,000 a year.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: May I ask the hon. Member not to interrupt me? I did not interrupt him. I come now to the class of persons who are below income tax limit and pay nothing but indirect taxation. Such a man pays the same taxation on his glass of beer and whisky whether in Ireland or Great Britain. His wife pays the same taxes on her tea, cocoa, and coffee, his children on their sugar.
  As regards the incidence of taxation upon individuals, our present system is absolutely fair throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members would propose to substitute for that some kind of change; I don't know what, which they have never suggested.

  897
  The hon. Member for North Dublin laid great stress, as stress has often been laid, on the one solitary provision of the Act of Union on which his claim is based. That is the proviso with regard to the exemptions and abatements which may be accorded to Ireland in certain circumstances. It was originally in the Act of Union between England and Scotland. For a hundred years it remained there without, so far as I know, having the slightest influence on the financial system of the country, and it was borrowed from that Act and put into the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. How was it interpreted by Lord Castlereagh, the framer of the Act of Union? The hon. Member for North Dublin quoted Lord Castlereagh, and I hope I may do the same. Lord Castlereagh said abatement might be given to Ireland "in case some duty was unproductive or pressed heavily on the poor." Of course, in those days there were many unproductive duties. It was a time of protective duties, and it was a time when there were high duties on every necessary of life, but that time has gone by. The only duties that can be called high now, in reference to the value of the articles on which they are placed, are the duties on alcohol and tobacco, and I will venture to say that no one who looks at the consumption of alcohol and tobacco by the population in any part of the United Kingdom can say that those duties are either unproductive or press heavily on the poor. As I have said, we have a system of common taxation. The hon. Member for West Islington, who has taken great interest in this question, has proposed a scheme for completely changing that. He would restore custom-houses between Ireland and Great Britain, and differentiate the customs and excise duties between the two countries. I can only repeat my strong conviction that no greater injury could be inflicted upon Ireland. I believe that, if there be any injury inflicted on Ireland by our present system of taxation, an infinitely greater injury would be inflicted by a system of custom-houses between the two countries, Which would place Ireland's staple manufactures of dutiable goods, such as porter, whisky,
  898
  and tobacco at every disadvantage in the British market.
  I hope hon. Members will do me the credit of believing that I speak from sincere conviction when I assume ground which I know is absolutely contrary to the ground they occupy. I protest against this question being treated except as a question of common taxation and expenditure. Hon. Members insist on treating it as a question of separate taxation, but they never will treat it as a question of separate expenditure; yet when Mr. Gladstone's Government appointed that Royal Commission whose Report is really the basis of the motion now before us, what was the order of reference to that Commission? It was not only directed to inquire into the comparative taxable capacity of Ireland and Great Britain, but also to inquire what the charge had been for Irish purposes on the Imperial Exchequer, and what was the Imperial expenditure to which it was equitable Ireland should contribute. That Commission absolutely shirked the duty which was imposed upon it. It altogether declined to enter upon the latter part of its inquiry, and yet without a Report on that subject that inquiry for the purposes for which it was appointed—to find a basis for a scheme of Home Rule—would have been absolutely ineffective. Are we to be told that because that Royal Commission made an inconclusive and incomplete Report we must consider this subject on the ground of separate taxation as regards Ireland, but on the ground of common expenditure as regards the United Kingdom? I venture to say that if you will not treat both taxation and expenditure as common, you must treat them both as separate, and as that is the only ground on which hon. Members will meet me, I shall attempt so to consider them. What are the allegations that have been made this evening? I am not going to say anything more than I have said as to the history of the past. It is interesting, but we have heard it before, and I do not think it is a practical subject for discussion. I would prefer to take the history of the time since the Royal Commission reported. What did the majority of the Royal Com-

  899
  mission say? They said that, Whereas the taxable capacity of Ireland was not estimated by any of them to be more than one-twentieth of the taxable capacity of the whole of the United Kingdom, the taxation revenue of Ireland was as much as one-eleventh. Well, there has been a change since that time, which the hon. Member for North Dublin has admitted. It has been a change in the direction which, I suppose; the majority of the Royal Commission and the hon. Member would desire to go, For the taxation revenue of Ireland now is less than one-fourteenth of the taxation revenue of the United Kingdom; and therefore, if there be a grievance on that score, the grievance is materially less than it was at the date of the Report of the Royal Commission.
  It is said that since the Report of the Commission the taxation of Ireland has been increased, and that it has been greatly increased, Although Ireland is less able to bear it. That, I think, is a fair statement of what I take to be the real practical grievance which has been brought before the House of Commons this evening. So far as I know, the main argument in support of the inability of Irishmen to bear the increased taxation is that the receipts from income tax in Ireland have diminished. That is taken as the test of the prosperity of the country, and it is said that, Whereas the receipts from each penny of the income tax have increased in Great Britain, they have decreased in Ireland. I have examined this matter. I may say, in passing, that I do not think the income tax is quite a fair test of the wealth of Ireland, or of any country, because everybody knows that it applies only to a very limited class, and you cannot be sure that the wealth of that limited class bears the same proportion to the wealth of the whole community in one country as it does in another, It is a fact, I believe, that the receipts from each penny of the income tax in Ireland have decreased of late years. Why is that? In the first place, everybody
  900
  knows that there has been a considerable transfer of Irish landed estates from landlords to tenants. What has happened? When an estate belonged to a landlord it was liable to income tax, because the landlord was liable, but when it is split up among the tenants it is not liable to income tax, because the tenants are not liable. There have been other sales in Ireland besides those to tenants under the Land Acts which have reduced the receipts under Schedule A, but a far more important reason for a decreased yield of income tax is to be found in the abatements which were largely increased by the legislation of 1894 and 1898. Of course, everybody knows that Ireland is a poorer country than Great Britain, and that the income-tax payers are few, in comparison, in proportion to the population. Therefore, it would necessarily happen that a larger proportion of these income-tax payers are small income-tax payers, and the great benefit which has been derived by such persons from these abatements, in proportion to the amount of taxes paid, is to be found in Ireland rather than in Great Britain. That is the main reason for the decrease in the yield of the income tax in Ireland. But I am happy to say that, having investigated the returns, I find that the income-tax assessment under the head of trades, professions, and public companies has distinctly increased in Ireland of late years, and that shows, I think, a change in the condition of that country of a very different kind from what hon. Members below the gangway have suggested. Of course, I am not attempting to argue that Ireland has advanced in prosperity and wealth in the last few years as much as England. I do not suggest it for a moment; but I do say this—that to picture Ireland as growing poorer and poorer every day is an entire misrepresentation of the facts.
  I admit there has been a slight decrease in the population in the last ten years. But why? There has been a decrease in the rural population of England, and as there are fewer towns in Ireland, Comparatively, than there are in England the decrease in the rural population has not been made up, as it has been made

  901
  up in England, by an increase in the urban population. But the population of Ireland, if it has decreased, is better off than it was ten years ago. Now, here are some figures, Which are very ordinary statistics? but which ought to be appealed to by anyone considering the condition of Ireland. Take the traffic receipts of Irish railways. I find that the average receipts for the five years before 1893 amounted to £3,110,000 a year. In 1899, the last year for which I have the figures, the receipts rose to £3,640,000. That is not a sign of decay. Then, if you look at the postal statistics, the number of money orders, and everything of that kind, you will find a large increase in Ireland. If you look at the savings banks you will find that, Whereas the deposits in Irish savings banks amounted to £5,931,000 in the former year; they have grown to £10,066,000. There is also an increase in the deposits in the joint-stock banks from £35,852,000 in 1893 to £43,280,000 in 1900. These are not signs of decay and impoverishment, and it cannot be contended that they do not show an improvement in the condition of Ireland, in spite of the decrease in the number of the population. Then, it is said, you have added largely to the taxation of Ireland, and therefore you have increased the over-taxation of Ireland as compared with 1894. What are the facts? Undoubtedly the taxation of Ireland has been increased. In 1893–4—the date of the Report of the Royal Commission—the tax revenue of Ireland was £6,644,000, and the tax revenue of the United Kingdom, including the revenue of Ireland, was £82,439,000, so that 8·1 per cent. of the whole of the tax revenue in that year was raised in Ireland. In 1899–90, the last year before the war taxation, the tax revenue of Ireland was £7,619,000, while the tax revenue of the United Kingdom was £107,958,000, the tax revenue of Ireland having fallen to a proportion of 7·1 per cent, of the revenue of the United Kingdom. Now, I will take the year 1901–2. I am sorry that I consented, in deference to the wish of hon. Members opposite, to place on the Table the latest statistics on the subject which have been published, because the old basis of calculation is faulty in an important particular in regard to this year. I think hon. Members
  902
  are aware that when these statistics were originally framed it was found impossible to arrive at any real estimate of the proportionate amount of dutiable articles, except spirits, consumed in the different parts of the kingdom, and there was an attempt made to obtain information from returns of the railway traffic, and in other ways of that kind. But the main basis adopted was the basis of population. The total amount of these dutiable articles consumed in the United Kingdom was practically divided between the countries according to population. But clearly this ought to be done according to the actual population, and statistics are not of much value if you calculate the revenue of Ireland derived from indirect taxation upon a population which existed ten years ago; you must calculate it upon the present population. I have endeavored to have the figures for this year calculated on the basis of the last census returns, and what I find is that on that basis the total taxation revenue of the United Kingdom would be £129,201,000, while the total taxation revenue of Ireland would be £8,631,000, or 6·7 per cent. of the total taxation revenue of the United Kingdom, the fact being, I believe, at the present moment that, of every 21s. Raised by taxation in the United Kingdom, Ireland raises but 1s. 5d. I do not think that can be said to be over-taxation. Let us look at one other point in these figures. I have said the total taxation revenue of the United Kingdom in 1893–94 was £82,400,000, and that it has risen this year to more than £129,000,000, an increase of nearly £47,000,000. How much of that increase has been levied in Ireland? Just £2,000,000. So that Ireland has paid of that increase 1 in 23½ much less than the proportion which was suggested to be the taxable capacity of Ireland by the Royal Commission.
  I hope I am not wearying the House, but I think it my duty to place before it the statistical view of this matter. I now come to a part of the case which I know perfectly well hon. Members for Ireland will regard as entirely irrelevant, and that is, what is the real contribution of Ireland to Imperial expenses? I do not attempt to arrive at any agreement with the hon. Member for North Dublin with regard to any definition of Imperial

