Commons Sitting of 20 June 1901

TOOK THE OATH.
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—

  Elland Gas Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  SHIPLEY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  BIDEFORD AND CLOVELLY RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  KING'S NORTON AND NORTHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  POULTON-LE-FYLDE GAS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
  Mr. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Friday the 28th day of June at Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:—Metropolitan Common Scheme (Ham) Provisional Order Bill; Neath Harbour Bill; Thames Deep Water Dock Bill, without amendment.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from Cambridge, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions against; from Pendleton and West Wiltshire; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour; from Kettering (two); Stepney, and Seaton; to lie upon the Table.

  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Women's Protestant Union, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 323 (St. Helena, Annual Report for 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 31st March, 1901, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Jane Horner, a Convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the Elizabeth Fry Refuge, Hackney [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Middlesex, dividing the parish of Harrow-on-the-Hill into convenient Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Account presented, of the Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ender the 31st March, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 218.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2432 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 555 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (INTELLIGENCE DIVISION).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899, the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1894, and other Acts for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Private Bill Legislation.—Return relative thereto [ordered 18th April; The Chairman of Ways and Means]: to be printed. [No. 219.]
  2. Loan Societies.—Abstract of Accounts of Loan Societies in England and Wales to 31st December, 1899, furnished to the Central Office for the Registry of Friendly Societies [by Act].

  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS, 1896–1900.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Assessments to the Income Tax for the year ending 5th April, 1896 (in the same classes and in the same amounts as stated in, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper No. 216, of Session 1895."
  "And similar Returns for the years 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900."—(Mr. Bartley.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL. ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals, contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL, ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals

  887
  contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  PROSECUTIONS (FISHERY LAWS) (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "for years 1890 to 1900, inclusive, ending the 31st day of

  Date of alleged offence.

  Name; etc., of person charged.

  Name, letters, and number of beam or otter trawl vessel.

  Where alleged offence committed.

  Statute of bye law contravened.

  Place and date of trial.

  Result of trial.

  By whom detected.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—CONCENTRATION CAMPS.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause Returns to be published weekly showing the number and the rate of mortality of the white men, women, and children respectively, in each of the concentration camps in South Africa; and, so far as practicable, similar Returns for the native camps.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I will ask Lord Kitchener to give such information as he can. It will probably be more convenient to give the figures monthly.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to state how many deaths of men, women, and children
  December, of Prosecutions undertaken in Ireland of Masters of beam or otter trawl vessels for alleged infringement of the bye-laws of the Fishery Board or the provisions of the Acts prohibiting beam or otter trawling within certain waters round the coasts of Ireland, in the following form, with Summary:—
  respectively occurred in the concentration camps in Natal, Orange River Colony, and Cape Colony respectively during the months of April and May respectively; what change, if any, has been made in the dietary; and what improvement, if any, has been made in the sanitary arrangements and medical provision for the sick.
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot give the figures separately for April, but I have already given the House the total deaths to the end of April. Those for May are as follows:—Orange River Colony, including Kimberley and Aliwal North, 20 men, 57 women, and 123 children, out of a total of over 25,000 souls. Cape Colony Camp at Port Elizabeth, nil, out of 386 souls. Natal, 3 men, 1 woman, 8 children, out of a total of over 2,500 souls. I have already given information as to the dietary, sanitary arrangements, and medical provision to the House, and all proper attention is being given to these matters.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any intention to improve the dietary and medical arrangements?
  MR. BRODRICK; NO, Sir; the dietary as given up to now has been pronounced sufficient by those in authority in South Africa, including the medical authorities, and it is not proposed to increase it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of a special diet for the very young children?
  MR. BRODRICK: As far as possible a special diet is given to young children, but where great numbers are massed together it is not, and will not, always be possible to give fresh milk.

  BOERS IN THE FIELD.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any recent despatch has been received from Lord Kitchener estimating the number of Boers still in the field; if so, will he lay it upon the Table; if not, upon what data are they estimated by the Government to consist of 17,000 men.
  MR. BRODRICK: The information is based on the Field Intelligence Reports, which are never published.

  TREATMENT OF INVALID SOLDIERS.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers and men invalided home by medical boards at Johannesburg and Pretoria have to pass additional boards at Bloemfontein and Cape Town; and if invalided home from the front in order to undergo operations in England are occasionally detained for weeks at Wynberg Hospital, near Cape Town; whether, in the interest of the patient and the taxpayers, orders could be given that all patients about to undergo operations in England should be sent home with as little delay as possible; and whether, in all cases, the number of medical boards before which invalided officers and men have to pass prior to being sent home can be reduced.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware that persons invalided home are examined by more than one board, except in cases where the patient on his way to the coast develops further illness, and has to undergo examination with a view to the extension of his sick-leave. The information at my disposal tends to show that patients are not detained unnecessarily at Wynberg. I will, however, draw the attention of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa to the points raised by the question with a view to his taking such action as may be deemed necessary.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Did Lord Milner have to pass an examination by this board before he came home on leave?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  REVISION OF COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCES.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any progress has been made with the revision of sentences pronounced by courts of inquiry in South Africa on soldiers charged with misconduct in the face of the enemy, and who are now undergoing their sentences in convict and other prisons in this country; whether a case has been brought under his notice in which the prisoner and members of his family fought bravely in Egypt as well as in South Africa; and whether he will see that no time is lost in deciding upon this and similar cases.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Commander-in-Chief is carefully going through the sentences by courts-martial in South Africa. The case which the hon. Member brought to notice will be considered, but the facts are not entirely in accord with those which he forwarded to me.

  BOER PRISONERS—INTERNMENT IN INDIA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State or India whether his attention has been called to the latest Report of the Army Medical Department, which stated of Ahmednagar that the general health was bad during the greater part of the

  891
  year, that plague was epidemic from July to December, and enteric fever was most prevalent in May, June, and July; and, seeing that the principal medical adviser stated that the sanitary conditions were bad, the barrack accommodation and the conservancy establishment insufficient, and the water supply unsatisfactory, whether he will recommend the removal of the Boer prisoners to a more healthy locality.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I have already stated in the House that there is no intention of removing the Boer prisoners. The Report quoted by the hon. Member for East Clare mainly refers to the cantonment where British troops were located during the year 1899, which was exceptionally unhealthy owing to causes which have now ceased to exist; and the defects mentioned by the principal medical officer have been remedied. As I have said before, the station is considered to be one of the healthiest and most agreeable in India. The prisoners' camp was recently visited by the Governor of Bombay, who reported that the prisoners appeared "to be thoroughly contented and well cared for."

  MAILS FOR TROOPS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the numerous complaints which have recently been made with reference to the non-delivery of letters to the troops in South Africa; and whether the difficulties of communication could be so far overcome as to ensure greater regularity in the postal service.
  MR. PIRIE: Has there not been an exceptional amount of postal matter to be dealt with?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The Postmaster General is aware that cases still arise in which letters addressed to the troops in South Africa do not reach the persons for whom they are meant; but
  892
  the number of complaints of such cases is decreasing. The authorities in South Africa appear to appreciate fully the unsatisfactory conditions under which the postal service for the troops is carried on in a state of war, but they are understood to be making every possible effort to improve the conditions. In reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, I may say that the amount of postal matter to be dealt with has been enormous.

  RESERVISTS AT ALDERSHOT.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can explain why Reservists who returned to this country from South Africa last July are still kept at Aldershot, thus throwing on their employers the responsibility of continuing to support their wives and families in fulfilment of promises made when the Reserves were called out.
  MR. BRODRICK: The men who are retained at Aldershot are those whose services cannot be spared. With the large number of young soldiers at home, it is absolutely necessary to keep a proportion of older men with the regiments and at the depots. The local military authorities have been given discretionary power to allow any men whose services can be dispensed with to return to their homes.

  ARMY REFORM SCHEME.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, before the War Office Vote is put down to be taken in Committee of Supply, he will furnish a Return showing the number and estimated cost of the staff proposed as the establishment for the United Kingdom under the scheme of Army reform, as compared with the number and cost of that establishment on 31st March last, distinguishing the number and cost of the headquarter staff at the War Office from that of Army corps areas.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not proposed to make appointments to any of the Army corps before October 1st, and until all the arrangements are completed, in-

  893
  cluding those for various measures of decentralisation which I intend to propose, I cannot give the Return desired.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: May I ask whether, before the War Office Vote is taken, the House will be told to what extent the staff is to be increased, in view of the statement on the Estimates that the extent of the increase had not been settled.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not proposed to increase the strength of the staff of the War Office. As to the remainder, I may say that our labours are extremely heavy, and I may not be able to bring all these matters to a settlement before the War Office Vote.

  AUTOMATIC RIFLES.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an automatic rifle has been issued for experimental purposes; if so, will he state the name of this rifle, and how many have been issued, and will he afford Members of Parliament an opportunity of inspecting the new arm.
  MR. BRODRICK: The reply to the question is in the negative.

  SOLDIERS' LIABILITY FOR PARENTS' MAINTENANCE.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an application on behalf of Catherine Guilfoile, a widow aged seventy years, came before the Mountmellick Board of Guardians at their meeting on the 1st instant, and that this woman has two sons who hitherto maintained her, and are at present in the service of the King, one in South Africa and the other in Dover; and, seeing that the application was supported by the chairman of the county council, who is also guardian of the division in which Catherine Guilfoile resides, and who recommended that she be granted 2s. 6d. per week, whether he can take any steps by which this woman may be prevented from becoming chargeable to local rates.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State for War has no power to compel the sons to give any portion of their pay
  894
  to their mother. An application by the local authorities to the officers commanding the regiments concerned to take measures to induce the sons to contribute to their mother's support would doubtless receive attention.

  RECRUITING IN IRELAND.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the numbers of enlistments in Ireland in the Regular Army and the Militia respectively during the first four months of each of the years 1896, 1897, and 1898.
  MR. BRODRICK: The figures are as follows:—1896: Army, 1,037; Militia, 3,145. 1897: Army, 1,184; Militia, 3,228. 1898: Army, 1,276; Militia, 3,035.

  VOLUNTEER EQUIPMENT.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that K company of the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, which was formed at Dolgelly nearly a year ago, has not yet been supplied with arms; whether his attention has been called to the fact that this company, which is a cyclist one, took part in the recent Easter manoeuvres, and had to borrow rifles, bayonets, and slings from the Portmadoc company of the same battalion, and that some of the overcoats and leggings of this battalion bear the condemned for service mark, dating back as far as 1872; and can he state who is responisble for this state of affairs, and whether steps will be taken to supply the required equipment without delay.
  MR. BRODRICK: I know nothing of the matter alluded to in the question. The question is entirely one for the general officer commanding the district, who is responsible that the unit is properly armed, clothed, and equipped. The overcoat and leggings are provided by the unit out of the capitation grant, and the War Office has nothing to do with the supply.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Is there no appeal to the War Office in matters of this kind?
  MR. BRODRICK: Under the principle of decentralisation urged upon the Government it was felt that these questions should be left in the hands of the general officer commanding. His attention shall be called to this case.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that there is at the head of the Army Medical Department at the present time only an Acting Director General shortly about to retire from the service, he will say when a new Director General will be appointed.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; I can make no statement on this subject. Various measures for the reorganisation of the Medical Department are in progress.

  WRENCH v. LANGWORTHY BROS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Wrench v. Lang worthy Bros. and Co., and if he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. BRODRICK: My attention has been called to this case, and I am considering it.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of laying on the Table a full report of the evidence and of the Lord Chief Justice's remarks?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not see any reason for that. The case was very fully reported.

  H.M.S. "SYBILLE."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to state the composition of the force of fifty men which, with the captain and two lieutenants, were absent on duty on shore from H.M.S. "Sybille," and the composition of the complement remaining on board when that ship was wrecked; and, if so,
  896
  can he state the figures for each branch afloat and ashore belonging to the ship when the occurrence took place.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The composition of the force on shore was as follows:—Captain, 2 lieutenants, 33 petty officers and men of executive and navigating branch, 5 engineer branch, 2 miscellaneous ratings, 1 sergeant and 10 men of the Royal Marines, total 54. The complement remaining on board was composed of 13 remaining officers of the ship, 85 executive and navigating branch, 87 engineer branch, 13 artificers, 16 miscellaneous ratings, 15 Royal Marines, 18 Kroomen, total 247.

  RELIGIOUS MINISTRATIONS FOR DYING SEAMEN.
  MR. GILHOOLYI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a few months ago a Roman Catholic seaman who was serving aboard the "Diadem," then stationed at Castletown Berehaven, fell from aloft at 4 p.m., and expired at 6.30 p.m. on the same day, from injuries sustained by the fall, and whether he can explain why, although the "Diadem" was within five minutes row of the house of the Roman Catholic chaplain, he was not sent for to administer the sacraments to the dying man.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A priest was not sent for in this case because it was not anticipated that the accident to the seaman in question would terminate fatally. The medical officer of the ship was of opinion that he would recover. In the ordinary course the man would have been sent into Queenstown Hospital on the following day, and the collapse of the patient was sudden and unforeseen. I may add that the case has already received full and careful consideration by the Admiralty, and that commanding officers are instructed, in all cases where it is possible, to make every effort to secure the services of a priest or minister of the denomination of an injured man whenever a case of danger to life arises. It is to be regretted that in this instance no such

  897
  ministrations were provided, but it is quite clear that the absence of a priest was not due to either neglect or indifference on the part of the officers of the ship.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to inform him that the evidence given at the inquest concerning this man—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. GILHOOLY: Then, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the naval officer stated at the inquest that—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. GILHOOLYremained standing and tried to complete the question.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in disregarding the authority of the Chair, I shall have to take the step of naming him to the House.

  FOREIGN MEAT SUPPLIES TO THE NAVY.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the present contractor to the Channel Squadron at Castletown Berehaven supplies foreign beef, whether the terms of his contract require that the beef should be freshly killed, and, if so, will the Admiralty enforce the terms of the contract, and compel the contractor to supply Irish beef.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The contract for the supply of meat at Berehaven provides that the meat shall be good, fat, well-fed, freshly-killed ox or maiden heifer beef; that it shall be approved by the commanding officer of the vessel, supplied as in all respects fit for His Majesty's service, and that no refrigerated or frozen beef is to be supplied. There is no reason to believe that the conditions of the contract have been departed from. The officers commanding the ships are informed of the conditions, and no complaint has been received from any of them to the effect that the meat is not of good quality, or that the conditions have not been complied with. It is not proposed to vary the terms of the contract.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Are navy contractors in Ireland permitted to supply foreign beef?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  ISLAND OF ARRAN SIGNAL STATION.
  MR. MORRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty have come to any decision as to the need for the Naval manoeuvres on the west coast of Ireland, and for other purposes, of a signal station on the north island of Arran at the entrance to Galway Bay.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The question of the establishment of a signal-station on the island of Arran is at present under the consideration of the Admiralty, but no decision has yet been arrived at.

  H.M.S. "REPULSE"—LOUGH SWILLY FATALITY.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say in what manner the chain of a boat of H.M.S. "Repulse," the breaking of an officially-stamped link of which resulted in the death of a seaman in Lough Swilly on 13th May, was tested at Chatham, and what steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendation of the coroner's jury that better supervision should be exercised at Chatham in issuing fittings.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I will ask the hon. Member to postpone this question, as I have not yet been able to obtain all the required information.

  BISHOP OF CALCUTTA.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if it is intended to confer on the Bishop of Calcutta the style and precedence of Archbishop; and, if so, can this step be taken without the sanction of this House being obtained by legislation or

  899
  otherwise, and will the change be carried out without adding to the expenditure of the Indian Empire.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot make any statement at present on the subject to which the hon. Member's question refers. As I said a few days ago, in reply to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury,* there are many important considerations involved in this proposal; but I believe I may state at once that, if the change of title were made, no extra charge would thereby be thrown upon the revenues of India.

  CHINESE INDEMNITY.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has yet been arrived at by the Allied Powers as to the amount of the indemnity which China is to be compelled to pay and as to the machinery by which the payment of the instalments of indemnity is to be secured.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,: In a Note addressed by the representatives of the Powers at Peking to the Chinese Plenipotentiaries, the total indemnity payable by China has been fixed at 450 million taels, but the other matters referred to in the question are still under discussion.
  MR. DILLON: Was the Note signed by the representatives of all the Powers?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Yes, I think so.

  COST OF DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES OF FOREIGN STATES.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will cause to be procured from His Majesty's representatives abroad figures snowing the annual cost of the diplomatic services and the consular services respectively of the United States, Germany, and France.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The following are the total figures taken in the
  * See page 271.
  900
  case of France and Germany from the Estimates for the year 1901–02, and in the case of the United States for the year 1900–01, but I am not able to distinguish with any accuracy between the diplomatic and consular expenditure, and no doubt the charges do not correspond exactly to their English equivalents, so that the figures may be misleading. France, 9,435,500 francs; Germany, 8,507,700 marks; United States, 1,897,638.76 dollars.

  GIBRALTAR WORKS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government propose to lay upon the Table of the House, as the First Report of the Gibraltar Committee, the unanimous replies on 30th March of all its members to the six questions constituting the reference to it; or do they propose to lay, as that Report, the personal letter addressed privately and confidentially by Admiral Rawson on that date to the First Lord of the Admiralty, which letter described itself as an Interim Report; whether His Majesty's Government propose to lay upon the Table both documents, and, if they present only Admiral Rawson's Report, do they propose to lay the whole or only portions thereof.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that I know of no personal letter addressed by Admiral Rawson to the First Lord of the Admiralty. We propose to lay on the Table of the House both Reports, with their enclosures, except only those portions which, on public grounds, ought, in our opinion, to be treated as confidential. The enclosure in the first Report contains the answers, not to the six questions to which my hon. friend refers, but to five out of the six questions which were asked. One of the questions to which my hon. friend refers was not answered.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is my right hon. friend aware that Admiral Rawson himself described this as a personal letter, and that, on that ground, no copy was given to the other members of the Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. My hon. friend's memory strangely misleads him, for, in the very first paragraph of the document to which he refers, Admiral Rawson says he has the honour to present this "Interim Report." And he not only signs it himself, but all the other members of the Committee including my hon. friend, signed it with this subscription:—"We agree to the foregoing Report, (Signed) Thomas Gibson Bowles," and the other members of the Committee.

  COAL DUTY—EFFECT ON ITALIAN CONTRACTS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the Report for the year 1900 on the Trade and Commerce of Italy, which states that owing to the increasing expense of British coal, of which four and a half million tons were imported in 1900, it has been proposed to utilise the waterfalls and electricity for generating power in order to substitute electricity for steam for traffic and industrial purposes, thereby reducing the imports of British coal; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will reconsider their decision to impose a duty on coal exported from the United Kingdom, thereby increasing the cost of British coal in Italy.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I have not seen the Report; but, assuming the statement in the question to be accurate, I see no reason for reconsidering the imposition of a coal duty. I am told that large contracts have been made for supplying coal to Italy since the imposition of the duty, the purchaser paying the duty.

  COAL DUTY—REMISSIONS.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer where coals are exported, in pursuance of contracts made before 19th April, 1901, to persons resident in a foreign country, from whom the export duty cannot be recovered, will the Treasury be entitled, under Clause 3 (2) of the Finance Bill, to remit
  902
  the duty; and, if so, will the production of the contracts and proof of shipment of the coal in pursuance thereof be deemed sufficient evidence upon which the Treasury may exercise their power of remission.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think my hon. friend is asking me a general question with reference to some particular case. I can only say that remission would depend not merely on production of the contracts and proof of shipment under them, but also on their nature and character.

  NATIONAL COAL RESOURCES-INQUIRY.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has addressed a communication to the various coal trade associations asking those bodies if they are prepared to support a request for a complete investigation into the whole subject of the country's coal resources, the probable term for which the coalfields are likely to last for home consumers, the possibility of adopting a more economical method of working, the competitive power of our coal with the coal of other countries, and the probable effect of the new export duty; and, if so, whether such an inquiry will be by a Royal Commission, a Select Committee of the House, or a Departmental Committee; whether, in view of the time that must elapse before the result of such an extended inquiry can be made public, he will provide that an Interim Report shall be issued as to the effect of the new coal duty before it will be necessary to formulate the Budget proposals of the next financial year; and if, having regard to the nature of the inquiry and the current estimate of the value of the Report of the Coal Commission of 1866 as to the probable duration of the supplies of cheap coal, he will see that the commercial element is adequately represented upon the Commission or Committee.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Parliamentary Committee of the Mining Association of Great Britain asked me whether I could advise an inquiry into the advisability of the coal export duty, its incidence, and its probable effects on

  903
  the coal trade; and explained that they did not suggest the withdrawal of the duty, but desired an inquiry before it was imposed for another year. I pointed out to them that such an inquiry would be, in my opinion, too limited to lead to any satisfactory conclusion, and asked whether they would support suggestions which had already been made for a much more extended investigation, including the first four points specified in the question. I have not yet received a reply, and therefore have not brought the subject before my colleagues. I can, therefore, only say, in reply to the other questions of the hon. Member, that at present I do not see how an Interim Report could be of value unless it was based on a consideration of the whole subject.