  903
  expenses, and this for reasons which I shall presently show. I hope, at any rate, I may assume that even hon. Members below the gangway will not dispute that Ireland, as a member of the governing body of the Empire, is bound to bear her fair share of Imperial expenditure. I know that some hon. Members have asked what concern has Ireland in the Navy, and the same thing may be said in regard to the Army; but I must assume that as the basis of my argument. And now let us see what Ireland does contribute towards Imperial expenses. In 1893–94 the total revenue from the United Kingdom available for Imperial services was £58,668,000. Of that Great Britain raised £56,702,000 and Ireland £1,966,000, or 3·24 per cent. of the whole amount. In 1896–97 the revenue from the United Kingdom available for Imperial services had risen to £70,268,000. Of that Ireland contributed no more than 3·10 per cent., a decrease as compared with 1893–94. In 1899–1900 the revenue from the United Kingdom available for Imperial expenditure was £79,885,000. Of that Ireland contributed no more than £1,684,000, or 2·11 per cent. of the total contribution. And when I come to the present year, and take the estimated balance of the revenue of the United Kingdom—excluding the coal duty, which I have always argued will not be paid by anyone in Ireland—which will be available for Imperial expenditure, I find that it amounts to no less than £99,795,000, out of which Ireland will contribute no more than £2,384,000, 2·39 per cent. of the total amount contributed by the United Kingdom. Is that an unreasonable proportion to ask from Ireland? It is not one-twentieth of our Imperial expenditure, as suggested by the report of the Royal Commission. I do not think it is as much as one-fortieth. And I would call attention to this fact that, whereas the contribution of Ireland to Imperial expenditure in 1893–94 was £2,186,000, this year, when we have all the charges of the war and an enormously increased expenditure on the Army and the Navy upon our head, the only increase in the amount of Irish revenue devoted to Imperial expenditure is £400,000, a sum which is just one-hundredth part of the increase in the
  904
  revenue from the United Kingdom available for Imperial expenditure since 1893–4. And yet we have had speech after speech from the Benches below the gangway opposite denouncing the Budget, and everything connected with the Budget, on account of the enormous sums which we are raising from Ireland for the war.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: What are the figures which the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from, and what is the authority for them?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The figures in regard to past years will be found in the financial returns. The figures for this year are estimates made, as I have said, on the same basis as the financial returns corrected by the last census.
  I frankly admit, however, that where you levy taxation in a poor country that taxation may press more heavily than in a rich country, and therefore, in framing the Budget of the present year, I attempted to mitigate, so to speak, the pressure of the sugar duty on Irish taxpayers by raising the income tax, and by asking Parliament to impose the export duty on coal. Now, the export duty on coal has no effect on Ireland at all. That has been admitted, I think, by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and he went so far as to say that in this Budget he recognized, for the first time in his recollection, an attempt to deal fairly with Ireland. Yet what happened throughout all the discussions on the Budget? On every division on the coal duty—and we had many divisions—which did not touch Ireland, and which was adopted by me largely with the idea of being just to Ireland—every Member below the gangway—
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The reason we voted against this tax was that no man on these benches would take any responsibility for voting money for this war.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have no right to question the motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite or their policy; they know their own business much better

  905
  than I do, but I would just ask the hon. and learned Member, does he think such action is calculated to encourage me or anyone holding my position in attempting to face powerful and well-organized interests in great Britain in the desire to do justice to Ireland in the matter of taxation?
  The hon. Member for North Dublin not unreasonably said that he had no remedy to propose for the grievances he placed before the House. It was not his business to do so. There are only two ways in which anything can be done to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. One way is by increased local grants to Ireland which are not given to Great Britain. We have done a good deal in that way already, and have gone so far that of every pound spent in local services in Ireland 14s. 7d. comes from the Exchequer, while of every pound spent in local services in Great Britain only 9s. 5d. comes from the Exchequer. Since 1893–4 we have given to Ireland in paid or promised grants for railways £1,057,000, as against £227,000 devoted to the same purpose in Great Britain. We have relieved Ireland of £88,000 in irrecoverable loans, and Great Britain of hardly anything. And we have given to Ireland under the Local Government Act, 1898, a grant of £728,000 a year on the same principle as that on which the Agricultural Rates grant is given to England, but yet conferring much greater advantages on Ireland in proportion than on England for this simple reason—that a far larger proportion of the rates in Ireland comes from agricultural land than is the case in England. This is something, surely, in proof that we are not deaf to the pleadings of Irish Members on account of the comparative poverty of their country. The only other way in which Ireland could be relieved is by the method I have admittedly adopted this year in the matter of the coal duty. I have stated how that effort was received by Irish Members. If it should be my fate to continue in my present office, I shall endeavor to pursue the same policy if opportunity should be afforded me. But I cannot pursue that policy successfully—no Chancellor of the Exchequer can pursue it—unless, if this be a serious and pressing grievance, hon. Members from Ireland who feel it to be so give their support to the Government of
  906
  the day in any attempt to diminish it. But I suppose hon. Members will consider that these are only palliatives. They ask from us to-day not two and three-quarter millions a year, but something like double that sum. It is impossible. Any attempt to meet such demands would simply destroy the fiscal system, which I believe is fairer to all persons in the United Kingdom than any other fiscal system that could be devised. It would injure the commercial relations between the two islands as much as their political relations would be injured by the adoption of Home Rule. Therefore, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I can only repeat what it has been my fate to say before—that to this motion we must offer an uncompromising opposition.
  MR. M'CANN: The Report of the Financial Relations Commission was issued in 1896. It dealt with the figures and accounts for ninety-four years of the last century, to 31st March, 1894, as well as the eighteen years of the Irish Parliament. Seven years to 30th March last have passed since this Report was issued. The Commissioners almost unanimously reported that whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland was about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain that the relative taxable capacity of Ireland was very much smaller, and was not estimated by any one of them as exceeding one-twentieth. This Report was signed and agreed to by eleven out of the thirteen Commissioners. Sir D. Barbour and Sir Thomas Sutherland issued separate Reports. Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, and Mr. Bertram Currie signed the general Report, which contained the main finding of those eleven Commissioners, which was that Ireland was then paying one-eleventh of the entire taxation; not one of them estimated that she should be called upon for more than one-twentieth of the whole. These two noble Lords and Mr. Currie made a separate Report of their own, Explanatory of the Irish financial and fiscal position as a whole. This Report of theirs appears to me to be a masterpiece of elucidation and grasp of the main root factors in the Irish financial and economic situation. The great autho-

  907
  rity and eminent fitness of these three men for such an investigation add much force to their views and conclusions. They show in accordance with their finding in the general Report that Ireland then paid two and a half millions per annum more than she should be called upon to pay.
  Let us see what occurred during the seven years that passed since then. For the year ending 31st of March, 1894, the last year dealt with by the Commissioners, there was collected and paid into the Imperial Treasury as Irish revenue from taxation the sum of £7,569,000, and in the same year the Treasury claims to have paid out of this revenue for Irish services £5,602,000, leaving a balance of £1,966,000 available for Imperial expenditure for the services of the debt, the Army and the Navy. For the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1901, seven years afterwards, the Irish revenue received by the Imperial Treasury from Irish taxation came to £9,521,000, and the expenditure on Irish services was £7,268,000, leaving a balance available for Imperial purposes of £2,253,000. In this way it will be seen that Ireland paid this last year in taxation just £2,000,000 more than in the year 1894, when she was paying two and a half millions over her just proportion and beyond her taxable capacity compared with Great Britain. It may be said that this additional expenditure for Irish services of £1,665,000 should be treated as far as it goes against this additional burden of £2,000,000 of taxation. This would be an answer to some extent if this expenditure on Irish services was spent in any reproductive ways towards strengthening and improving in any permanent manner the country and the condition of the people and their tax-paying capacity. I cannot trace any portion of it as spent in this direction, nor, indeed, can any position of the total amount put down as spent on Irish services, which amounts to £7,268,000, be traced as spent in permanent, reproductive ways, nor can I see that any part of the amount we contributed, £2,253,000, for Imperial purposes was employed for our good or for the betterment of the material condition of the country in any lasting manner. What I mean is that no portion of this huge taxation extracted
  908
  from us last year, £9,500,000 in all, was spent in any way towards keeping any young man or woman from emigrating, or keeping a pauper off the rates, or that was employed in bettering the position of those who have not yet left the country or who are not yet a burden on the poor rates. The proof of my assertion is this, that in face of the fall in our population to under four and a half millions, the young people are flying from the country, pauperism is increasing and weakness and paralysis, physical, mental, and financial, is the fate of those who have remained in the country and are now too old to leave.
  On the present lines of the Government's fiscal and economic policy in Ireland it is fair to assume, indeed it is a certainty, that this state of things must become intensified as time goes on. I may be told, however, that this local, expenditure on Irish services last year, £7,268,000, was spent in Ireland, although perhaps no portion was made available for the purposes I have named. If this answer is examined it will be found that, except as regards the whisky and porter which we consume, nearly all other requisites of life, the bread we eat, and the clothes we wear, the furniture for our houses, etc., Are produced and manufactured outside of Ireland, so to all intents and purposes, as far as the good of Ireland is concerned, this money so expended, as well as nearly all other expenditure, might just as well be expended in England or Scotland direct. The question is, who bears the burden of this excessive taxation? If such an amount must be raised by taxation, is it equitably assessed and its incidence just? The first point that strikes one in this connection is this, that just 80 per cent. of our taxation is derivable from duties on commodities, otherwise from indirect taxation, whilst only 50 per cent, is levied on commodities in England. The great and unjust burden of Irish taxation is being carried at present by the Irish peasantry, whom I will enumerate and locate later on, and this has been the case during the whole of the preceding century which closed a few months ago.
  If the House will bear with me, I will show shortly what I mean. The Act of Union was passed just one hundred years ago on the assurances of the predomi-

  909
  nant partner, chiefly expressed through Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh, that the partnership would turn out for the best interests of Ireland as well as England. The deed laid down that Ireland should contribute two-seventeenths of the whole taxation of the United Kingdom, Great Britain contributing fifteen-seventeenths. It will be seen that the taxation of Ireland for the fifteen years before the Union worked out in this way. From 1785 to 1791, when both countries were at peace, the average tax revenue of Ireland was for the seven years £1,270,324, the civil expenditure of the country during these years being £546,300 per annum, and the amount available for military services and interest on debt was £727,000, For the eight remaining years, 1792 to 1800, during which period England was engaged in war abroad and disturbance and war in Ireland, the annual average tax revenue of Ireland was £1,815,000, the civil expenditure during these years being £753,800, and the expenditure for the debt and military service being £1,061,000. The Union then took place, and Ireland was decreed to pay, as I said, two-seventeenths of the whole. Inasmuch as the debt of Ireland was then relatively so much smaller than that of England, Ireland retained her own Exchequer. For the first sixteen years of the fiscal Union, from 5th January, 1802, to 5th January, 1817, under the two-seventeenths arrangement Ireland was found to be liable to pay an average of just £10,000,000 a year, or £160,000,000 in all in those sixteen years. We could not raise by taxation this enormous sum suddenly imposed upon us. But we did certainly raise and pay in by taxation a sum of £77,844,000 during these sixteen years, or an average of nearly £4,865,000 per annum, leaving a deficit of £81,893,000, which we were unable to raise. Then the predominant partner said that as we broke down in our payments they would take over the Irish debt. Including this £82,000,000, and add it to the debt of the Empire. Under the two-seventeenths terms of the partnership, our debt being then proportionate with the debt of Great Britain, they were then entitled, they said, to abolish our Exchequer, and impose common and indiscriminate taxation over the United Kingdom.
  910
  It will be seen that the amount of taxation paid by Ireland during the last fifteen years of the eighteenth century was just about one and a half million per annum, and the total for these fifteen years came to £22,500,000. For the first sixteen years of the century, under the terms of partnership with Great Britain, we were found to be liable for £160,000,000, or just £10,000,000 a year, of which only about half could be raised, and the remaining half being added to the debt gave the pretext for the abolition of our Exchequer and the imposition of common and in discriminative taxation. So during the first sixteen years of union we became liable to pay seven times more than we had been paying before, and we actually did pay in hard cash more than three times the amount we had been paying before this partnership was entered into. Was any portion of this huge increase of taxation applied towards improving the material condition of the country and strengthening in any way the tax-paying powers of the wretched peasantry on whom fell the great injustice of this excessive taxation? I can trace none of this taxation, extracted so largely from this numerous class, applied in any way for their betterment, the same has been the case during the entire century which ended a few months ago. I consider that the injustice done to this class, and through them to the community as a whole, exists to-day to a greater extent and in a more intensified form than at any other time during the century past. It may be said at once that the practical effect of our partnership under the two-seventeenths terms of the deed during these first sixteen years of its existence dealt a blow at the very heart of the country from which it would be difficult to recover.
  But this is not the whole story. For the thirty years from 1820 to 1850 there was paid by Ireland taxation into the British Treasury an average of about £5,200,000 a year. Out of this the Treasury claims to have expended on Irish services about £1,600,000 per annum, during these thirty years. Between the years 1850 to 1860 there was imposed on us the income tax, and additional spirit duties, which increased our taxation by about £2,500,000 a year. We find the revenue from Ire-

  911
  land to be in the year 1859 and 1860 £7,700,000, against an average of £5,200,000 for the thirty years from 1820 to 1850. It must be remembered that, when the additional taxation of two and a half millions was imposed on us, the country was then struggling and writhing under the blow inflicted by the terrible Irish famine. For the thirty-four years from 1860 to 1894, the date to which the figures in the Financial Relations Report are brought down, our average taxation came to about £7,500,000 per annum. During these thirty-four years the first twenty of them, 1860 to 1880, showed an expenditure of £2,500,000 per annum for Irish services. The next sixteen years work out an expenditure on Irish services of over four and a half millions. For the seven years since the date of the Financial Relations Report the average taxation paid by us comes to £8,250,000, and the expenditure on Irish services amounts to about £6,200,000. For the year ending 31st March last, the taxation exacted from Ireland came to £9,525,000, and the expenditure on Irish services came to £7,268,000. With the additional taxes put on for the current year it is reasonable to assume that our taxation will come to a sum well over £10,000,000 to 31st March next year, that is, if it can possibly be squeezed out of the people. It comes to this, that the £10,000,000 to be collected this year, with about £3,000,000 additional for local taxation payable to county councils will workout at £13,000,000, as the tax revenue of Ireland for current year, as compared with £1,500,000 a year during the last fifteen years of our Parliament, or nearly nine times greater. Our population now is about the same as then, four and a half millions, so that it works out that we are now paying about £2 18s. per head of the population in taxation, whereas then we were paying only 6s. 8d. per head, we are paying nearly nine times more. The agricultural rental of Ireland is computed to be about £9,000,000 per annum; taxation this year will foot up nearly fifty per cent. more than the rental of Ireland.
  One of the points that have to be considered in estimating our present position to bear this enormous taxa-
  912
  tion is this: Has anything practical been done to strengthen or improve us in our tax-paying ability to pay this two and a half millions a year, which the Financial Relations Commissioners found was unjustly imposed upon us, as well as: the £2,000,000 a year since put upon us? I have already shown that the increased over-expenditure practically goes in no way in this direction. I regret to say that not alone has there been no strengthening in the material condition of the country in the meantime, so as to increase its taxable powers, but there has been a serious weakening in its powers in this respect. I saw in The Times newspaper, a short time ago, some articles comparing the condition of the iron and steel trades in the United States and England. Much regret was. expressed that the American masters: made the position of young engineers so much better than in England, and that so many of them were thereby induced to leave their country and settle in the United States. It was calculated that it cost £600 to £700 to bring up, educate, and give his profession to an engineer in England. In this way was shown a loss to England of £600 to £700 capital sunk in every engineer that left the country to settle abroad. Since the Financial Relations Report was issued there emigrated from Ireland, chiefly to the United States, to settle permanently abroad, just 275,000 people, young men and young women, at the age of about twenty-two years. It costs about £9 a year to feed and clothe an Irish workhouse pauper. This rate would work out at about £200 capital sunk in each emigrant up to twenty-two years of age, making allowance for the value of some work which these young emigrants may do before they leave Ireland, and also some little money that they may send home to their people afterwards, I think it will be found that the net money loss in capital to Ireland, and indeed to the empire, sunk and lost in each emigrant, will be at least £100 each; 275,000 of these emigrants have left during the past seven years, 40,000 a year seems to be about the normal average of this class of emigration during the past decade. During these seven years, since the Financial Relations Report was issued,

  913
  the loss in capital in Ireland was at £100 each for 275,000 people—just £27,500,000. Putting 4 per cent. interest on this lost capital the loss comes to over £1,000,000 annually, which I consider I am entitled to add to the £2,000,000 a year increased taxation in these seven years, making the drain £3,000,000 a year in addition to the unjust taxation of two and a half millions, as found by the Financial Relations Commissioners in the year 1894. Nothing was done or no event occurred in the meantime, as far as can be seen, to increase the taxpaying powers of the people.
  The question arises, and it is most important to consider, on whom does the terrible drain of over-taxation and the loss of capital involved in the flight of the people fall most severely? If examined closely it will be seen that both drains fall in their intensity on the Irish peasantry, the most numerous and poorest class amongst us, whom it ought to be the interest of everyone to preserve, but being everybody's business to do so, it turns out that it is nobody's business, the material interests of this class are constantly and consistently kept out of sight. I mean by the Irish peasantry the small occupying tenant-farmers of the country who cultivate their lands by their own labor and that of their families. I also include the farm laborers amongst the peasantry, in all they will be found to be half the entire population. They may be fairly called our submerged half. There are 486,000 occupying holders of farms in Ireland, about 400,000 of these are valued for taxation purposes at a little over £20 a year as a maximum, and coming down to a valuation of £1 per annum. It is computed, and I think accurately computed, that the rent paid by the average man in this class is about £7 a year, and that their average net income after payment of rent and taxes does not amount to more than £25 a year, which means for a family of five about £5 a year, for these 2,000,000 people to live upon. This income, small though it is, can be only attained in good years; when the rainy days come round, which they inevitably do in Ireland, and the potatoes and turf are absent, these people, whose standard of living in their best years is incapable of being curtailed or
  914
  Pared down, are then starving or next door to it. They never have or can have under present treatment a margin over to meet their rainy day.
  The Irish problem centers in the material condition of these poor people. It is. Computed that these peasantry, say 2,000,000 in all, pay £1 to £1 5s. per head per annum towards Imperial taxation in their consumption of tea, sugar, tobacco, porter, and whisky, their local taxation comes to about half the Imperial, or about 10s. to 12s. 6d. per head. It may be said and probably will be said, why do these people consume these dutiable articles, they are not necessaries? I think that the best answer to this question is given by Lord Farer, Lord Welby, and Mr. Bertram Currie in their Report. They say—
  "We think that the consumption of the masses must be taken as a whole, and that we must accept what they actually consume as what they find it necessary to consume, and that without a total and almost incurable change in their habits they are unable to forego."
  I believe that the use of stimulants amongst the Irish peasantry and poor is very much the result of their low standard of living and their coarse and insufficient food and clothing and in a measure to climatic influences and the uncertainty of their material existence. I consider that Ireland cannot continue to pay £10,000,000 a year taxes to the Imperial Treasury and £3,000,000 a year for local taxes without further wreck and ruin to the country. But the serious part is that the brunt and severity of this taxation is borne in the first instance by the unfortunate peasantry, whom it should be everybody's interest to shield, protect and foster, as it is only through them that improvement and prosperity can come to the classes above them. All through our sad history the crushing burdens of all sorts, economic as well as fiscal, have been imposed upon and borne by the peasantry of the country, and never at any time does there appear to have been taken effectual means to remedy their positions or materially strengthen them.
  There is the further point to which I would wish to call the attention of the House. There will this year be collected, as I have said, probably over £10,000,000

  915
  for Imperial revenue; £7,500,000 will likely be the amount to be devoted to Irish services, and the balance, £2,500,000, will be applicable for Imperial revenue, the debt, Army, and Navy, as there will be £3,000,000 at least for local government expenditure. In this way civil government in Ireland will cost £10,500,000 for the year as compared to the charge for same services in last fifteen years of the Irish Parliament, which amounted to just £650,000 a year, and when the ability of the people to bear taxation was much greater than at present and the population was about the same. Our Imperial contribution for services of the debt, the Army and the Navy will probably as I have said amount this year to £2,500,000 as compared with a similar charge for same services 100 years ago of about £900,000 per annum, which was nearly all spent in Ireland, and when, not as at present, expenditure in Ireland meant the good of trades, industries, and agriculture. We are over-boarded and under-fed, and the cost of over-boarding is paid for by the under-fed.
  It may be said at once, and it is a matter quite demonstrable and capable of easy proof, that Ireland, weakened in every quarter and bleeding at every pore by 100 years of such treatment as I have described cannot continue to pay the demand now put upon her; our. Only means of paying is derived from the produce of 15,300,000 acres of land, which we cultivate with the uncertainty of seasons and low prices for our agricultural produce. These payments cannot be made and the people live at the same time. Transit rates and facilities are absolutely prohibitive in enabling the small operative producers, four-fifths of the whole tenant class in Ireland, to market their produce at a profit. Every other agricultural country in the world except Ireland is straining every nerve both by their railways and waterways, and every other means, to facilitate and cheapen the marketing of agricultural produce direct to the consumers both in their own country and to the countries to which they can possibly get access and open up new markets. Every force and influence, governmental and otherwise, seems set in the opposite direction in Ireland. Transit rates in
  916
  Ireland are, I believe, the highest in the world, and the foreigner will have rates made for him by the Irish carrying companies very much lower than the rates charged to the Irish producer for the same or analogous produce. I will only say, in conclusion, that my belief is that Ireland should be run for £5,000,000 a year in tax revenue instead of £13,000,000 a year as at present. This £5,000,000 a year would be nearly three and a half times more than the amount expended in running the country during the last fifteen years of the Irish Parliament. My belief also is that if our railways and waterways were locally nationalized, and that 50 per cent. were taken off all transit rates, passengers, goods, cattle, agricultural produce, and that specially low rates and facilities were given for the conveyance for small consignments of agricultural and other products to the markets, I believe if this were done under proper economical management that £1 an acre would be the additional value of our land before many years elapsed. In this way, by increasing the income and decreasing the expenditure of the country, I calculate that £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year might be added to the wealth of the country in the space of ten to fifteen years. I estimate that the immediate loss by the reduction in railway rate would not amount in all to over £7,000,000 to £8,000,000 spread over a period of ten years, or an average loss of £800,000 per annum; then a profit would accrue to the State after the payment of working expenses and the interest and sinking fund for purchase money. The benefit derivable from the decrease in expenditure and increased income would accrue first to the peasantry, and then through them these benefits would permeate through every other class of society. The whole difficulty heretofore has been the fact that the predominant partner has insisted upon looking upon and treating the economics of the Irish problem in the same way as England, whereas from every industrial and economic point of view they are totally dissimilar.
  DR. AMBROSE: Considering that the British nation lay such stress upon the fact that they are such sup-

  917
  porters of treaties, and that this is the third time that this subject has been mentioned in this House in the last few years, and that it has been so lightly treated, it might be as well to recall what has taken place in past years. In 1894 you appointed a Commission to examine into this question. It was appointed not by Irishmen, but by Englishmen. What was its composition? The chairman was Mr. Childers, an Englishman, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and among the other members were Lords Farer and Welby, Mr. Currie and Professor Hunter, all of whom were financial experts. There were eighteen witnesses, all financial experts, fifteen of whom were paid servants of the Crown:—Mr. H. H. Murray, C.B., Chairman of the Board of Customs for five years; Mr. T. J. Pittar, Principal of the Statistical Office of the Board of Customs; Mr. Alfred Milner, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue for two years, who had with him two gentlemen from the Board of Inland Revenue—namely, Mr. Turner, Accountant General of the Board of Inland Revenue, and Mr. Steele, Chief Inspector of Excise; Sir Edward Hamilton, K.C.B., Assistant Secretary to the Treasury; Mr. H. A. Robinson, a Commissioner of the Local Government Board of Ireland, who, speaking on local taxation, said—
  "I think we may look for an increase in the poor rates, because the tendency of recent years in connection with remedial legislation is to place the administration on the poor rates—e.g., the Laborers Act, the cost for extra police, £93,873 in 1884, and £27,248 in 1893";
  Sir J. M'Kenna, a financial expert and for twenty-two years a member of this House; Dr. L. W. Grimshaw, Registrar General of Ireland; Mr. W. L. Micks, Secretary to the Congested Districts Board, Ireland; Mr. J. Chaloner Smith, President of the Institute of Civil Engineers, who had made a study of taxation; the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, member of the Congested Districts Board, Ireland, a man who, in addition to being a member of the Congested Districts Board, was well qualified to know the condition of the people of his diocese; Mr. W. P. O'Brien, C.B., Poor Law inspector, and Local Government inspector for more than thirty years, and afterwards Vice-chairman of the
  918
  General Prisons Board, and since his retirement has acted from 1892 to 1893 as Assistant Royal Commissioner on Labor; Lieut.-General Sir Richard Sankey, K.C.B., C.E., Chairman of Public Works in Ireland; Mr. Murrough O'Brien, member of the Land Commission; Mr. J. G. Barton, M.I.C.E., F.S.I., Commissioner of Valuation, Ireland—that is, he administers the Valuation Office and Boundary Survey Office in Ireland, and before that he was connected with the Board of Works in Ireland; Mr. W. F. Bailey, Legal Assistant Land Commissioner, Ireland, who made a special study of the valuation and assessment of property in England and Ireland; Mr. G. T. Howe, surveyor of taxes in the English Income Tax Office fifteen and a half years, and in the Dublin Income Tax Office since 1891; Mr. E. J. Harper, surveyor to the London County Council, previously surveyor to the Metropolitan Board of Works for seventeen years; Sir Robert Griffin, K.C.B., LL.D., Comptroller-General of the Commercial, Labor, and Statistical departments of the Board of Trade, previously Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trade; and the hon. Member for West Islington. I think if you searched England, Ireland, and Scotland over you could not find more expert witnesses for such a purpose.
  What is the history of the fiscal arrangements between Great Britain and Ireland? Now, before the Act of Union Ireland was not bound to contribute to anything beyond her shores, and, in fact, only supported a few regiments of soldiers serving abroad, and made a small grant towards the maintenance of the Navy, but by the Act of Union it was provided that she should pay the annual charge upon her debt contracted before the Union—her debt-charge at the time being £100,000 per annum—and should contribute two-seventeenths of the joint expenditure of the United Kingdom. Now, this was the decision of the Commission, that the Act of Union placed upon Ireland a burden which events showed she was unable to bear; and that the resources of Ireland as contrasted with those of Great Britain were then and had been for a long time much more heavily taxed. Those facts were