  FORTIFYING WINE IN BOND.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any rule as to the quality and age of spirits that may be used to fortify wine in bond, and whether foreign spirit may be used for the purpose.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There is no rule as to the age or quality of the spirit used for the purpose of fortifying wine in bond. The spirit used for the purpose may be (a) British plain spirits, (b) foreign spirits unsweetened, (c) spirits of wine.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: May German spirit be used then?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Any unsweetened foreign spirit.

  CUSTOMS—EXAMINATION OF PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the custom for the police or other Government officials to ask the names or examine the luggage of passengers arriving at Southampton or Liverpool
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The baggage of all passengers
  904
  arriving from foreign ports at Liverpool, Southampton, or any other port in the United Kingdom is by law liable to examination by the officers of customs. The police have nothing to do with the matter, and I am informed that it is not the practice of the customs officers at the ports named to ask the names of passengers on arrival. Information is obtained from lists supplied by the shipping companies.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the Chief Secretary see that the same course is adopted at Queenstown and other Irish piers?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I replied to a question on this subject the other day, and I have nothing to add to my answer.†

  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state when he intends to bring in the Bill dealing with youthful offenders.
  *MR. RITCHIE: To-day; at the commencement of public business.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE STATIONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of connecting the police stations throughout the metropolis with the telephone system, seeing that this has been carried out with satisfactory results in the City of London as well as other towns throughout the United Kingdom.
  *MR. RITCHIE: This question has been considered already, and it appeared that the existing efficient system of telegraphic communication between all the police stations, which is entirely under police control, meets all police requirements.

  MERCANTILE MARINE TONNAGE CALCULATIONS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  † See page 66.

  905
  Trade, having regard to the fact that cross-channel and coasting steamers have been recently constructed with fractional or negative tonnage, so as to escape the payment of tonnage dues, whether he will cause inquiries to be made with the view of suggesting a remedy to provide a fair revenue to port and dock boards.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I fear I can only repeat what I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member's previous questions. So far as reasonable uniformity can be obtained by Board of Trade regulation, I shall endeavour to secure it, and it is of course open to harbour authorities, by means of local Acts, to endeavour to obtain powers to levy dues based on the gross instead of on the net tonnage of vessels.

  SCOTTISH SHERIFFS' SALARIES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a decision has now been arrived at in regard to the question of increasing the salaries of sheriffs in Scotland; and, if not, can he state when a decision is likely to be announced.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The decision has been deferred pending the receipt of information for which the Secretary for Scotland has asked from certain of the sheriffs. I am in hopes that a decision will shortly be arrived at.

  CANDIDATES FOR CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS—MEDICAL INSPECTION.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what are the various fees for medical inspection which have to be paid by successful candidates at Civil Service examinations; and whether he can arrange that in future such inspections shall be gratuitous as in the case of recruits for His Majesty's forces.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The fees vary from half a guinea to a guinea. They do not do more than meet the payments to the medical men by whom the examinations are made. It is not proposed to make any change

  CANADIAN MAIL CONTRACTS.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the vessels of the Elder and Dempster Company (Beaver Line), of Liverpool, carry His Majesty's and the Canadian mails, he can state what steps, if any, he has taken to see that the Pair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons of 1891 will be carried out so far as the firemen employed on the Beaver Line of Royal Mail steamers from Liverpool are concerned; and having regard to the fact that the current rate of wages on steamships sailing out of Liverpool which carry the mails to the United States of America is £5 per month for firemen can he state what is the present rate of wages which is paid to firemen employed on board the vessels of the Beaver The employed in carrying the mails.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The mails for Canada are conveyed under contract with the Canadian Post Office, not with the Postmaster General; and the present contractors are not Messrs. Elder, Dempster and Company, but Messrs. Allan. The Postmaster General has no knowledge of the present rate of wages paid to firemen of the Beaver line.

  CLERKS TO SURVEYORS OF TAXES.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state by whom clerks to the Surveyors of Taxes are appointed who pays these clerks their salaries, and out of what source or fund; whether a surveyor is changed from one survey to another, are the clerks in the office changed also, and can a surveyor of taxes dismiss a clerk in his office without the sanction of the Board of Inland Revenue; and will he explain why the clerks in the offices of Surveyors of Taxes are held to be merely clerks of the surveyors, and to have no connection or claim to be recognised as members of the staff of the department or in its employment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: (1) Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes are appointed by the surveyors, and (2) are

  907
  paid by the surveyors out of an allowance provided for that purpose in the Inland Revenue Vote. (3) The clerks are not changed from one survey to another without the surveyor. (4) A surveyor may dismiss a clerk without the Board's sanction; but he must inform the board that he has done so. The clerks are held to be merely clerks of the surveyors, because that is in fact their position. They are not appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue, they do not hold Civil Service certificates, and they are not part of the permanent staff of the Department.

  EDUCATION—WELSH COUNTY SCHOOLS.
  MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, in view of the proposal contained in Section 6, Sub-section (2), of the recently introduced Education Bill as applicable to the county schools in Wales, and, seeing that most of the schools receive annual grants under the various schemes, whether he will introduce a clause exempting Wales from the provisions mentioned.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The Government will consider the suggestion of the hon. Member before the Education Bill leaves the House of Commons.

  LLANELLY AND THE EDUCATION QUESTION.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he has received a resolution passed at a public meeting at Llanelly, suggesting that the Government should pass a short Bill enabling school boards to carry on the work they are doing at present till a comprehensive measure can be passed, entrusting all work connected with public education (elementary, secondary, and technical) to an authority solely elected for this purpose; and whether he can fall in with their desire.
  SIR J. GORST: Yes; I have received the resolution. There is no intention of introducing such a Bill at present.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION IN WALES.
  MR. GEORGE KENYON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the proposal in the Education Bill to repeal the whole of the Technical Instruction Acts of 1889 and 1891, he will insert a special clause to keep alive certain Technical, Instruction Committees in Wales, and whether the penny rate which it is proposed to empower urban district councils to levy (Section C, Sub-section (1) will be in addition to the twopenny rate contemplated under Section 3.
  SIR J. GORST: No such clause is proposed by the Government, but they will consider any which the hon. Member may suggest. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative.

  SCHOOL EXEMPTION IN WALSALL.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Walsall School Board has within the past three months exempted over one hundred children from school attendance, some of whom failed to pass the fourth standard at the recent examination; will he state whether the Board are empowered to make such exemption, and does the Education Department propose to take any steps to prevent members of this school board from breaking its own bye-laws.
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. Under the Walsall bye-laws children are entitled to partial exemption after twelve, either on passing Standard IV. or on making three hundred attendances annually for five years.

  LEEDS SCHOOL BOARD AND THE COCKERTON JUDGMENT.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a letter and pamphlet circulated by the Leeds School Board in which it is stated that about 13,000 students in Leeds (the number enrolled last session) will be deprived of the further opportunity of self-improvement or training for com-

  909
  mercial and industrial pursuits, the work shown in the accompanying prospectus of last year's classes will be at a standstill, this result being attributed to the judgment in Rex v. Cockerton and the absence of official guidance or instruction from the Board of Education; and whether he will give an assurance that the provision in the Education Bill dealing with this subject will be proceeded with.
  SIR J. GORST: The difficulty in which the Leeds School Board find themselves is caused by their having established schools which they have no legal power to maintain. No official guidance or instruction could enable them to use the school fund for purposes not sanctioned by the Elementary Education Acts. Under the existing law, the local authority, under the Technical Instruction Acts, can use the funds provided by those Acts for the maintenance of such schools, and further facilities are provided in the Bill now before Parliament. There is nothing to prevent the Leeds School Board from now arranging with the local authority for the continuance of such schools, either under the existing law or in anticipation of legislation on the subject.

  REX v. COCKERTON—SURCHARGES BY AUDITORS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is the intention of the Board to enforce surcharges upon members of school boards leviable under what is known as the Cockerton Judgment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): If any member of any school board feels himself aggrieved by any surcharge by the auditor he has a right of appeal to the Local Government Board, and I shall be prepared to consider on any such appeals reasons for which a remission may be made.

  BUCKLAND FISHERY COLLECTION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a proposal of the
  910
  Grimsby Town Council to ask the Government to transfer to Grimsby the collection of fishery specimens which the late Mr. Frank Buckland left to the nation; and will he say if this collection is still at South Kensington, and when and where it will be open to inspection by the public.
  SIR J. GORST: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. The Board of Education have never heard of the Grimsby proposal; the fish are at the Victoria and Albert Museum at South Kensington, and can be seen there at all times when the museum is open.

  HOUSE OF LORDS AND PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS.
  MR. BLAKE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he can state the number of days on which the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council respectively sat for the discharge of judicial business in each of the years 1899 and 1900.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): The House of Lords sat for judicial business in 1899 on seventy-one days, and in 1900 on eighty-six days. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat for judicial business in 1899 on ninety days, and in 1900 on seventy-four days.

  SCOTTISH MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state the number of medical officers of health appointed in Scotland to districts other than burghs since the 1st January, 1898, and will he say how many of these medical officers hold a public health diploma.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): Five medical officers of health holding a public health diploma have been appointed in Scotland to districts other than burghs since the 1st January, 1898. In addition seventeen appointments have been made by district local authorities, but as the medical men

  911
  did not possess the statutory qualifications, the appointments were not in terms of the Public Health Acts and were not recognised by the Local Government Board.

  CONGESTION IN ROSS AND CROMARTY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that up to the 9th May last the Congested Districts Board had purchased land in Sutherlandshire and also in Inverness-shire for the settlement of the people, will he explain why the Board have not acquired land in Ross and Cromarty, especially in view of the congestion in some parts of the county, notably in Island of Lewis, and of the repeated applications for land which have been made both by the people and the representative bodies acting on their behalf.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Board have not been able to acquire any land in the counties of Ross and Cromarty which is suitable for the formation of crofters' holdings. Acting on the suggestion of the Board, the proprietor of Lewis offered the Board to feu a field of seven acres near Stornoway, on which it was proposed to create holdings for fishermen, giving them about a quarter of an acre each for a garden. The Board offered to pay for the cost of enclosures, roads, drains, etc., and to give advances to enable the cottars to erect dwellings. The field was most suitable for the purpose, and the Board was led to believe that there was a large demand for fishermen's holdings of this sort, but when applications were invited only one was received.
  MR. WEIRwas understood to ask if £5 per acre was not being charged for land which was absolutely useless to the people.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am not aware of it.
  MR. WEIR: Well, it is a fact.

  IRISH MACKEREL FISHING INDUSTRY.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  912
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the import duty on mackerel into Russia is higher than that on herrings, and whether efforts have been made to get this inequality reduced with a view to opening a new market for the Irish mackerel fishing industry; whether the Congested Districts Board has endeavoured to open fresh markets in Asia Minor for smoked and salted fish, and will he state what efforts are now being made by the Department or by the Congested Districts Board to open fresh markets for the Irish mackerel fishing industry, the success of which is of such importance to the western and south-western districts of Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The reply to both queries in the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Congested Districts Board will inquire into the possibility of opening fresh markets in Asia Minor. The Board endeavoured last year to open a market in Irish inland towns, but without success. The Department of Agriculture is making inquiries with the object of developing the foreign markets for picked mackerel. Owing to the large and steady supply of fresh fish, there does not appear to be any prospect of developing a trade in home markets.