  919
  not disputed by any member of the Commission or by any witnesses examined by the Commission; and all the Commissioners except one admitted that, contrasting the taxable capacity of the two countries, Ireland's proper proportion of contribution to revenue could not exceed one-twentieth of that of Great Britain, whilst her taxation amounted to one-eleventh. Why, then, do you not admit the conclusions of the Commission—namely, that Ireland has been overtaxed to the extent of three millions per year. Now, a great deal of stress is laid upon the fact that Ireland and England were treated for Imperial purposes as one entity, but for local purposes as separate entities. There was no question as to separate entities. That was recognized by Mr. Goschen, a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1890, when, after consulting with his colleagues, he moved for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the "equity of the financial relations in regard to the resources and population of the three kingdoms." It was recognized by this House, which accepted his motion, and which ordered the preparation of expensive Returns, all based on the assumption that Great Britain and Ireland were separate countries for financial purposes. One entity was absolutely inconsistent with the terms of reference to the Commission, which were published in The Times and all the other papers when it was appointed in 1894, and which should have been attacked then if they were founded on wrong principles. The whole history of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland from the earliest times is in direct opposition to the theory of one entity. There never has been absolute uniformity of taxation between the two countries, and all attempts at such uniformity have been made in direct contravention of the spirit and words of the Act of Union, as will be seen from the speeches of Pitt and Castlereagh. The Act of Union contains special provisions for the separate treatment of the two countries even after the abolition of the separate Exchequers, and for more than fifty years after the Act of Union this separate treatment prevailed, e.g., the tobacco duties were not assimilated until the year 1819,
  920
  the stamp duties until the year 1842, the spirit duties until the year 1858, and the income-tax was not imposed until the year 1853. The proceedings of the Parliamentary session of 1896 prove absolutely that England and Ireland are separate entities not only as far as legislation is concerned, but also for financial purposes. Take, as an example, the Agricultural Rates Act. The area of cultivated land in Ireland is 15,000,000 acres, with a ratable value of £9,000,000; the area of cultivated land in England and Wales is 27,000,000 acres, with a ratable value of £33,000,000. The local taxation in Ireland included in poor rate and county cess, levied on agricultural land equals half that levied in England. The amount given to English farmers under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, out of the Imperial Exchequer to pay one-half of the rate for five years: was £1,600,000; therefore the amount to which Irish farmers were entitled on the same principle was £800,000 according to local taxation, £888,888 according; to the number of acres, or £436,363 according to valuation. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer excluded Ireland from the Agricultural Rates Act on the ground that she was a separate entity, and always treated as such in matters of finanee, and he put not £888,888, but £180,000 on the shelf until a separate Bill was brought in for Ireland. But some say that Ireland receives back through expenditure for local purposes more than an equivalent for the amount she pays in excessive taxation. My answer to that is Can the preservation of order, the enforcement of the law, the administration of justice, and the collection of the Imperial revenue in any part of the United Kingdom be regarded as other than of Imperial interest? It is not Irishmen alone that are interested in the civil government of Ireland. It is maintained not merely for the benefit of Irishmen, but because England is deeply interested in it. It is managed exclusively as Imperial and by the Imperial Parliament. If the Irish civil government is too costly, it is due to the Imperial Parliament, not to Irishmen.
  Under the Act of Union, except in one particular, there was no provision made for any recognition of separate

  921
  entities in the legislation that was to follow. There was to be one Parliament for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and it was supposed that the laws passed by that Parliament would be common to the whole of that Kingdom. The one exception was that it was specially provided that in regard to finance there should be separate treatment; separate entities were recognized and separate interests defined. The Act of Union also made provision for the time when separate exchequers might be no longer necessary by declaring that particular exemptions or abatements should be made in the case of Ireland and in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, as circumstances might appear from time to time to demand. The laws of the two countries are different, as, for example, the land laws, the education laws, the ecclesiastical laws, the liquor laws, and the local government laws. I have shown that the treatment was different as far as the Agricultural Rates Act is concerned; it was different also with regard to the Parish Councils Act. Moreover, you have not in England the luxury of a Lord Lieutenant at a salary of over £20,000 a year, and you have not a Chief Secretary who gets £4,425 a year. You have not had Coercion Acts, twenty-five of which have been passed since the Act of Union, and one of which is now a permanent Act. You have not had Land Acts, twenty-five of which were introduced between 1819 and 1867, but not passed, and six since. And, of course, you have not a Land Commission, with annual salaries of £66,733.
  There was no fiscal union in 1801. Pitt's scheme was that Ireland should be taxed according to the amount she could bear, and that there should be a periodic review of the cost of her government. You have never reviewed that cost, and, therefore, I say that you have violated the Act of Union. Until 1817 there was an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, an Irish Debt, and an Irish Budget every year. These disappeared, but the separate fiscal treatment of Ireland practically continued. For example, Sir Robert Peel refrained from levying the income tax in Ireland when it was imposed in Great Britain in 1841. When
  922
  the police force was created he arranged that half its cost should be paid out of. Imperial taxes, and in 1846 he made that arrangement apply to the other half. After the death of Sir Robert Peel, on 2nd July, 1850, the principle was asserted for the first time that all articles should pay the same duty in each country. Thus at one blow were abolished Pitt's precautions which had been inserted in the Act of Union for the protection of Ireland—namely, first, a fixed contribution, and, secondly, a periodic review of the ability of Ireland to pay her contribution. Pitt based the contributions of England and Ireland on the capacity of, each country in the year 1800. Either country might develop more rapidly than the other, or the one might go back while the other went forward. In either case, according to Pitt's arrangement, a new fiscal policy should have been established.
  Now let me contrast the position of England and Ireland at the time of the Union with their position in 1853, when you assimilated the taxes in both countries, and see how far you were justified in that assimilation. In 1800 the prosperity of England and Ireland depended mainly on agriculture, and the population of Ireland was about half as large as that of Great Britain. In 1801 the population of Ireland was 4,500,000, while that of England was 8,892,536. But what was the position in 1853? In that year, instead of Pitt's scheme of a fixed contribution and a periodic review of the financial capacity of both countries, you levied the same rates of duty on the same commodities in both countries, although the population had varied in Ireland from 4,500,000, in 1801, to 6,198,984, in 1853, an increase only of 1,698,984; whereas in England the variation was from 8,892,536 to 19,100,000, an increase of 10,207,464. If Ireland had advanced in the same proportion as England her population in 1853 would have been, not 6,198,984, but 10,588,235, or 4,389,251 more than it actually was. Therefore, I say that there was no justification for the taxation of 1853. It was arranged by the Act of Union that each nation should be charged with its own ante-Union debt this would have been as just to Ireland as

  923
  to England but for one consideration, namely, that by far the greater portion of the ante-Union debt of Ireland was the result of the fooling of the English Government subsequently to the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam. For example, you charged the Irish Exchequer with the cost of all the bayonets and bribes with which the Union had been procured. You gave Lord Downshire £52,500; Lord Ely, £45,000; the Earl of Carrick and Lord Clanmorris, £14,000 each; Sir Hercules Langrishe, £13,862; the Duke of Leinster, £13,800; Lord Lismore, £12,300; the Earl of Ludlow, the Earl of Shannon, and Lord Tara, £7,500 each; the Hon. E. Massey, £6,850; and Lord Masserene, whose name is fresh in the mind of every Irishman, and his three brothers, £15,000 each. Altogether, the cost of the Union was over £21,000,000, and we had to pay it. As I shall directly show, it was added to the taxation of Ireland. You wanted an excuse to amalgamate the two Exchequers. The debt of Ireland, unredeemed, funded, and unfunded, in 1793, stood at £2,253,000; in 1798, it was £10,130,000; in 1801 it had jumped to £28,541,000; and in 1817 it stood at the enormous figure of £112,704,773. The debt of England, on the other hand, stood at £450,504,984 in 1800, and had increased in 1817 to £734,522,104. That is to say, in sixteen years the debt of Ireland had quadrupled, while the debt of England had increased by scarcely more than one-half. In 1817 the Exchequers were amalgamated, and Ireland was saddled with a portion of the vast ante-Union debt of England, which had been incurred by you in trying to carry the Union, and in your war with France.
  It is said that a great deal of this money is spent in Ireland. Let us see how it is spent. Whenever we have a debate here on Irish Estimates, if we attempt to reduce the cost of administration we are told that it is absolutely necessary to have this expenditure in Ireland, and that we must pay it. Let us see how it compares with England. The population is as one to eight. The respective annual cost in Ireland and England of the Local Government Board is £130,000 and £166,000, or as four to five; of the Board of Public
  924
  Works, £33,000 and £51,000, or as two to three; in respect of law charges, £59,000 and £95,000, or more than half as much; of the superior courts, £113,000 and £325,000, or more than one-third as much; and of prisons, £119,000 and £607,000, or as one to five; and the number of prisoners in Ireland is a great deal smaller than the number in England. Let me give an example of how Ireland is charged for service that is purely English. The cost of the collection of Imperial revenue in Ireland is classified as an expenditure on an "Irish service," although in the period of the separate exchequers, when the charge in Ireland was relatively much higher than in Great Britain, it was treated, not as a separate charge, but as a part of the joint expenditure. The whole of the cost of the British Army, the British Navy, and the British National Debt, is classified as expenditure on "Imperial services," whereas they ought to be classified as purely British services, because they are of no advantage to Ireland. I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that the Army and Navy are of great benefit to Ireland. I cannot see it. If Ireland ceased to exist to-morrow, the cost of these services would be just as high as it is now. The Navy is an insurance for your commerce. We have no commerce to protect; you destroyed that. And the same may be said with regard to the Army.
  When the constitution of 1782 was established and during the next ten years the taxation of Ireland did not exceed £1,000,000. It was adequate for the defrayal of her expenditure, for her public debt of about £2,000,000 remained without any alteration from the opening of the period to its close. Seven years after the conclusion of this period—at the passing of the Act of Union—the taxation of Ireland increased from £1,000,000 to £2,000,000 per annum, her expenditure from £1,000,000 to £7,000,000, her debt from £2,000,000 to £28,000,000, and her debt charge from £100,000 to £1,250,000 per annum. It seems to me that the policy of every English Government in Ireland, whether it be Liberal or Unionist, is the same, viz., to drive the people out of the country, and to demand

  925
  that those who remain should pay more in taxation. For example. In the fifteen years during which the following right hon. Gentlemen occupied the position of Chief Secretary—viz., Mr. Forster, Sir G. Trevelyan, the present Leader of the Opposition, the Member for the Dartford Division of Kent, the Member for the Montrose Burghs, the present First Lord of the Treasury, the Member for North Leeds, and the present President of the Board of Trade—one-seventh of the Irish people were forced to emigrate, while the taxation of the remainder was increased by one-seventh. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted railway, banking, and post-office statistics to show that Ireland was a great deal better off now than she has been in the past. I think financial experts could be obtained to prove the fallacy of his argument. If we take the produce of the land in Ireland for any two years and compare the prices I think that will be a far better test, because the farmers are really the taxpayers of Ireland—not the few people who have money in banks or railways. Taking the years 1881 and 1899 prices were as follows:—Wheat per 112 lbs., 9s. 5d. and 6s. l¾d.; oats, 6s. 3¾d. and 5s. 2¼d.; barley, 7s. 5¼d. and 6s. 7¾d.; hay, 2s. 6¾d. and 2s. 3¾d.; potatoes, 3s. and 2s. 9¼d.; butter, £5 8s. 4d. and £4 15s.4d.; pork, £2 12s. 3d. and £1 17s. 5¾d.; flax, per 14 lbs., 6s. 11d. and 6s. 5¼d.; wool, per 1 1b., 11d. and 6¾d.; eggs, per 120, 7s. 3d. and 6s. 7¾d.; beef, per 112 lbs., £3 4s. 0¾d. and £2 15s. 1½d.; mutton, per 112 lbs., £3 10s. 11d. and £2 19s. 6d. The same may be said with regard to cattle. Two-year-olds fetched £9 17s. in 1881, and £9 2s. 1d. in 1899; three-year-olds, £12 6d. 3d. against £11 9s. 4d.; and in regard to sheep, lambs fetched £1 6s. 7d in 1881 and £1 4s. 4d. in 1899; over twelve and under twenty-four months old fetched £2 against £1 13s. 3d.; and two-year-olds and over fetched £2 3s. 8d. against £1 15s. 2d. Then take the area of cultivated land in two different years and compare them. Taking the period from 1855 and 1900, the area under oats had decreased by 1,013,808 acres; under wheat by 391 954; under barley, by 52,633; under flax, by 49,624; under potatoes, by 328,222; and under turnips, by 69,094. The only direction in which
  926
  during that period there was an increase was in regard to meadows. Meadows increased by 850,908 acres, and anybody who knows anything about land in Ireland knows that a farmer only turns his land to meadow when he is on the downgrade. Altogether there has been a decrease of 1,008,191 acres under cultivation in 1900, as compared with 1855. The total decrease in value of farm produce from 1881 to 1896 was £19,174,853, whereas the reduction in rent in the same time was only about £1,219,707. Consequently, I say that these are strong reasons why Ireland should receive the benefits of the seventh Article of the Act of Union under which it was provided that she should receive abatements and exemptions. Coming to the question of industries, and comparing the facts with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Ireland was better off now than she has been for a good many years we find that the number of farmers in 1841 was 1,844,000 and in 1891, 986,000—a decrease in fifty years of 858,000. The number of labourers and farm-servants in 1841 was 1,326,000; in 1881 329,000—a decrease in forty years of 997,000. Then take the linen industry. The number of yards of linen made in Ireland in 1866 was 190,000,000, in 1900, 140,000,000—a decrease in thirty-four years of 50,000,000 yards. The number of workers in linen, wool, and silk decreased from 690,000 in 1841 to 130,000 in 1891—a decrease of 560,000 in fifty years. The number employed in building in 1841 was 72,000; in 1891, 56,000—a decrease of 16,000 in fifty years. The total employed in manufactures in 1841 was 989,000; in 1881, 379,000—a decrease in forty years of 610,000. What has been the effect of the Act of Union in Ireland? I say that it has been to increase taxation and diminish population. Take the poll tax—the tax for all purposes—the amount an Irishman has to pay under British government for the privilege of living in Ireland. In 1795 it was 9s. with a population of 4,500,000; in 1896 with practically the same population—4,571,000—it had risen to 49s. Local taxation from 1866 to 1895 increased by l,303,725, while the population decreased by 1,083,625. Imperial taxation in 1840 amounted to 13s. 2d. per head with a population of

  927
  8,199,853; in 1894 it had gone up to £1 13s. 4d., an increase of £1 0s. 2d., while the population had decreased by 3,599,245. Pauperism increased from 52·45 per 1,000 in 1866 to 95·08 per 1,000 in 1894, during which period the population decreased by 1,039,926. In England, on the other hand, between 1864 and 1894 pauperism decreased from 43·7 per 1,000 to 25·5 and the population increased by 8,641,469. That is, it is doubled in Ireland while it is practically halved in England. The number of emigrants from Ireland in the period from 1837 to 1900 was 4,975,058 of whom 83 per cent. were between the ages of fifteen and thirty-five. The number who died from famine between 1837 and 1886 was 1,225,000, while altogether there disappeared owing to famine, emigration, and eviction between 1837 and 1900 9,888,053. No country on the face of the earth can show such a record of the disappearance of population as that of Ireland. Lunacy increased from one in every 1,291 inhabitants in the year 1851 to one in every 222 in 1898. These are the reasons why I think Ireland is entitled to the benefits of the seventh Article of the Act of Union. Since the amalgamation of the Exchequers you have built up in this country one of the richest nations in the world, while in Ireland you have left nothing but ruin and desolation all over the land.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It might have been expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make an able speech in reply to that made by my hon. friend on the other side. We have got from the right hon. Gentleman the case of the Government against this motion, and it will be the business of Irish representatives during the remainder of the debate to answer as far as we can that case. I am bound to say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman placed as many difficulties in our way as possible. It is not the usual method of procedure in this House to fling columns of statistics at the head of the House without Members having had some opportunity of examining them, but we must take them as they are. I propose to call attention, before I deal with the merits of the case
  928
  itself, to one or two statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. He commenced by a statement that the Act of Union contemplated the abolition of the separate financial treatment of Ireland. He condemned my hon. friend the Member for North Dublin for some of the language that he used about that Act. I am not going to use any language about it, save this: that I should be curious to see the Englishman who would read through the history of that period and come away with any very high opinion, not of the Act of Union, but of the methods of this country in carrying it. I want to challenge the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Act of Union contemplated the abolition of the separate financial treatment of Ireland. Now, there is one man who must have known what was intended rather better than the right hon. Gentleman. That was Lord Castlereagh. Lord Castlereagh was one of the promoters of the Act—one of the principal promoters—and one of the most unscrupulous of the lot. Lord Castlereagh made what the intentions of the Government were at that time perfectly clear. He said in one of his speeches—
  "As for the future, it is expected that the two countries should move forward together and unite with regard to their expenses in the measure of their relative abilities."
  Later, he said—
  "By their being a provision for revision."
  That was a provision that the financial basis of the Union was to be reconsidered after a lapse of twenty years—
  "By there being a provision for revision Ireland has the utmost possible security that she cannot be taxed beyond the measure of her comparative ability, and that the ratio of her contributions must ever correspond with her relative wealth and prosperity."
  Lord Castlereagh must have known the intention of the promoters of the Act of Union much better than the right hon. Gentleman or any living statesman to-day, and what Lord Castlereagh assured Parliament was that in future Ireland was not to be taxed beyond her relative wealth and prosperity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made another extraordinary statement. He stated what was perfectly true, that England has made a good many grants to Ireland, and he gave as an instance the £750,000

  929
  which was given to Ireland under the Local Government Act of 1898. That is a rather unfortunate instance to pick out, because how did Ireland get that amount? In the first place, it was an equivalent grant to the grant made to England under the Agricultural Rates Act. When the Agricultural Rates Act was passing through the House a motion was made to apply it to Ireland. That motion was rejected by the House. A motion was made shortly afterwards—a direct motion—calling for this equivalent grant. What happened? Did Ireland get it? Not at all. The Government opposed it. The House voted it down. But we got it in the Local Government Act, not out of charity, but, because there was a necessity to buy off the opposition of the Irish landlords to local government. That grant was ostensibly given to buy off the Irish landlords' opposition, and no body ever thought of challenging it. I think that was a most unfortunate illustration for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use as to the generosity of England towards Ireland.
  With regard to the question of the separate treatment of Ireland, surely it is plain that alike in the Act of Union Itself and in the Act of 1817, when the Exchequers were amalgamated, separate treatment was clearly laid down, and as a simple matter of historic fact the separate treatment was maintained until 1853, and Ireland was up to that time exempt from income tax and from the high spirit duties. I confess that on this question I am in a somewhat difficult position. I have never before, although this question has been before the House for five years, been able to take part in the debate. I was muzzled. Historically I agree with the Nationalist party, but practically I see almost insuperable difficulties in the way of some of the proposals made for settling this question. Let me say first that the English case is an impossible case. What is the English position in this matter? Ireland says in effect that a financial wrong has been done to her ever since the Act of Union was passed, that the predominant and the rich partner has done the poorer partner a financial wrong. That is the case of Ireland, and that is the case which had
  930
  been put forward to-night. England's answer is simply to plead "not guilty," but the case between the two countries was referred by the House to a competent tribunal. The finding of that tribunal went against England.
  The Commission appointed to inquire into the case was appointed by Royal Warrant. It consisted of fifteen members, eight of whom were Englishmen. It had for its chairman a gentleman who had served in more than one Liberal Cabinet, and who had served the high office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. It numbered in its ranks financial experts—men like Lord Welby and Lord Farrer—and it examined as witnesses all the representatives of the Treasury who could be of any use in making the English case. But I confess that I am not impressed with the plea of "not guilty." England is one of the parties to the suit. She is the defendant, and she is not the first defendant who has pleaded "not guilty." I take leave to say that, while the verdict of that Commission stands as it does, until the Government reverses that verdict by a higher and more competent tribunal, the plea of "not guilty" is of no avail. It is maintained that this was a party Commission set up for a party purpose. Very well.
  We were promised a second Commission; why has it not sat? We were distinctly promised a second Commission and it has not sat at all. And why? Lord Salisbury has answered the question. He said he found so many people anxious to serve who knew nothing about the subject, and so few who knew anything about it were willing, that the Government had given it up. The Government have retired from the fray, and they are content to allow the verdict of the Royal Commission to stand, and so long as the verdict stands the plea of "not guilty" is of no avail. That plea was put in before the Royal Commission, and the Commission found against England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly attributed more importance to practical matters than to the history of this matter. I will deal with the practical results by-and-bye. The history of the question is very brief, and I take leave to say here that in no transaction of a financial character