  CO. MAYO POLICE FORCE,
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of police stationed in county Mayo in each year from 1895 to 1900, inclusive; how many extra police have been employed during that period, and at what cost, and how many extra police are employed in county Mayo at present.
  MR. WYNDHAM: 486, 500, 473, 470, 468, and 487, respectively. An extra force of fifty men was employed in the county from March, 1898, to May, 1900, at a cost to the rates of £3,739 10s. 4d. There have been no extra police in the county since May, 1900.
  DR. AMBROSE: What has become of the extra police who were employed there?
  AN HON. MEMBER: They are in Belfast.
  [MR. WYNDHAM made no reply.]
  DR. AMBROSE: I will put the question down for to-morrow.
  MR. WYNDHAM: They have gone back to their duties elsewhere.
  DR. AMBROSE: Does it not follow, then, that some place is over-policed?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH UNION AMALGAMATION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps the Local Government Board are taking to promote amalgamation of unions, and to remove any legal difficulties that may stand in the way; what action has been taken on the Local Government Board's Sanitary Order of the 4th of May, 1900, with respect to the appointment of a responsible sanitary officer in each group of unions, and will he say whether parties holding offices in county infirmaries are eligible as deriving their salaries from the poor rate for the office of poor law guardian.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The general question of the amalgamation of unions is engaging the attention of the Local Government Board; investigations in the matter are now in progress. The provision in the Order of May, 1900, with respect to the appointment of a medical superintendent officer of health has not been acted upon in any case. The opportunity to act upon it will only arise as vacancies occur in the office of consulting officer. I am unable to reply to the second paragraph; the point is one for determination in a court of law.

  EVICTIONS IN IRELAND.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of families that have been evicted in Ireland between the years 1886 and 1900 inclusive, also the number of persons in each family.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The total number of families evicted in the period of fifteen
  914
  years mentioned was 20,352. There are no records of the number of persons included in the evicted families. The number of families remaining out of their holdings is not, of course, correctly represented by these statistics, since a very large proportion of them have been restored to their farms.

  SLIGO MAGISTRACY.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that magistrates holding His Majesty's commission of the peace for the county of Sligo, especially those appointed between the years 1892 and 1896, are prohibited by a rule of the Lord Chancellor from adjudicating outside certain prescribed districts; and whether, in view of the fact that quite recently two paid resident magistrates appeared at the ordinary petty sessions court at Tubbercurry, in that county, when the principal business was the hearing of trivial charges preferred against two respectable persons, he will abolish that rule, or else modify it, so that the area of adjudication for county magistrates be extended.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The practice is that magistrates, when about to be appointed, should state what petty sessions courts they purpose to attend. It was adopted long before the year 1892, and has been found to be necessary, in order to make proper provision for the manning of the petty sessions bench and the due administration of justice. The practice has no application to resident magistrates. It is not proposed to modify it.

  LISBURN DISTURBANCES—MR. TREWS SPEECHES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in a case of being disorderly in the street brought against a man named M'Grogan, in the Lisburn town court on Thursday last, Sergeant Fullerton, who prosecuted, swore that a man named Trew had used strong language against Roman Catholics in the Market Square on the previous Saturday night when preaching, which incited M'Grogan to disorder, and which he considered

  915
  provocative; is he aware that the chairman of the court, Dr. McKenzie, said that Trew should be summoned, condemned his language as hurtful to Roman Catholic feeling, and discharged M'Grogan; and can he say if Trew is the same person who is alleged to have incited to the riots in Belfast on the 9th instant and subsequent dates; if so, has the suggestion of the Lisburn magistrates, that Trew should be summoned, been acted on, or is it the intention of the Crown to prosecute him for his language in Lisburn?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Trew is the person charged with inciting to riot in Belfast; for this a prosecution has already been directed against him, in which it is possible that this speech, made in Lisburn, may be given in evidence. I must, therefore, decline to enter more fully into the matter, as it is involved in a pending prosecution.

  UNITED IRISH LEAGUE PLACARDS.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state by what authority and under whose direction Constable Hallisey acted in tearing down a poster convening a meeting of the United Irish League at Shanballymore on Sunday last, the 16th instant; and, seeing that the poster did not contain anything of an illegal or intimidatory nature, will the police be instructed to abstain in future from interference with meetings of the United Irish League at Shanballymore.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has not been correctly informed. The placard referred to was not torn down by the police. No instructions of the nature mentioned in the second paragraph are necessary.

  IRISH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD—PREPARATORY GRADE PRIZES.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the new rule of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland whereby the custom of awarding prizes and exhibitions in the preparatory
  916
  grade is to be discontinued after the present year, and having regard to the effect that this change will have on poor pupils since rewards are reserved for students of fifteen years of age, and with the view of preventing the loss of benefits of secondary education to the children of those in humble circumstances, whether he will ask the Commissioners to reconsider their decision in this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In discontinuing the custom of giving prizes and exhibitions directly to the students in the preparatory grade, the Board of Intermediate Education was strongly influenced by the weight of evidence given before the recent Commission on Intermediate Education as to the danger of educational over-pressure at an early age. The Board, however, have taken power in Rule No. 42 of the new rules to assign to managers of schools a sum of money, not exceeding £1 for each student who shall have passed in the preparatory grade, as a prize fund to the school, to be applied according to a scheme to be approved by the Board.

  CORK COUNTY POOR RATE COLLECTORS.
  MR. SHEEHANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in what manner the lodgments are made by the collectors of poor rate in Cork County, and whether the sums collected by them are lodged to the credit of the county council at the close of the half-year or as they are received from the ratepayers, and, if the latter course is adopted, can he say by what method the interest which accrues on these lodgments is allocated amongst the different unions, and how many collectors have lodged their collections in banks different from the accredited treasurers of the county council, and whether this proceeding is sanctioned by the Local Government Board.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The secretary to the county council states that the collectors are required to lodge their collections to the credit of the council fortnightly, or oftener when the sums collected amount to £100. The county at large is credited with the interest on

  917
  the lodgments, and it would not be practicable to allocate the interest to particular districts. The collectors of one union, instead of lodging the moneys to the credit of the council, lodged them to their own credit with a branch treasurer. This irregularity was corrected by the county council, who did not, however, bring it under the notice of the Local Government Board.

  PROTECTION OF IRISH DAIRY INDUSTRY.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to recent prosecutions in England indicating that foreign products, such as bacon, butter, and eggs, are sold as Irish products; whether the Department of Agriculture in Ireland has made any representations to the English Board of Agriculture as to the necessity for a more energetic and stringent enforcement of the law in this matter; and whether, if this cannot be otherwise secured, the Department of Agriculture in Ireland has power to devote a portion of its income to the payment of special inspectors for the detection of such frauds in the chief centres of population in England and Scotland; if so, whether it will consider the advisability of doing so.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Department has been in correspondence with the English Board of Agriculture in regard to butter frauds. The Irish Department has recently increased its staff of transit inspectors, who are required to protect the interests of Irish produce both in transit and on sale, in Great Britain as well as in Ireland.

  WEST AND SOUTH CLARE RAILWAY TAXES.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the electoral divisions of Dromane, Inniscaltra North, and Mount Shannon, in the Scariff rural district, have been called upon to pay taxes in connection with the working of the West and South Clare Railways, although the divisions named are comprised in the South Galway Parliamentary Division,
  918
  and therefore not included in the list of guaranteeing baronies; and, seeing that the Local Government Board informed the Clare County Council on 27th April last that the said divisions could not be legally taxed in connection with the working of these railways, and that they have already paid a portion of the baronial taxes, whether he will cause directions to be issued to the proper authority, informing them that, in striking the next rate for these particular divisions, a remission should be made, amounting to the sum already illegally levied from them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are as stated in the question. The Board informed the Council that, in its opinion, the electoral divisions referred to are not legally liable for any portion of the guarantees in respect of the South Clare or West Clare Railway. The Board will suggest to the Council the desirability of remitting the rate already assessed upon these divisions.

  CONGESTION IN THE BAWNBOY RURAL DISTRICT.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Bawnboy Rural District Council asking the Local Government Board to have several electoral districts in the Bawnboy rural district scheduled under the Congested Districts Act, and what steps, if any, have been taken to comply with the resolution.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Legislation would be necessary to enlarge the area of districts at present scheduled as congested.

  IRISH FISHERY COMMISSION—MR. LANE'S APPOINTMENT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Lane, the temporary Fishery Commissioner recently appointed in Ireland, was required to pass any examination to test his fitness for the office; and, if not, will he be required to pass an examination before he is permanently appointed; and whether he can say what qualifications

  919
  or practical experience in fishing industry this gentleman has had, or in what industrial pursuit he has been engaged during his life.
  The following question was also on the Paper:—
  *MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state now long it is intended to continue Mr. Lane in the position of temporary inspector of fisheries in Ireland; and, seeing that, in addition to his qualifications on account of having assisted Mr. Green in a survey of the deep sea fisheries, the development of the Irish fisheries requires the care and attention of inspectors possessing expert knowledge, whether he will take steps to secure that a gentleman of practical experience and proper training shall be elected to fill the vacancy caused by the retirement of Mr. Cecil Roche.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will at the same time reply to the question of the hon. Member for Mid Cork. Examinations are not held for the post of Fishery Inspector. Mr. Lane was not, therefore, examined. The question of making a permanent appointment has not arisen. I have already stated that Mr. Lane has special knowledge of deep sea and inland fisheries. He was not appointed as an expert in fisheries, but mainly because of his business training and experience, and with a view to assist the Department in the development of the fisheries on their commercial and industrial side. The fisheries branch of the Department is already sufficiently strong in expert officers.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman has not said in what industrial pursuit this gentleman has been engaged during his life.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe he has been in business as a brewer.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it intended that he shall pass any test examination before he is permanently appointed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That has nothing to do with the question.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: With all respect, Sir, it is part of the question on the Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of a permanent appointment does not arise. I decline to commit the Government to make the appointment permanent.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that civil service clerks have to pass an examination before appointment?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now arguing the question.