  931
  between the two countries since the Act of Union was passed has the poorer country ever got the benefit. On the contrary, in every financial transaction which has taken place the poorer country has suffered at the hands of the richer. Take, for instance, the contribution fixed by the Act of Union. That was imposed by the stronger partner against the weaker one. The whole Irish Parliament stood up and protested against it. They prophesied that that contribution would bring disaster to their country, but they were not listened to. What was the result? The arrangement was passed, and seventeen years afterwards—three years before the allotted time had expired—the question had to be faced afresh, because of the disaster which had attended the arrangement. As Grattan pointed out at that time, what would have been simply a feather's weight to England was a millstone round the neck of Ireland. The result was that the whole question had to be faced afresh, simply because Ireland was unable to bear the burden which England had placed upon her.
  Take the period from 1817 to the present time, and I hope English Members will pay some attention to the facts I am going to state. In the year 1853 Mr. Gladstone, with a surplus of £1,000,000 sterling in his hands, deliberately introduced into Ireland for the first time the income tax. Mr. Gladstone was a great master of finance, and he said that the income tax would only be a temporary impost, and he put it as lasting for a period of seven years. He mentioned what has been called a set-off to the imposition of the income tax. He took the consolidated annuities, as they were called, which had accumulated out of the distress of the famine, amounting to £4,000,000, and he proposed to clear that debt off and relieve Ireland from that burden. That was to be the set-off against the imposition of the income tax. But the income tax in Ireland has lasted ever since. This is an instance of what I mean when I say that, in every financial deal with England, Ireland has got the worst of it. The consolidated annuities amounted to £4,000,000; but since 1853, when the income tax was imposed, as a temporary measure, England has got out of that
  932
  poor country £22,000,000 sterling in income tax for that £4,000,000. And yet you call this a set-off! Then came the equalisation of the spirit duty. As hon. Members will expect, I am not profoundly concerned in this question. I know exactly where the shoe pinches, and if the Irish people were wise upon this matter, and would take my advice, the right hon. Gentleman would have to look out for his taxation in a different way.
  Sir David Barbour is a great authority at the present moment, and I hold him in as high esteem as anyone on the Treasury Bench. Sir David Barbour differed from his colleagues upon the Commission, and he took the English as against the Irish view of the situation. He states perfectly frankly that Mr. Gladstone imposed £2,000,000 between 1853 and 1860 too much, and that the circumstances of the case were not sufficiently taken into account. Let us see what the circumstances were. This was a period five years after a great famine, such as had never visited Ireland before. It was a famine in which thousands of people died simply from hunger and starvation. This taxation was imposed when agriculture, which was then the leading industry in Ireland, was fighting the disturbance caused in Ireland by Free Trade, and it must be remembered that whatever the advantages of Free Trade have been to England—and I admit them all, for I am a Free Trader myself—nobody can pretend to believe that the advantages of Free Trade to Ireland were of the same character. Free Trade ruined Ireland's market, and in 1853 she was slowly recovering from the disturbance caused by Free Trade. This was the time chosen to fix upon the shoulders of the people of Ireland an additional £2,000,000 of taxation, in spite of the provision to the contrary contained in the Act of Union. Anyone who examines the whole case must be driven to the conclusion which Sir David Barbour has arrived at, that this impost was not just, and that at the time the whole circumstances of the country were not sufficiently considered by the English Parliament. This is another proof of my statement that wherever Ireland has a deal with England

  933
  in finance Ireland has been worsted. The first instance was in connection with the Act of Union, and the second was the set-off of £4,000,000 against £22,000,000 arranged by Mr. Gladstone. Take, as another instance, the disestablishment of the Irish Church. What happened then? I might give one fact to show how the predominant partner can do a little trick for himself. The grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum were made by the Irish Parliament, for it thought that Roman Catholics should be taught, and at the time of the Union these two grants were transferred to the Consolidated Fund. When the Established Church was disestablished these grants, which belonged to the Consolidated Fund, were placed on the Disestablished Church Fund. What England, in effect, said to Ireland was, "You may be a poor country. We do not force you to pay. Drink less and you will pay less." Some people talk about indiscriminate taxation, and it is said that we pay no more taxes in Ireland than the cottager pays in Gloucestershire. First of all in regard to this argument, allow me to point out that Ireland is not an English county. Why should Ireland be treated as an English county? No English county ever had a separate Parliament, or ever entered into a Treaty of Union with England and Scotland. The truth of the matter is that Ireland before the year 1800 was a distinct entity, and by the Treaty of Union that separate entity was maintained. What right has anybody, then, to treat Ireland as if it were Gloucestershire or Wiltshire? Such a thing is not possible, and it is not fair. My position is that, historically, I am with my hon. friends opposite, and I do not think that the case can be resisted upon historical grounds.
  Then there is the question of the set-off. I admit that this set-off is a very serious argument. What does it amount to? I will take the opinion of Sir David
  934
  Barbour again. He simply comes to the conclusion that the whole expenditure upon the civil government of Ireland is local expenditure, and that the increased expenditure in this respect balances the increased revenue derived from Ireland of which we complain. I have studied the various Reports of the Commissioners with some interest. Lord Welby and Lord Farrer did not commit themselves to any such doctrine. They are great financial experts, but they refuse to commit themselves to the doctrine laid down by Sir David Barbour. What they did say was that just as the revenue from Ireland was excessive, so the expenditure was excessive, and they must be considered together. We do not deny that. We do not deny that the expenditure in Ireland is excessive, for it is our constant complaint that it is excessive, and much of it is absolutely useless, and would be saved if Ireland was governed as it ought to be governed. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It is bribery.] Mr. Childers took a fairer view, for he endeavoured to classify the expenditure and to distinguish between Imperial and local expenditure. The remainder of his colleagues and a majority of the Commission find that the whole expenditure of Ireland as provided by the Union contract is Imperial and not local. That is the position of affairs, and I think Mr. Childers' position is an equitable and a fair one.
  There is much expenditure borne by Ireland locally which ought to be Imperial expenditure. Take the Viceregal expenses. Surely nobody would say that the Viceroy existed for the benefit of Ireland. Surely there is nobody who would commit himself to such a theory as that. Many years ago there was a Bill which passed its Second Reading in this House to abolish the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. My point is that this Bill received the support of the Government of that day, but nobody can tell where the Bill went to, for we have not heard of it

  935
  since. Nobody can fairly claim that the Viceregal expenditure in Ireland is local expenditure. It exists purely for Imperial purposes, and ought to be treated as such. Take the constabulary. I think it is perfectly clear that the Irish people should pay a reasonable portion for the police. I think they ought to pay for the police just in the same way as the English and the Scotch people pay. That would represent what was local expenditure, and the balance ought to be Imperial expenditure. The total expenditure upon police in Ireland is £1,400,000 per annum. Now if Ireland paid for the police in the same ratio as England and Scotland, the amount she would have to pay would be £600,000. It should be borne in mind that if Ireland was treated as England and Scotland are treated in the matter of police, then she would get a contribution of £300,000 a year, and her police expenditure would then be only £300,000. Therefore, I say that everything over £600,000 is Imperial and not local expenditure so far as the police are concerned. I could go on in the same direction, showing that Mr. Childers was absolutely right, and we ought to demand for Ireland treatment in accordance with English and Scotch precedents, so that Ireland would pay in the same ratio towards her local expenditure, and the remainder should be charged upon the Imperial funds. I know that it will be said that a great deal of this is barred by the Statute of Limitations. I say what the Irish people ought to do is to find out some way of having this question settled. I think the hon. Member for North Dublin acted with great wisdom in absolutely refusing to state any plan for a remedy of the grievances of Ireland. I remember hearing in the Home Rule debates, when some question of a remedy arose, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham saying, "It is not my duty to prescribe, I am not the physician in charge." Schemes
  936
  have been put forward in favour of differentiation in taxation, but I cannot support any proposals of that kind. I am sufficiently Unionist to be against all setting up of Customs as between England and Ireland; we must find some other method. We ought not to bother our heads, either, about £3,000,000 a year having been taken from Ireland for 100 years. It was quite clear that a great deal of the debt was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and we must be practical in this matter. Mr. Childers in his Report advised that the Government should set aside every year from the Imperial revenue a certain amount to be spent in works of public utility in Ireland. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever looks in that direction he will find plenty of opportunity for his benevolence. There is the burning question of land purchase—there is no better way in which something could be done to square the account than by assisting land purchase. Then there are the questions of the congeste ddistricts, of the Irish railways, and arterial drainage. Instead of troubling their minds about what they called the over-representation of Ireland, English Members would do well to give a little more attention to her over-taxation and try to solve the difficulty by endeavouring to do things for Ireland that would be of real utility.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: It cannot but be regarded as somewhat strange that the right hon. Gentleman should have reproached hon. Members on these benches for not raising this question before the House with sufficient ardour.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I did not state it as a reproach.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman congratulates us

  937
  upon not having done so. That is a complaint rather than an encouragement, which deserves the most serious consideration of these benches. What makes the statement more peculiar is that not only did we raise this debate last year but the debate then was illuminated by a speech from the right hon. Gentleman himself, which was exactly the same as he has delivered to-night. The right hon. Gentleman almost made it a complaint that although the coal tax did not affect Ireland Irish Members opposed it; has the right hon. Gentleman so little appreciated the whole history of Ireland as not to know that we have never put material interests above what we regard as high political convictions? It would be untrue to the whole history of our country if, though we lost nothing by a tax, we did not oppose it when it was raised for the purpose of carrying on a war which we consider unjust and dishonest. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has been Chief Secretary in his time, should lay down the proposition that it is vain for any body of Irish representatives to expect any relief of this taxation grievance unless they gave in return their support to the Government of the day.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, no, that is certainly not what I meant to convey. I was referring to the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the particular proposal of the coal tax, which was at that time under discussion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Surely at this time of day it is absurd for any British Minister to suppose that we shall put what we all regard as the national claim of the country below any particular action whatever or under the control of a British Minister. There is no proposal of taxation which the right hon. Gentlemen would be ready to offer Ireland for which they would sacrifice
  938
  their national aspirations. Anyone who will read the Act of Union will see that a separate fiscal system was intended for Ireland after the passing of the Act of Union. It must of necessity have been the case that some such arrangement should be made. Ireland then was a poor country compared with England, and it was small and retrogressive, and when a poor and unprogressive country was to be united with a rich and progressive country surely every person in authority in Ireland would be bound to take precautions that the country should be safeguarded by its having a separate fiscal system. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should lay such stress on the fact that we base our case on the Act of Union. Here the sovereign party of Ireland was merging itself with a sovereign party of England, a stronger country, and in order to make the contract, say, a great Act called the Act of Union was made between the two countries. Now, is it in the power of the strong country to break a contract in its own favour as against a weak country? We could tear up the Act of Union to-morrow without doing any particular wrong, but England is bound not to weaken in any way whatever the Act of Union to the detriment of the weaker country. This question is not at an end, it is only really commenced, and the right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind that he has to deal on this question to-day with a practically united Ireland. And as time goes on that unity is not likely to be disturbed, because this is an evil which time will not heal. It has been pointed out that since 1894, when it was proved that we were over-taxed to the extent of £2,750,000, taxation has increased in Ireland. What is the answer of the right hon. Gentleman? If I did not think him serious almost to solemnity I should have thought he was laughing at us. He says, as taxation in Ireland has increased, the grievances of that country have diminished—a most excellent argument, following that of the hon. Gentleman who introduced this motion, to recommend to the rulers of Italy and the Sultan of Turkey, because what it means is this, that we had a comparatively big grievance in 1894, when the taxation