  INTIMIDATION IN COUNTY SLIGO.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received letters from Mr. Charles Phibbs, of the County Sligo, stating that, as a consequence of taking a grazing farm from Lord Harlech, he was at once deserted by all his farm hands; that, with one exception, they refused the offer of higher wages, saying that if they remained they might be murdered; that the local blacksmith refused to do any work for him; that the only man remaining in his employment has been threatened; and that a draper in Bally-mote has given his assistants instructions not to supply his family with any goods; whether he is aware that since these letters were written Mr. Phibbs has been boycotted; and whether under these circumstances the Government will take steps to protect Mr. Phibbs.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; the letters referred to have been received by me, but I had full cognisance of the facts apart from communications. Mr. Phibbs will be provided with ample protection.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT: Has not Mr. Phibbs been denounced by what is known as the Irish National League; and, if so, is he to be compelled in the future to live under the rule of that body, or will Government protect him?
  MR. O'DOWD: Was not Mr. Phibbs ostracised by his own party some years ago?
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: Is it not the fact that almost every con-

  921
  cession wrung from Irish landlords of late years has—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If any further questions are to be asked notice must be given in the ordinary way.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: But—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: It is only very short, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must accept my decision, whether he thinks it right or wrong.

  IRISH COUNCILS AND DIRECT LABOUR.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the county and district councils may forthwith formulate schemes for the employment of direct labour, in anticipation of the Provisional Order which will come into operation in 1st April, 1902; and, if so, whether he will direct the Local Government Board to so advise the several councils.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Provisional Order cannot be acted upon till it is confirmed by Parliament. The Board will circulate the Order as soon as it becomes law, and will advise the councils as to the preliminary steps which may be taken for the purpose of putting the Order in force on the appointed day.
  MR. CULLINAN: Cannot the councils take the preliminary steps before the 1st April?
  MR. WYNDHAM: They must wait until Parliament has confirmed the Provisional Order, which I hope will be not many days hence.
  *MR. SHEEHAN: Will the Right hon. Gentleman direct or request the Local Government Board for Ireland, when the Provisional Order is confirmed, to intimate to the County and District Councils that they may proceed to formulate schemes for the employment of direct labour.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As soon as the Order is confirmed the Local Government Board will take action on it.

  INFRINGEMENTS OF IRISH FISHERY LAWS.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return for the years 1890 to 1900 inclusive of prosecutions undertaken in Ireland of infringement of the fishery laws by masters of beam or otter trawl vessels round the coast of Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; the Return will be granted.

  MAIDEN QUARTER SESSIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if the sheriff of a county is bound to attend at quarter sessions in Ireland for the purpose of presenting white gloves to the presiding judge when absolute crimelessness prevails in a district; and, if so, what is the explanation of the absence of the sheriff of Kerry from the quarter sessions at present being held at Killarney, and the last quarter sessions held three months ago, at both of which there was no criminal business to be disposed of.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The sheriff is not under any obligation such as is suggested. The explanation of his absence on the occasions referred to is stated in the question, namely, that there were not any prisoners or traverses for trial.

  FITZGERALD ESTATE, CO. WESTMEATH.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he will state why the receiver on the Fitzgerald estate, in the county Westmeath, has been ordered to sue for the hanging gale, and whether he has sanctioned this proceeding.
  MR. ATKINSON: This estate is under the jurisdiction of the Land Court. No proceedings have been taken by th

  923
  receiver, and will not be taken unless by the direction of the land judge. The executive Government has no control in the matter.

  DUBLIN POLICE COURT PINES.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state how much of the £5,760 16s. 5d. levied as fines and costs in the Dublin police courts in the year 1899 was distributed amongst local bodies, and if he can name the local bodies to whom the money was paid.
  MR. ATKINSON: The allocation of the sums paid to local bodies out of the amount mentioned in the question was as follows:—To the Dublin Corporation, £479 17s. 3d.; to the Pembroke Urban District Council, £30 19s. 2d.; to the Rathmines Urban District Council, £10 3s. 5d.; and to the Drumcondra Urban District Council, £4 2s. 0d.

  AUDIT OF IRISH PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can see his way to have the present arrangements altered so that in future the accounts of the Irish public departments may be audited permanently in Dublin.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of certain accounts where access is required to books and documents which cannot conveniently be transmitted to the Audit Office a local test is already made. So far as is known, no inconvenience arises from the transmission of accounts from Ireland and their audit in London. If the examination of the Irish accounts were conducted locally by officers under the direction of the Comptroller and Auditor General, great practical inconvenience would result from the necessity of referring questions to London before bringing them to the notice of the Dublin accounting officers, while the opportunity at present available to the Comptroller and Auditor General of personal conference with his officers would be wanting.

  CLONES POSTAL STAFF—FREE MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as repre-
  924
  senting the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, although established sorting and telegraph clerks are entitled to free medical attendance, the sorting and telegraph clerks at Clones do not enjoy this privilege; and whether, seeing that a number of post offices in England which do not possess a more numerous: postal staff, have a post office doctor, the same right may be extended to the officials in Clones.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Free medical attendance is supplied only at offices at which the Department has appointed a medical officer, and Clones is not one of those offices. The question of appointing a medical officer at Clones is now under consideration.

  IRISH LIGHTS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about two years ago the Irish Lights Commission agreed to remodel the Maiden Lights by erecting a new and improved light on the rock adjacent to the course of the mail steamers, which are now larger and faster; also to place a large buoy at Hunter's Rock and Highlandman's Rock, and to put a fog signal on the main land; and, seeing that many accidents have occurred, and that the Larne and Belfast Harbour Commissioners made repeated applications to have these improvements carried out, whether he will take measures to have them completed before the coming winter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Trinity House on the 15th instant notified to the Board of Trade their approval of a proposal by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to improve the light at the East Maidens, and the scheme is now being considered by the Board of Trade. But the cost of the work is not included in the Estimates for the current year. I am informed that a buoy will be placed at Highland Rock in a few weeks time, while the description of buoy to be placed at Hunter's Rock is under consideration. The Lighthouse authorities are of opinion that it would not be desirable to put a fog-signal near the Maidens, and the nautical adviser to the Board of Trade concurs in this view.

  IRISH UNIVERSITY COMMISSION.
  MR. MORRIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to state the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland, and the names of the gentlemen who are to serve on the same.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Within the last hour or two I have been placed in a position to answer my hon. friend's question, and I am very sorry, for reasons which will suggest themselves to all interested in this matter, that I have not been able at an earlier date to give any information to the House on this subject. The reference to the Commission is in the following terms—
  "To inquire into the present condition of the higher general and technical education available in Ireland outside Trinity College, Dublin, and to report as to what reforms, if any, are desirable in order to render that education adequate to the needs of the Irish people."
  The members of the Commission are twelve. The Chairman is Lord Robertson, formerly a well-known Member of this House as Lord Advocate, late Lord Justice General, and now one of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. I will read the other names in alphabetical order—Professor Butcher, late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Fellow of University College, Oxford, and Professor of Greek in Edinburgh University; the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clonfert, Senator of the Royal University of Ireland; Professor Ewing, Professor of Mechanism and applied Mechanics, Cambridge University; Sir Richard Jebb, a Member of this House, Regius Professor of Greek in Cambridge University; Mr. Justice Madden, well-known to Members of this House; Lord Ridley, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford; Professor Rhys, Professor of Celtic in Oxford University, and Principal of Jesus College Oxford; Professor Rucker, Fellow and late secretary of the Royal Society, Professor of Physics at the Royal College of Science, London, and one of our most distinguished physicists; Professor J. Lorrain Smith, Professor of Pathology and Bacteriology in Queen's College, Belfast; Mr. Starkie, Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, and formerly President of Queen's
  926
  College, Galway; and Mr. Wilfrid Ward, ate Examiner in Mental and Moral Science at the Royal University of Ireland. Of these twelve, four are Irishmen and resident in Ireland, the rest are resident in Great Britain. Three are Roman Catholics, and the other nine are Protestants.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has received a unanimous resolution passed at the annual meeting of the delegates of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, recommending that the State should provide a scheme of old age pensions, commencing at the age of sixty-five, of not less than 5s. per week, to persons who have been members of a thrift society for at least twenty years; and whether he can fall in with their desire.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He can hardly expect me to make any announcement on the subject of old age pensions at the present moment.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me to convey that answer to a quarter of a million electors?
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: I have conveyed it by giving the answer myself.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT (EXPENSES).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under any Act of the present session to amend the Factory and Workshops Acts (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law relating to County Courts in Ireland." County Courts (Ireland) Bill [Lords]
NEW BILL.

  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I have to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to youthful offenders and for other purposes connected therewith. The object of the Bill is, as far as possible, to protect young people from being contaminated by the influences of prisons and workhouses. The House will remember that a similar Bill came down from the House of Lords last session, but, while the provisions of the Bill as a whole were generally acceptable, there was one provision, that relating to the whipping of young prisoners, which met with a considerable amount of opposition, and the Bill in consequence did not proceed any further. I do not desire that the other extremely useful provisions of a measure of that kind should be shipwrecked upon that rock again, and therefore I have from the present Bill omitted that clause, but retain in the Bill all those provisions which would have a very considerable indirect influence in preventing young persons going to prison. I need not detain the House at any length by describing the provisions of the present Bill. There is a provision that children and young persons who are on remand, or waiting trial, instead of being sent to prison or to the workhouse, should be committed to the charge of some reliable person, who will be responsible for the production of the individual whenever necessary. The children will be committed to houses set apart for that purpose, and I believe that already in various parts of the Metropolis houses are available for carrying out this provision. According to last year's Bill, if a parent or guardian had conduced to the child's offence by neglect he was made liable to a fine of £5. In the present Bill the parent or guardian is made individually responsible for the whole of the fine and costs which may be inflicted on the child if he is shown to have contributed to the offence by neglect. We also amend the machinery for the recovery of parental contributions towards the maintenance of a child or young person who
  928
  has been sent to a reformatory or industrial school. At present the law is found in practice to be very inefficient, and it is very hard in a great number of cases to recover these contributions completely or even at all. The indirect effect of this and the former provision will be to induce parents and guardians to make every effort to prevent children from coming within the meshes of the law. There is another provision in the Bill which has been asked for many times by the representatives of Ireland. It deals with the unsatisfactory state of the law in Ireland with regard to the committal of young persons to reformatories. The law is not clear, but it seems to have been held that young persons in Ireland cannot be committed to reformatories unless they have previously been sent to prison. By altering this the Bill will assimilate the law in Ireland be the law in England in this respect. I hope and believe that these provisions will receive the general assent of the House, and that with the assistance of the House we shall be enabled to pass the Bill into law in the present session.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This is a subject in which I have always taken a great deal of interest, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Bill will deal with the most serious part of the matter. In the case of a trifling offence, where a small fine of 1s. or 2s. 6d. is imposed, costs of £1, and sometimes of £2 or £3, follow upon the certificate of the magistrate, and only too frequently the parent, who is ready to pay the fine, may be utterly unable to pay the costs. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in his Bill will deal with that. The costs cannot be imposed under Lord Cross's Act unless there is a certificate given by the magistrate, but my observation leads me to believe that, unfortunately, the certificate is given almost as a matter of course.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Youthful Offenders, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Ritchie, Mr. Solicitor General, and Mr. Jesse Collings.

  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Youthful Offenders, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the chair.]
  Clause 2:—
  MR. FLOWERmoved an Amendment having for its object the exclusion of "His Majesty's colonies and possessions" from the proposed tax. He said the proposal he would make later on, if the Committee accepted this Amendment, to give the colonies preferential terms by admitting their imports of sugar at a reduction of 33½ per cent., might be approached from two points of view. In the first place it might be looked upon from the point of view of giving help to the colonial sugar industry. Practically he suggested that colonial sugar should pay 2d. where foreign sugar paid 3d. The market for colonial sugar in this country, under the operation of European bounties, had gradually fallen away almost to nothing. By the adoption of his proposal the market for colonial sugar would gradually revive, and cane sugar would take the place of foreign beet sugar in this country, a result which he was sure the House, without distinction of party, would welcome. Our West Indian colonies, which had been reduced from prosperity almost to the verge of bankruptcy, would become once more self-supporting and prosperous parts of the Empire. Time and again the condition of the West Indies had been brought before the House. It was an old and a very sad story. In answer to a question put to him on 29th April last the Colonial Secretary stated that, including the sum in this year's Estimates, the financial assistance which had been given to the West Indies amounted to about £320,000 in five years in carrying
  930
  out recommendations. That was in addition to £82,000 given in relief of distress caused by the hurricane in 1898. He certainly thought the West Indies should receive from this country better consideration in view of the fact that in the course of the next few years the American market would show the outlook to be even more dreary than it was at present. He could not help thinking that if by some means of adjustment of our fiscal relations we could do something to avoid on one hand the continual giving of doles to the West Indies and at the same time assist them to revive what was their natural and profitable industry, the growth of sugar, we should be devoting ourselves to a cause at once practical, profitable, and patriotic. The loss of revenue from the proposal which he made would not amount to more than £60,000 if the imports were on the scale of last year, and the ultimate increase in importation would be gradual.
  One objection that was raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the danger of fraudulent imports of foreign sugar being brought into this country as colonial. There was no commodity whose origin was more easy to trace than sugar. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously maintain that Germany could send huge quantities of sugar to Queensland or Jamaica and then be able to re-ship it as colonial sugar? Could that be done without the colonies knowing all about it? Would the colonies connive at it, or would it even pay Germany to do so? Was it seriously contended that sugar importers would arrange to forge bills of lading so that a cargo coming from France would appear in the ship's papers as hailing from Barbados? He submitted that such a contention could not seriously be entertained. There was a third objection which could be raised, and that was that the granting of this preference to colonial sugar would be an infringement of free trade. But was it not the acme of Cobdenite pedantry to object to freer trade in sugar between the colonies and the mother country? His Amendment did not propose to put an import duty on sugar, it only provided that certain import duties should be lower in the case of sugar coming from

  931
  British colonies than on that coming from foreign countries. British disciples of free trade had objected to countervailing duties against bounty-fed sugar because they would not have any import duty imposed on commodities; but when there was an import duty, surely they ought not to object to any reduction of it.
  There was a question connected with this matter of sugar which it was almost impossible to avoid touching upon, he meant the question of bounties. He did not want to enter at length upon that question that day, partly because he quite understood it was a matter of the utmost difficulty and delicacy, as any one would realise who had read the French papers of the previous day; and partly because anything that might be said in the House of Commons might hamper the course of His Majesty's Government during the next few months—a course which he hoped they would enter upon with a strong desire and an earnest sympathy to do all that they possibly could for colonial sugar production. He would only say on this matter that he really did not see why they should not have preferential duties and the abolition of the bounties as well. The colonies needed badly all the help they could get, while he believed the bounty-giving States, particularly Germany, the most powerful of all, were heartily sick of the increasing drain on their treasuries involved in the bounty policy, and he fancied they were willing enough to withdraw the bounties whenever they could. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, in a speech of power, eloquence, and ability which everyone of them admired, spoke about some inevitable consequences of the increasing expenditure of the country and amongst them the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be inevitable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to widen his net. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had widened his net in the present case, and had re-introduced the tax upon sugar. The one great object that he had in moving his Amendment was to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seriously consider whether in the imposition of fresh customs duties, he would look at the advisability of minimising the operation of these duties on goods which came to us from His
  932
  Majesty's colonies and possessions. The case of Canada had been mentioned by his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield. Canada had carried out a proposal which had extorted enthusiasm from us all; but, after all, he did not suppose we really built up an empire entirely by enthuthusiasm. He did not imagine that we consolidated our position merely by expressions of goodwill. Something more solid and practical than that was required; and he submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in view not only of what Canada had done, but of what Australia was capable of doing, that he should make a serious attempt to consider the question of an inter-Empire preferential tariff. The question as regarded sugar was of the first importance in this matter, because Queensland and the other Australian colonies were exceedingly anxious to develop an English market, and such a proposal as he had made would be a great encouragement to them. If our colonies, as exemplified in the case of Canada, and as illustrated by the hesitating and waiting attitude of Australia, were prepared to meet us, ought we not to be prepared to meet them? He did not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to plunge into the fiscal war—he should be sorry indeed to urge him on that course—but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to spread his net further and further in search of additional revenue, he should see whether it would not be advisable to give preferential terms to our colonies. This was a question which would grow more and more acute in this country. He knew that a deep interest was taken in this question by the working classes of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and he was convinced that they felt, when the colonies were coming to us in a spirit of such loyal co-operation in our military difficulties in South Africa, and also in a spirit of willing and loyal co-operation in Imperial affairs generally, and for commercial federation, that the time was ripe for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to respond to their proposal in a sympathetic spirit, and to encourage the gradual formation of inter-Empire trade, which, he believed, would be the surest basis for the future consolidation of the Empire.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 3, after the word 'Ireland,' to insert the words, 'save from His Majesty's colonies or possessions.'"—(Mr. Flower.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): My hon. friend who has brought this very important subject before the attention of the Committee commenced his remarks with an observation with which all of us will sympathise. He regretted the present position of our West Indian colonies, and recommended his Amendment to the Committee mainly on the ground that its adoption would afford substantial relief and a prospect of improvement to those colonies which, in his judgment, nothing else would afford. I hope that my hon. friend will not for a moment suppose that I fail to sympathise with such a desire. I think that I have given practical proof of that desire in the large grants, amounting to £320,000, for the purposes of relief which have been presented to Parliament during the last five years for the benefit of the West Indian colonies. My hon. friend proposes that this sugar duty, imposed solely with the object of raising revenue which is sorely needed, and which will be paid by the consumer here and not by the producer, should be levied in such a way as to extract one-third less from sugar coming from the colonies than from sugar coming from foreign countries. There I must join issue with my hon. friend. I cannot believe it would benefit this country or benefit the West Indies to adopt that policy. It is the policy of forty years ago, and it was abandoned after long trial as benefiting neither this country nor our colonial possessions. Let me address myself to the arguments which my hon. friend adduces. In the first place, he said this would deprive the Exchequer of very little revenue, and that is quite true so far as the present is concerned; but, in passing, I ask my hon. friend to consider what the effect of adopting his proposal would be. It would not only deprive the Exchequer of a third of the revenue on sugar coming from British possessions; it would also impose that third upon the consumers
  934
  of sugar in this country, for it is obviously clear that consumers here would pay just as much for colonial sugar paying two-thirds duty as for foreign sugar paying the full duty. Therefore, while depriving the Exchequer of a certain amount of duty it would also take that amount out of the pocket of the home consumer for the benefit of the colonial producer. That is my hon. friend's object. But he would not have proposed this Amendment if he desired that the finantial effect should continue to be a small one. His desire is to encourage the production of sugar in our colonies, and to replace foreign sugar in this country by sugar produced in our colonial possessions. Therefore, he would be glad to see the day when a third of the whole revenue from sugar would be lost to the Exchequer to pass into the pockets of colonial producers. But I do not believe that anything of the kind would happen, and I will tell my hon. friend why. He ridicules the idea of any possible fraud in connection with these preferential duties. He asked how was it possible that sugar could be sent from Germany or France to Jamaica in order to be re-exported to this country as colonial sugar. I agree with him. Sugar is too bulky and freight too dear for that operation. But Cuba is almost within sight of Jamaica, other West India Islands belonging to foreign countries are very near our own possessions, and French Guiana and Dutch Guiana are very near British Guiana. If we establish this preferential duty, in view of what I have said, we should have to safeguard that system by certificates of origin, and other precautions against fraud, which were absolutely intolerable when they existed in past years, and which would be infinitely worse for the commerce of our colonies than the duty of which my hon. friend complains. Certainly I am not disposed to embark on such a policy as that, with the idea that it would benefit our colonies, because I believe it would be injurious to our colonial trade. My hon. friend in one part of his speech showed the true meaning of his proposal. It is not merely a proposal to aid the West Indies. My hon. friend admitted it to be the commencement of a new fiscal policy for this country. If we

  935
  adopt it with regard to sugar we should have to follow it out with regard to tea, with regard to spirits, and with regard to every other colonial product to be found on the tariff.
  MR. FLOWERsaid he only suggested the Amendment to apply to newly imposed duties.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not see how it would be possible to make distinctions in the treatment of colonial products. If one colony producing a certain article is relieved of a third of the duty, then other colonies producing other articles would also claim to be similarly relieved. If my hon. friend's proposal were to succeed there would be a very material reduction in the yield of our customs revenue. That would have to be made up by the imposition of new customs duties, in which the same principles must be followed. Suppose we put a duty on corn, flour, timber, wool, or meat, Canada would ask us to levy it on all corn and flour not produced in Canada which we import, and similarly with Canadian timber, Australian wool, meat from New Zealand, and so on to every article which we import into this country and to which we should have to give this preference for colonial produce. And what would be the effect of such duties on the cost of living, and therefore on the cost of production here? Would it not seriously injure our manufacturers in their competition, already hard enough, with foreign countries? But that is not all. When we have done all that, foreign countries would come to us and say they were prepared to make the same tariff concessions to us as our colonies if they were treated on equal terms. What would be the answer of my hon. friend. Would he say to foreign countries, "Oh, yes, we will do for you what we have done for our colonies if you will give us the same advantages." Then this fiscal policy within the Empire would at once disappear and we would be caught in the meshes of the "most favoured nation" clause, which would put an end to the whole thing. But if on the other hand my hon. friend said to foreign countries, No, you are not our colonies, we cannot give you the
  936
  same treatment. What then? Our export trade to foreign countries is more than double what it is to our colonies, and are we prepared to risk the loss of that trade by declining to give foreign countries in return for the same concessions the treatment we give to our colonies? I would warn the Committee that I am aware that even while I am speaking there is a strong feeling in Germany on this subject, and that if Parliament were so ill advised as to adopt the policy of my hon. friend we should run the serious risk of losing the "most favoured nation" treatment for our commerce with Germany which we now enjoy. Having regard to what I have said, I trust the Committee will refrain from imposing on future Chancellors of the Exchequer such difficult conditions as suggested by my hon. friend. I believe that they would be injurious both to the mother country and to the colonies. I say that not from any antiquated notions of free trade to which my hon. friend has alluded, but for the reasons that I have endeavoured shortly to place before the Committee. I will not detain the Committee further, except to say that I trust that the desire to assist the West Indies will not lead them into a path which would, to my mind, lead to as great a fiscal mistake as we could make. It would be the reversal of a policy which has been successful in promoting our trade and commerce with our colonies and with foreign countries for the last forty years.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he regretted the speech which had just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was most unfortunate that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was unavoidably absent. The right hon. Gentleman had made many speeches upon the commerce of the Empire, and through them all there ran the thought that the real foundation of the unity of the Empire lay in the development of its commercial policy, He would quote one extract from the Secretary of State for the Colonies—
  "Experience has taught us that this closer union could be more hopefully approached in the first instance on its commercial side."
  When the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech announced his