  939
  was only £7,000,000, we had a less grievance in 1900, when our taxation was £9,500,000, and that if the right hon. Gentleman with the assistance of the Colonial Secretary will only increase the burden of Ireland by new wars the taxation of the country may rise to £15,000,000 and she will have no grievance at all.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We shall all be Liberal Imperialists then.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is a reductio ad absurdum. although in a measure the right hon. Gentleman might be right, because with the increase of taxation and the diminution of population it is quite possible that by the time the right hon. Gentleman had got his £15,000,000 the Irish grievances would have disappeared because Ireland was no more, an argument of the right hon. Gentleman which I find it difficult to take seriously. It is like the metaphorical argument of the First Lord of the Treasury that the whisky tax means nothing because it is voluntary. The right hon. Gentleman says we speak of expenditure on Imperial lines and of taxation on Separatist lines. We are perfectly entitled to do so, Except the item of education, there is none of this expenditure in Ireland that can be regarded as other than Imperial and injurious. The hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green made a statement which nobody can deny when he said that this so-called contribution to the expenditure of Ireland had not done a farthing of good to those 2,000,000 of people in Ireland living on small patches of land. Why do you call it a set-off? I call it Imperial expenditure, made by Imperial authority—contributed and wasted by Imperial authority. Is there a man in the House who will get up and say that Ireland is not one of the most flagrantly, wastefully, expensively, and shamelessly misgoverned countries in the world? We have twelve judges—half would be enough. At this moment in England some of the hardest worked
  940
  men are the judges on the bench; the greatest loafer in Ireland, except the police-constable, is the Irish judge. Let me pause a moment on the policeman. He is the most extraordinary peace officer in the world. He carries a rifle and a bayonet, a revolver, and, as some of my hon. friends can testify, a baton; he gets after six months probation 21s. a week; the agricultural labourer around him, his brother possibly, gets 9s. While the brother lives in a cabin, he gets all the comfort of living in the police barracks, which, with the gaols, the workhouses, and the lunatic asylums, are the best buildings in the country, and at forty-five he gets a pension. The right hon. Gentleman talks of the money in the savings banks. I will tell him where that comes from. He gets it to a large extent from the police of Ireland. The police are almost the only comfortable class in the country, and while you insist upon keeping in Ireland an armed, overpaid and over-pensioned force of soldiers, for they are nothing less, for the purpose of keeping down the Irish people and defeating their political and national aspirations, you turn round and say to us, "You ought to be grateful to us for paying back so much to you in this way." Ireland is in this extraordinary position, that she is asked to pay for the heavy golden chains cast upon her.
  There is another thing in regard to the administration of Ireland that I wish to bring before the House. I have done it before, and I daresay I will have to do it very often again. It is a comparison between the Imperial set-off and the budget of an Irish household, and I think the House will find the contrast extremely instructive. The law officers receive £7,000; Crown solicitors, £16,722; sessional Crown solicitors £2,725; prosecutors, £17,000; fees to law officers, £1,000; fees to counsel, £8,000; general law expenses, £6,100; defence of public officials, £400; assize expenses, £11,520; total, £70,467. These are the law charges for this year exclusive, of course, of the salaries of the judges. There are, however, other two items; judges' lodgings, £2,700, and buildings, furniture, fuel and light, £5,454. I ask the House to dwell on the cost of fuel and lights

  941
  for a reason which I will presently show. Now let us take the budget of a household in the congested districts. Receipts:—Sale of heifer or bullock £4 10s., sale of five sheep £3 15s., sale of pig £3 10s., sale of eggs £2 4s. 4d., sale of flannel or tweed £3 10s., sale of corn 15s., sale of fish £8., knitting, etc., £1: total £27 4s. 4d. Expenditure:—Rent £2, county cess 5s. 8d., tea £5 17s., and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get some of that; sugar £1 19s., and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get some of that; meal £7 14s., he will get none of that, for he dare not yet tax meal or corn; flour, £1 17s. 6d.; clothing, £6 8s. 6d.; tobacco, £2 7s. 8d., and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get some of that; one young pig, l5s.; implements, etc., £1 4s. 9d. making altogether an expenditure of £30 9s. 1d. I dwelt on the item of lights for this reason. I lived on a farm for a short time as a boy, and one of the things I remember still with horror was that the wife of a peasant died in the dark because she had not enough money to buy a candle. Is it not a mockery and an insult to the people of Ireland that the right hon. Gentleman should put this extravagant and bloated administration on Ireland, for the purposes of corruption, and as a set-off against our claims to relief. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer smiled when I used the word corruption. I repeat the word corruption, and say that every public duty in Ireland is overpaid for the direct purpose of buying the intellect of Ireland to the side of the Union.
  Now I come for a moment to the condition of Ireland. I must say that when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking on this question it gave me a feeling of very profound pain. I an sure I believe the right hon. Gentleman to be a most honest and upright politician, and that he believes every word he says; but when he gets up in his place and talks of Ireland being prosperous in the face of what we know, in the face of what we see, in the face of what is within the circle of our own family relationships, why, that is one of those terrible revelations of the impassable gulf which lies between Englishmen and Irishmen upon Irish questions. What is the test of the prosperity of a
  942
  country? The right hon. Gentleman gave us railway receipts and savings banks deposits. In regard to the savings banks it must be remembered that these now take the place of the old stocking, and as a matter of fact the increase of the savings banks deposits simply means a change in the habits of the people, and is largely made up out of the savings which are made from the large salaries given to certain classes by the British Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman or will he not take population as the test of the prosperity of a country? Everybody knows that one of the glories of England is the increase of its population. But in Ireland, have we increased our population? The right hon. Gentleman knows that ever since the Financial Relations Commission reported on this question we have lost a quarter of a million of our population, and that since the death of Mr. Parnell and the dissensions which gathered round his name, and which I am thankful to say are for ever buried and lost sight of, we have lost half a million of our population. These figures in regard to the population of Ireland are too terrible. In 1841 our population numbered 8,177,124, in April of this year it was 4,456,546. Is there any country in any period of the world's history which can show a devastation, a depopulation, in equal proportions as that? Why, Sir, in Ireland we have just about the same population as London. I call the attention of the Hon. Member for South Belfast to the fact that, in spite of the enormous increase in the population of Belfast, there has been a decrease in the population of the province of Ulster. The decrease in the province of Leinster is 41,297; in Munster 98,568, in Connaught 69,876, and in the favoured province of Ulster, 68,463.
  What becomes of the population? Is emigration from a country a sign of prosperity, especially in a country like that of Ireland, where the devotion of the people to their native soil amounts to a passion almost terrible in its intensity? Out of a population of 8,197,000 in 1841 it is estimated that only four and a half millions are now left in Ireland. "Fully 2,000 a week," says the chronicler, "have been departing from the port of Queenstown alone for the United States

  943
  for weeks past, and before the season is spent the big exodus that is flowing rapidly will only leave behind in Ireland the remains of a great race." That is a very tragic and terrible picture which I recommend to the right hon. Gentleman for his best reflections. This diminution of the population of Ireland can be directly traced to the evil and foolish legislation of this House and the destruction of the Irish Parliament. I beg to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that in 1900 the emigration from Ireland amounted to 47,107, or an increase of 3,347 over that of 1899. My hon. friend called attention to that disastrous epoch in the history of Ireland in 1853, when Mr. Gladstone introduced changes in the fiscal relations of that country. My explanation of that extraordinary departure from sound finance on the part of Mr. Gladstone is that it is to be attributed to one of the faults and flaws of his great intellect. He was in the habit of concentrating his attention on a particular question which interested him, and he was blind and deaf at the time to every other question. I remember that in the first speech I made in this House in 1880 I called his attention to the fact that besides the oppression of the Christians in the East there was a little oppression of the Christians in the West in the shape of rack-rents in Ireland; and the right hon. Gentleman had to confess that he was ignorant of the facts as to the case in Ireland. Ireland had just escaped from the famine, and I will read the returns of emigration for the three years preceding 1853 and the subsequent year. In 1851 the number of emigrants from Ireland from 1st May was 152,060; in 1852, 190,322; in 1853, 173,148; and in 1854, 140,555. At the moment that Ireland was bleeding at every pore that was the moment chosen to impose a new system of taxation upon her. But where do these Irish emigrants go? That, I think, is a matter which British statesmen may very well consider from the point of view of British interests. Last year, out of 50,000 people who left Ireland, 126 went to New Zealand, 834 to Australia, 472 to Canada now bubbling over with Imperial enthusiasm, and to the United States 37,765, or 83·4 per cent. of the whole. I take another test.
  944
  79·7 per cent. of the men were labourers, and 81·0 per cent. of the women were servants, and we know what that means. When I heard my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean talking the other day about the women in the Potteries who suffered from lead-poisoning, and that their average life was twenty-three years and that the average life of the dockers in London was 41·43 years, I thought that horrible enough; but the horror was increased when I remembered that 70 or 80 per cent. of these drudges and white slaves of industrial England came from Ireland. The Chief Secretary, I dare say, has read a recent speech of the Lord Lieutenant on the condition of Ireland. This is what his Lordship stated—
  "I do not wish to remind you of what, I am afraid, you all know, that we in England in the past times have been largely responsible for the present state of things. It would be folly to ignore and mean to refuse to acknowledge it. But the fact is that with industries abolished, with mills lying idle and in ruins, and with all that destruction of vital energy in the towns, brought about by many years of misgovernment in the past, there is really nothing to draw your surplus population from these congested districts."
  That is a picture of the condition of Ireland, which is in very sharp contrast to that of the prosperity of the country drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may say that the Lord Lieutenant's remedy for the misery of the congested districts of Ireland is to take the population from the healthy air of the fields, and put them into the slums and lanes of the ruined towns of Ireland! I take another test of economic condition—that of pauperism. In 1864, with a population of 5,640,527, there were 264,509 indoor and 31,266 outdoor paupers, or a total of 295,835. In 1894, with a population of 4,600,599, there were 437,412 indoor and outdoor paupers; in 1898, with a population of 4,543,782, the paupers numbered 526,057; while in 1900, with a population of 4,500,764, they numbered 486,811. Why, that is the most ghastly picture of the condition of any country in the whole world—worse than even the worst parts of Turkey.
  The First Lord of the Treasury, when he was Chief Secretary, used to utter

  945
  reproaches about the improvident early marriages in Ireland, which came badly from a bachelor. Let me tell him that his example is now being followed in Ireland, and that the marriage rate is going down. Here are the statistics of the marriage rate for different countries in Europe. Hungary stands at the head with ninety-one per 1,000; Germany, fifty-three; England, fifty-two; Austria, fifty-one; Italy, fifty; France forty-nine; Sweden, thirty-seven; Ireland, twenty-three! I think that the right hon. Gentleman's precepts and his taxation of the people of Ireland have had a result that even the wisest of British statesmen could scarcely have wished. Let me conclude with this observation. Mr. Childers, of whose memory every Irishman has grateful recollections, was mainly responsible for the Report of the Financial Relations Commission. I recently read his biography by his son, and in it there are many touching allusions. He married as a young man of twenty-one, and after many years of wedded happiness his wife died suddenly. He woke in the morning to find her a corpse by his side. I venture to use that episode in the life of the late Mr. Childers. I think that except the massacre of the Armenians in the face of a silent and cowardly Europe, there is no more tragic spectacle in the world to-day than this great country seeing this poor country of Ireland wasting and decaying, yet proclaiming that all is well in Ireland, while Irishmen know that their country is fast descending into bankruptcy and ruin.
  MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: The hon. Member who has just sat down has succeeded in making out a case because he treated Ireland, so far as statistics are concerned, on an entirely different footing from that of every other country in Europe. The House has just heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Schedule D of the income tax in Ireland is steadily producing a greater revenue, that the traffic receipts on the railways are steadily increasing, and that the Post Office Savings Bank shows a continually increasing accumulation, although we are told that
  946
  these increases in the deposits of the Savings Banks do nothing but show the natural pauperism of the Irish people. I cannot conceive on what principle English and Scottish Members should be asked to discuss statistics relating to Ireland in a different way from what they are discussed in relation to other countries. No contradiction has been given to the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, though he might deplore the comparative poverty of Ireland, there is great reason to hope that slowly, but steadily, even in Ireland prosperity and wealth are increasing. [Cries from the Irish benches of "Oh, oh."] I have been very much struck with this fact in the debate. The hon. Member for South Tyrone agreed with the mover of the resolution that it was wiser not to suggest any remedy for the inequality and the injustice.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That was not the case with me. I adopted Mr. Childers' suggestion.
  MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I was complimenting my hon. friend on a wisdom which he now does not show. At all events my hon. friend found that it was not easy to suggest a remedy, and he does not agree that the remedy suggested by Mr. Childers was a wise, suitable, and possible remedy. I will tell my hon. friend why it is so difficult to find a remedy. The real difficulty they have in finding a remedy is that they cannot put their hands on the grievance. [Cries from the Irish benches of "Oh, oh."] The debate has gone on for a long time, but I have not yet heard it suggested that a single Irishman is unjustly treated compared with an Englishman or a Scotchman. If we compare the taxation of Irishmen with that of Englishmen, it is found that the Irishmen pay per head £1 8s. 10d. annually in taxes, and that Englishmen and Scotsmen pay £2 4s, 10d. Irishmen living in Ireland are not only taxed more lightly per head than Englishmen or Scotchmen, but they live in a country where there are fewer taxes. [An HON. MEMBER: What are they?] If an Irishman came