  937
  intention to impose an import duty on sugar, he professed anxiety to do something practical to restore the refineries in this country and to revive the sugar industry in our colonies. The right hon. Gentleman stated to-night the enormous loss which the foreign bounty system had imposed on the Empire, and he also referred to the £400,000 granted to the West Indies during the last five years. That was entirely on account of the depression caused by foreign bounties. Here was the opportunity to save the taxpayers from these repeated grants, because everyone who had the slightest knowledge of the West Indies must know that that £400,000 had been paid by the taxpayers of this country to relieve the West Indies, and although there might have been some advantage in the cheapness of sugar, they paid away with one hand what they saved with the other. No one believed that the grants which had been made to the West Indies for the past five years would not have to be renewed from time to time if the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of doing nothing to develop the trade of the Empire were to be pursued. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to two extracts from the report of the Strong Commission which went out to the West Indies to investigate the causes of the serious depression existing there. That Commission consisted of three very distinguished gentlemen—Sir Henry Norman, chairmon; Sir David Barbour, a distinguished financial authority; and the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who threw so much light on any subject with which he grappled. The Commissioners unanimously stated that they could not close their Report without expressing strong sympathy with the many persons engaged in or dependent upon the sugar industry; not only the labourers but the higher social class which had been impoverished by the depression. Sugar was very cheap, and although he thought the colonies were exceedingly grateful for the sympathy expressed with them, it would have been much more to the point if the Government of the mother country had done something practical to remove the causes of that depression, and revive an industry which had suffered so severely. The chairman of the Com-
  938
  mittee, in a separate Report, differed from his colleagues as to the policy of imposing countervailing duties on bounty supported sugar, and he urged that a duty should be levied on such sugar to an amount equal to the bounty paid upon it by any foreign Government. That was a practical remedy. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing a duty upon all sugar coming into the country he had an opportunity given him of which he might take advantage without violently reversing what he called the policy of this country for the past forty years, and which he would tell his right hon. friend, whether he liked it or not, was going to be reversed in the very near future. It was being reversed to-day by the action of trade unions and large bodies of working-men acting within the law who viewed with disfavour the advantages foreigners at present enjoyed in our markets. He begged his right hon. friend not to delude himself with the idea that he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other right hon. Gentleman was going to retain the system of free markets in this country without reciprocity.
  His right hon. friend had an opportunity now of giving an advantage to colonial-grown sugar, but did not avail of it. Why? First of all, he said that the consumer would not get any advantage and that the price of sugar would not be lower. But that was a matter for the consumer to consider, and if any serious evil were wrought by it his right hon. friend would be able to remedy it. His hon. friend, himself, and many other hon. Gentlemen representing populous constituencies, and representing, just as much as his right hon. friend did, merchants and manufacturers, asked, with the full knowledge and authority of their constituents, that that concession should be made in favour of trade with our colonies. It was not an argument against it that the consumer would get no advantage. His right hon. friend in the course of his reply evidently thought that the proposal, if adopted, would develop colonial trade to an enormous extent, because he contemplated a great ensuing loss to the public revenue if the policy of the Amendment were adopted in the near future. But if that were the result, his right hon. friend and his suc-

  939
  cessors would be quite capable of finding new sources of revenue. His right hon. friend had had to obtain increased public revenue, and he found no difficulty whatever in doing it. He did so with the approval of the great majority of the country, and if he also adopted a policy which would develop trade with our colonies, and if the public revenue were affected thereby, he would, with the power of the people, be able to propose new duties to counterbalance the loss incurred. Then his right hon. friend said that it would be no advantage to the colonies. Would he stand up now and say that the preference granted by Canada was of no advantage to British trade?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think the hon. Member will find that any material part of the improvement in the trade between Great Britain and Canada is due to that preference, for the simple reason that the preference still leaves a protective duty as against the British manufacturer in favour of the Canadian manufacturer, and the result is that, although our trade with Canada has largely increased, the trade of the United States, which has not a similar preference, with Canada has increased almost as much as ours.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he supposed that trade with the United States had also largely increased. His right hon. friend would not admit that our trade with Canada increased because of the institution of a preference in favour of British goods. Was his right hon. friend acquainted with the causes which led to that increase? The facts and figures published by the Canadian Government and the statistics of the Board of Trade showed that since that preference was granted British trade with Canada had increased. He deeply regretted to hear his right hon. friend's statement. What effect would that have on the Government and people of Canada? They owed an enormous debt to Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the boldness with which he came to England and advocated the denunciation of treaties, and also upon his firm attitude during the General Election last year. Why, the Cobden Club absolutely presented their gold medal to Sir Wilfrid Laurier mainly
  940
  because of his attitude in that particular. They did not hold a dinner because, he believed, there were no funds available, but they held a meeting at which Lord Farrer and the few other gentlemen who constitute the Cobden Club were present, and they voted Sir Wilfrid Laurier their gold medal. Therefore his right hon. friend had no reason to be so much afraid as he was of the Cobden Club. Then his right hon. friend held up the bogey of Germany. It was astonishing that his right hon. friend, connected with an Imperial Government for such a long series of years, should be so frightened of foreign Governments, or of what France or Germany might say or do. He wished his right hon. friend would try to think more about his own prople, about the needs of his own countrymen, the development of their own trade and of trade within the Empire. Germany could take good care of herself. She knew very well the advantages to be derived from their system. France knew it very well. Debates in the French Chamber and articles in the French press lately showed the reason why France should not quarrel with Great Britain, and that was because she was her best customer. Great Britain bought four times more from France than France did from Great Britain. How did Germany, France, Russia, and other countries show their gratitude for the policy of free imports into this country which was maintained by his right hon. friend? By increasing their duties almost every year, and by putting greater difficulties in the way of our trade. That was the way they showed their gratitude for the policy adopted by his right hon. friend who, in the British House of Commons, said that he could not adopt the policy advocated by his hon. friend the Member for Bradford, and voiced by working men throughout the country, for fear of what Germany might say or do. Lord Salisbury had pointed out the impossibility of negotiating with foreign Governments at the present time. They could not negotiate as long as their policy was that of statesmen, he would not use any adjective, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in the British House of Commons trembled at the mention of the word "Germany." They had no power to

  941
  negotiate with foreign Governments. If they wanted to negotiate with the United States the British Minister would visit the Secretary of State at Washington, with a view perhaps to having a harassing impost removed from a British import, but the Secretary of State would say that if the United States gave England the concession she asked for. England had nothing to give in return. They had lost their bargaining power. It was not a question of goodwill, but of bargaining power, and a statement like that delivered by his right hon. friend—to which he listened with the greatest grief and pain—would do infinite harm. He feared there was no hope of turning his right hon. friend aside.
  His hon. friend called the attention of the Committee to the small amount of revenue involved. The amount was small, because although various parts of the Empire were admirably adapted for the cultivation of sugar, the industry was entirely ruined by the policy adopted by foreign countries. The figures were most astounding. Last year they imported from foreign countries nearly twelve million hundredweight of unrefined sugar, while they imported from British possessions only 1,377,000 hundredweight. And the right hon. Gentleman could not give this little advantage to the colonies because of his fear of upsetting the fiscal system! As regards the West Indies the matter was most serious. A large sum, £400,000, had been given to them by the taxpayers of this country during the last five years—the right hon. Gentleman had been generous in this matter, it was true—but how much better it would be to give them a chance of being prosperous as they were before, and living by their own industry, than to compel them to live on doles given to them by the English people. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a most serious effect in the West Indies, where there was already a strong movement to have done with a country which did so little for their commercial policy and ally themselves with a great continent which made commercial policy the first point of its programme. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to consider the effect which would be produced in the West Indies by the
  942
  observations he had just made, and to which the Committee had listened with so much regret. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of his fear of fraud, but means could always be taken to prevent it; he was afraid of fraud owing to the proximity of the Danish, Dutch, and American Islands, but precautions could always be taken against it. The answer the Committee had received this afternoon would not only have a serious effect in the West Indies and in Canada, but also in Australia, where the question of tariffs was now being considered, Mauritius, Queensland, and other places. He greatly regretted that the right hon. Gentleman would not give the little advantage for which the hon. Member for Bradford asked, first because of his fear of Germany; secondly, because he feared it might reduce the revenue; thirdly, because he thought the consumer would not get the 2d. in the cwt.; and, fourthly, because he feared the Government would not be strong enough to prevent fraud. He could only express his intense regret that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to give this slight advantage to British import trade.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I really rise to express my sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has brought such a pitiless storm about his head as that which has just come from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield. The hon. and gallant Member was so choked with emotion and indignation at the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was almost unable to express his views, and I really trembled for the right hon. Gentleman, because I thought the hon. and gallant Member was on the point of calling him perhaps a pro-Boer! But speeches of the kind to which we have just listened really explain the true character of this motion. We know very well the opinions of the hon. and gallant Member, and we know the sincerity and have seen the fervour with which he has spoken. He talked about the feelings of the working classes on this subject. Now, I imagine the working classes know, or at all events will soon discover, that they are the persons who will have to pay the whole of this in-