  947
  to live in this country he would have to pay house duty, and there are some five or six different articles which are taxed in this country, but which are not taxed in Ireland. Mr. Gladstone has been severely criticised for introducing the income tax into Ireland; but I would remind hon. Members opposite who complain of this that the poor people of Ireland do not pay the income tax. What has the income tax got to do with them? In my opinion any Irishman who has made a fortune ought to pay the income tax just the same as the people in England and Scotland who are in the same position. Therefore it is not true that by introducing the income tax in Ireland Mr. Gladstone was placing a burden on the poor people.
  With regard to the whisky tax Mr. Gladstone's contention was that he did not see why a glass of whisky should be purchased cheaper in Ireland than in England and Scotland. If hon. Members opposite wish to establish their case they will have to bring forward an Irishman in the flesh and compare him with some other Englishman and show us where the Irishman is unjustly taxed. I am not so much struck with the wisdom of the report of the Commission as some hon. Gentlemen appear to be. The Commission has given considerable attention to the subject, but, after searching into the matter myself, I find that the only person who suffers is what they describe as the Irish financial entity. I do not believe in that. This financial entity is a creature of the mind, and when you come to deal with this case you will find that it is a thing which cannot be grasped. You will have to deal with individuals, and in dealing with the Irish nation it must be remembered that a very large number of Irishmen live in England and Scotland. My hon. friend behind me maintains that Sir David Barbour found that a set-off existed which balanced the inequality of the taxation. This is what he said—
  "On the assumption that the taxable capacity of Ireland is one-twentieth of that of the United Kingdom, Ireland paid in 1893–94 about 2¾ millions sterling more than she would have paid if the total revenue taken from her had been in proportion to her taxable capacity. In the same year there was expended for Irish purposes about 3¾ millions sterling in excess of
  948
  what would have been admissible if the expenditure for Irish purposes had also been in proportion to Ireland's taxable capacity. On the whole account Ireland may be said to have been a gainer in 1893–94 of about one million sterling, or that, in other words, after meeting the expenditure for Irish purposes, she contributed about one million less towards Imperial purposes than she would have done if her contribution for Imperial purposes had been in the proportion of her 'taxable capacity.'"
  That is what my hon. friend calls fair, but it is not the English or Scotch method of balancing accounts. The question has been asked—Is it right that Ireland should contribute to the Imperial services. [Nationalist cries of "No."] I am not going into the history of this matter. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that it is a monstrous thing that Ireland should be asked to contribute anything towards our Imperial expenses. Ireland gains by the expenditure upon our Imperial services, but what hon. Members desire is to be quit of us altogether, and that is something which cannot possibly be granted, and it is a contention which cannot seriously be put forward when we are discussing the financial relations between the two countries. The partnership at present is between a rich and powerful country and a poor and weak one. A poor partner who comes into a wealthy concern must gain by it. The funds of the United Kingdom are now being used for the benefit of the people of Ireland. As for the Act of Union, Fit is an Act of Parliament, and it has to be interpreted like any other Act. That Act contemplated a joint purse and ultimately a system of equal taxes on similar goods. Whether you look upon the words of the Act of Parliament or upon the existing condition of things you must act justly between man and man. To create some national entity and legislate with reference to it would be to introduce an injustice between one man and another. According, however, to the very Report, the support of which has been claimed for the Irish case, Ireland was in 1893–4 saved about a million sterling by the existing system, as compared with the amount which she would have had to pay if she had been called upon to contribute to Imperial purposes in proportion to her taxable capacity. In the partnership between a rich and powerful country

  949
  and a poor and weak country the poor partner gains in credit, if in nothing else. [Cries of "No."] Has not the British Government been turning thousands of Irish tenants into proprietors by the use of British credit? Could that have been done with Irish credit alone?
  MR. FLAVIN: At whose expense?
  MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: Hon Members interpret the Act of Union as a contract binding on the British Parliament, but not binding on themselves. It is clear that what we have to do is to induce the people throughout the kingdom to feel that they are citizens of one great nation. I hope as time goes on that Irishmen will take their proper part as citizens of this great Empire and that they will come to believe that England is something better than a great and powerful tyrant trying to tax the skin off Irishmen's backs. I think hon. Members opposite have failed entirely to prove their case for introducing different taxation for the inhabitants of the three countries. If Irishmen can bring forward a real Irish grievance which really presses hard upon Irishmen I am sure hon. Members of this House will join together to remove it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that a celebrated Irish politician once described the supporters of the Union as a curious combination of Scotch logic and English stupidity. As the First Lord of the Treasury was not going to make a speech he would do his best to make one for him.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury had no doubt heard one of his hon. friends speak of the treaty obligations imposed by the Act of Union between the Parliaments of England and Ireland, leaving aside altogether the various allegations of fraud which were more or less admitted. England had robbed Ireland by violation of the treaty obligations in the Union. Pitt, when asked what security there would be when the Parliament of Ireland ceased to exist that the British Government would not violate its pledges, took the
  950
  high moral tone and said the honour and integrity of the people could be relied upon. Yet in the same month he endeavoured to bribe the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons with a peerage to stifle debate. Ireland had been ruthlessly and mercilessly robbed by England, and when Pitt said England did not seek the Union from pecuniary motives he said what he knew was untrue. Whenever he spoke on Irish financial questions he always felt a great difficulty and he knew that every Member of the Nationalist party greatly regretted the absence of Mr. Sexton who had brought this question to a place of prominence before the public mind. He felt sure that he was only expressing the desires of his colleagues when he said that he trusted Mr. Sexton might be induced to come back amongst them. It would be no exaggeration to say that all their Irish grievances were simply a question of finance. It was a financial question which caused the revolution of 1782 and it was a financial question which carried the Union and annihilated the Irish Parliament. What were the promises held out by statesmen in reference to the Union? Pitt stated that the Government did not seek the Union from a pecuniary point of view, but he believed that when Pitt made that statement he was saying something which he knew to be untrue. Pitt also said that there was no ground for supposing that England would tax Ireland more heavily, but during the sixteen years from 1800 to 1816 the revenue which came out of Ireland was three times more than the revenue that was obtained annually during the sixteen years before the Union. The enormous sum of something like £10,000 was taken in order to bribe the Irish Parliament. Pitt did not like to do dirty work, but he had an obedient servant in Lord Castlereagh. Lord Castlereagh was a very charming person and had delightfully finished methods, but he lied. He said Ireland under the Union would not incur a greater annual expenditure than four and a half millions in time of war and two and a half millions in time of peace. What Ireland was paying towards the Boer war would make Castlereagh blush. Mr. Lecky had said the word

  951
  "honour" as applied to Castlereagh and Pitt had no meaning whatever. All the promises and assurances made by English statesmen both in Ireland and England at the time of the Union remained unfulfilled and had been directly contradicted by the present state of affairs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer looked marvellously virtuous, and seemed astonished at his own moderation, when he said that Ireland would only be charged £400,000 for the Boer war.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: This year.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he understood that, but it was a matter of principle, and if the representatives of the Irish people were entrusted with the control of the purse of Ireland, which was opposed to the war, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have got for the Boer war 400,000 halfpence. The right hon. Gentleman also defended the introduction of the income tax into Ireland, and the equalisation of the spirit, tea, and tobacco duties, but he ought to remember that these taxes were resisted by two-thirds of the Irish Members. When Mr. Gladstone introduced the income tax in 1853 no fewer than seventy-four Members voted against it. He had endeavoured to get memoranda of British Ministers at the time of the Union, and he had discovered at least one extract which showed that the object of the Union was the robbery of Ireland. In 1800 a man named Cooke, who was employed to bribe the Irish Members and also sat for a pocket borough in the English House of Commons, presented to Lord Castlereagh a document which showed that the reason why the Union should be carried out was that the great and growing prosperity of the country made the country dangerous to England. For a hundred years before the Union was carried, the Union was advocated in order to lighten the burdens of England by throwing the taxes on the Irish people, and they had done it with a vengeance. This House and the country, so far as Ireland was concerned, were totally inaccessible to shame. Nothing was done for Ireland except as the result of agitation, and that became dangerous, and possibly mis-
  952
  chievous and injurious in its effects. The Union was a mere financial arrangement by which Ireland should be taxed, not for her own benefit, but for the benefit of England. It was to make Ireland subservient to the English people. They had succeeded, perhaps, for the moment. They tried the same thing in America, but they did not succeed. They were trying the same thing in South Africa, but they had not succeeded yet. Whatever the future of Ireland might be, he must say that he never, when he went into the congested districts, saw a man whose features bore the impress of poverty, hunger, and want without regarding him as the creature of British misrule. They had robbed in Ireland in great style; the Union was one between the shark and its prey. These were the words of a great Member of Parliament and statesman, but they had all been swept away by the verdict of a superior person, who declared in an article that Ireland had no grievance at all. No doubt it was for that deliverance that this superior person had received his promotion, and was now Lord Milner. The fact was the Union was a fraud, and every shilling voted against the wish of the Irish Members was highway robbery.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the debate showed that the attempt to prove that Ireland had no grievance was a failure. The Royal Commission, after hearing the evidence of expert witnesses representing the Treasury and British interests venerally, made a Report in 1895, which no Government had sought to displace since. It was sometimes said that they ought not to attach undue importance to that Commission, because a certain number of the Commissioners were in favour of the Home Rule proposals of Mr. Gladstone. He contended that this very statement entitled the findings of the Commission to all the greater respect. He said so because it was a Commission appointed ad rem, in order that the Home Rule proposals, so far as finance was concerned, might be such as to command confidence, and in order that Ireland, while contributing a fair share of the Imperial expenditure, should not be asked to pay beyond her means and capacity. In the matter of finance, the British Government had

  953
  not acted towards Ireland with any sense of fair play, or in accordance with the pledges which were given before they stole the Irish Parliament.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 224. (Division List No. 341.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon Charles H.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Malley, William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'ns'a

  O'Mara, James

  Boland, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Burt, Thomas

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rea, Russell

  Carew, James Laurence

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n

  Reddy, M.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond William (Clare)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Rigg, Richard

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Cann, James

  Russell, T. W.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dillon, John

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark.)

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duncan, J. (Hastings)

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

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n N

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tully, Jasper

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Young, Samuel

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Doughty, George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chapman, Edward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edw.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finch, George H.

  Balfour. Maj K R. (Christchurch

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Colston, Charles Edward H. A.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fison, Frederick William

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

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Forster, Henry William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Bigwood, James

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bill, Charles

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Cubitt, Hn. Henry

  Gordon, Maj. Evan (T'r Hamlets

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Butcher, John George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Green, Walford D. Wednesbury

  Cavendish, W. C. W, (Derbyshire

  Dewar, T'r Hamlets S. Geo.

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Gretton, John

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Round, James

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Groves, James Grimble

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfrieshire

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingahm

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frekd. G.

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Helder, Augustus

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Henderson, Alaxander

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Stroyan, John

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthm'w

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Howard, John (Kent Faversh'm

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Mount, Wm. Arthur

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Myers, William Henry

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lawson, John Grant

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Percy, Earl

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Randies, John S.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire N.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Renwick, George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Younger, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Robinson, Brooke

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  MEAT MARKING (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley) in the Chair.]
  LORD HUGH CECILmoved to report progress.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the noble Lord was aware that the Bill was a Protectionist Bill.
  MR. FLAVINasked if the noble Lord was aware that the Bill did not refer to the Hotel Cecil.
  Committee reported progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  ULSTER CUSTOM BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. FLAVINobjected.
  MR. LONSDALEhoped that the hon. Member would allow the Bill to proceed.
  MR. FLAVINasked why the hon. Member did not use his influence with his colleagues to permit Irish Bills to go through.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.