  943
  creased expenditure. It is said that this enormous increased expenditure, both normal and for the war, is for the advantage of the Empire, but it is not the Empire that pays for it; it is that contemptible, miserable corner of the Empire called the United Kingdom that pays; it is the working man of the United Kingdom that pays the whole of this additional taxation. And what is the proposal with regard to those parts of the Empire that do not contribute? We all recognise the zeal and valour with which the Colonies across the seas have sent their forces to aid in this war; but the taxation for the war will not fall upon them, but upon the petty population of 40,000,000 who occupy little England. And the proposal is that the working men, on whom this taxation falls, are to have an additional burden put upon them in order to give relief to those who do not pay the taxes. ["No."] Members say "No," but it is the fact. Who is to get the advantage of this proposal? The sons of the Empire across the seas, who do not pay the interest on £150,000,000 of debt, the additional income-tax, the additional tea duty, and the additional sugar duty. We are to pay it all, and we are to make a gift to them, not only of this particular money, but the whole policy which it represents now. The working men of this country are not such fools as not to understand that perfectly well. The hon. and gallant Member spoke about receiving reciprocity. Unhappily, I regret to say, the West Indies are not in a position to grant any reciprocity at all, and therefore this would be a gift, so far as they are concerned, without reciprocity, and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks of Australia, the Bill, at all events in regard to this clause, grants no reciprocity upon their part. The views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to reciprocity in this matter are entire delusion. On the part of the taxpayers of this country I protest against the claim which is made in the Amendment, and the much larger policy which it portends.
  Now, I will say no more upon that. The burden on the British taxpayer is heavy enough now, but it is more than likely to be a great deal heavier in the future, and therefore we cannot afford to give away revenue. If revenue is
  944
  given away it must be found in some other quarter. So we may put that matter aside. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what he called the great dangers to this country. We have difficulties enough with our foreign trade already. We know that the foreign trade of this country as compared with that to British possessions is about as three to one, and we are to put to risk the whole of that trade by proposals of this kind. We must not suppose that there will not be retaliation the moment we alter the status in quo. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield to talk of not being afraid of Germany. The hon. gentleman is strong enough and brave enough to meet the whole German army in his own person, but when we come to business we cannot rely on his eloquence to overcome the views on trade which are entertained in the German Empire. And we may depend upon it that, not only in the German Empire, but in France and in other countries as well, this trade of ours, which is more or less in a critical position, and at this moment, is not so flourishing as we could desire, will be greatly endangered by what they might regard as a policy entirely disturbing existing relations. On these grounds I regard a motion of this character as of the most perilous description, and therefore I shall vote against it.
  *MR. LAWRENCEsaid he had often thought that they showed rather too much consideration as to what other nations would do or think upon the question of our taxation, and he was not prepared to follow the right hon. Gentleman as to the danger to our trade with foreign nations. Speaking with some knowledge of the West Indian colonies which were concerned with this tax, he wished first of all to thank the hon. Member who had referred to these colonies for doing so, because, with the exception of his late lamented friend Colonel Mil ward, he was the only hon. Member who had referred the subject during the time this tax upon sugar had been on the tapis. The West Indies had been suffering from a tax on sugar very patiently for many years, in the matter of the bounties, and they would con-

  945
  tinue to suffer in patience, believing that every lane had an ending, and confident that His Majesty's Government were waking up to the seriousness of their needs and the duty of the mother country towards them. The West Indies were not asking for any preference for their industry. It was true that when His Majesty's Government came forward and put another burden upon them by the tax it caused the greatest disappointment amongst them, and they were at first inclined to resent it as thoughtless. To those hon. Gentlemen who did not understand the difficulties of the diplomatic situation it might appear inconsiderate on the part of the Government to spring this tax upon the staple industry of the West Indies; and while he sympathised with the hon. Member for Bradford, and thanked him for the sympathetic terms in which he had spoken of the condition of these colonies, he thought they were prepared to postpone to a more convenient season the great question which had been raised. They were satisfied with the opinion of His Majesty's Government, expressed in many public documents, to the effect that they believed that the bounty system was an injustice and ought to be abolished, and they looked anxiously forward to the time when the Government would do their best to negotiate with foreign Governments for the removal of those bounties. They were convinced that the industry to which those bounties were attached was perfectly able to hold its own in the markets of the world if it was fairly treated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the fact that this country had expended within the last five years £400,000 for the benefit of these colonies, but the amount of money we had expended in the West Indies had not been at all commensurate with the charges we had levied upon them: Those debts would never have been incurred if their industry had had legitimate treatment at the hands of the mother country. When the tax of 4d. per gallon was imposed upon rum, a very heavy impost was placed upon another important product of the West Indies, and as long as that tax remained they might consider themselves very liberally treated by contributing only
  946
  £300,000 or £400,000 within the last five years. When gentlemen in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northumberland, and colleagues of his like Sir David Barbour were prepared to endorse that view it showed that the West Indies were justified in asking that after justice had been done them by the removal of the bounties at the hands of foreign nations the mother country should consider whether something could not be done in the direction of removing the impost upon rum. He would not detain the House any further, but he looked forward with confidence to the Government doing something in the direction he had indicated. Hope deferred had made the heart of the West Indies rather sick, and it was now time that justice should be done to them.
  MR. BLAKEsaid he was glad that the hon. Gentlemen who had proposed and supported this motion has put their views before the Committee very clearly. It was well that this should be so, as much mischief had been done, in his opinion, by coquetting with this question. Much mischief had been done at the meetings of the Conservative organisations by opinions expressed upon this subject which had received the approval of the chiefs of the party, and which had given hope and encouragement in that quarter which could never be realised in their time. His own view was not quite that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the advantage which a colony might receive from the adoption of the principle of preferential tariffs. He believed some considerable advantage might be derived by a colony under these conditions. But that was not the question. The question was the price at which that advantage to the colony would be obtained. The great advantage of this country, whose trade was, they were told, in a somewhat critical condition, was the soundness of its position in reference to the question of duties. That was the great advantage of the position in which this country stood as a trading, manufacturing and carrying country. Great Britain was not dependent upon devices which rendered trade less free and interfered with its liberty

  947
  to obtain in the cheapest market whatever it wanted. They had much to fear in the future if they did not put their shoulder to the wheel. The advance made by foreign countries in technical education and the sacrifices they had made to improve their trade had produced a state of things which was not likely to render this country altogether happy. In the situation in which they were placed, to suggest that this country, instead of keeping fast by that which was good, holding to the solid element, and adding to its strength by diminishing its expenditure and duties all round, thus increasing its power as a manufacturing, trading, and carrying nation, should enter into this quixotic enterprise, which would produce disadvantages, far outweighing any possible advantages, seemed to his mind perfectly absurd. He trusted it would come to be understood that that was the definite policy of the leaders of opinion on both sides of the House. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Sheffield to say what was coming in the future. In the position in which this country stood—a state of things in which the concrete and the abstract ran together—no large departure could be made from the present system without increasing the price of raw materials. To suggest to the people of this country that a policy of this kind would have to be adopted was a sure omen for overwhelming defeat and disaster to those who brought forward such views as serious propositions for the welfare of the people.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to agree to the Amendment the greatest enthusiasm would be felt. He was somewhat astonished at the views expressed by his hon. friend who had last spoken, because Canada had expressed the strongest opinion that any expression of views by the House of Commons such as had now been moved would create a kindly feeling in Canada towards England; and the rejection of such a motion, after the sacrifices which Canada had made in order to show her affection for the mother country, would cause the greatest disappointment to that part of the Empire.
  948
  Before this debate ended he trusted that his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make matters clear upon this point, otherwise it might be thought that they did not care about the colonies when questions of taxation arose. He hoped that his hon. friend would go to a division.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I feel strongly the kindliness and goodwill shown by the action of Canada. But I think that the action itself is of far more importance on that account than on account of the actual effect it will have upon our industry.
  *MR. CHARLES WILSONsaid that, having sat in this House for many years, he knew the opinions of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield. When the hon. and gallant Member said that "we" had heard with regret the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he hoped the "we" represented a very limited number in the House. Personally he also represented a populous place, and he agreed with every word the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed upon this matter. He looked upon this as an all-important matter. It was not a question of the West Indies only, but of the entire commercial position of this country; and if we deviated in any way from the free trade principles which had made this country great, we would make the greatest mistake; that could possibly be made. He did not wish to say a single word offensive to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member had received a medal last week for his services from the King. He should also be decorated with a medal by the German Emperor for his action in promoting the Merchandise Marks-Act and the cry of "Made in Germany," which had made the commerce of Germany. When a Committee of this House sat on the Merchandise Marks Act two or three hon. Members opposite supported the action Mr. Wilson took, but unfortunately they were outvoted by other members of the Tory party. If they had considered the result of that action, perhaps they would act more wisely in future. We heard every day of the increase of German shipping, and as one connected with shipping he knew that

  949
  for the growth of that shipping the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield was to a great extent responsible.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he was in no sense responsible for the Merchandise Marks Act. On the contrary, he brought in a Bill in several successive sessions to improve that Act by doing away with "Made in Germany" and substituting "Foreign made."
  *MR. CHARLES WILSONsaid he would leave that point on one side. He could not think that the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman could be believed in by the great mass of Members in this House who had had to rely for their condition in life upon their own commercial enterprise. He sincerely hoped that the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so wise and so ably expressed, would not be in any way influenced by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member.
  *MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid no one could be more widely opposed to the views just expressed than he was. He, too, represented a very large commercial constituency, composed in a great measure of working men, and he knew their views on this particular question, and kindred questions, and certainly, whatever their politics might be, their views were those of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield. He was not one of those who saw any objection to the taxation of foreign imports, whether of sugar or anything else, but he objected to the taxation of the industries of our own people at home or in the colonies. He was altogether in sympathy with the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Bradford, and yet he could not help feeling that, if the Committee were asked to divide upon it, they would have a somewhat misleading division, and he should regret that any division should give the appearance—for it would not be the fact—that a majority of the Committee did not sympathise with their West Indian and their sugar-refining friends. He did hope that, if the colonies must, as foreign nations, have their sugar tax, it might be merely a temporary tax, and that the day was not far distant when we should see our way to give some kind of preferential
  950
  treatment to our own people. Now that the Government were in close negotiation with regard to the question of bounties, with a result, as they hoped, that might remove this iniquitous system which had done so much mischief, it would be a great mistake if a division should be taken which would in any sense weaken their hands. Many thousands of people in this country had lost their employment through the closing of sugar refineries on account of the bounty system in foreign countries. Some of them came from his constituency, and it was only right that he should express himself in favour of the views of his hon. friend the Member for Bradford.
  MR. BRYCE: I think, whether we divide or not, this debate will have done some good—it will clear the air. As has been said, there have been a great many hopes held out and a great many projects suggested which those who have looked into the matter and know the state of the case in the colonies know to be altogether groundless. Anyone who has studied the history of the colonies knows that nothing in the world will be more difficult than to introduce a system of inter colonial tariffs between the colonies and ourselves, and I think it is very fortunate that this bubble has been so effectively pricked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If this was a question of having one authority for the whole Empire, imposing one system of duties, for every part of the Empire, there might be a great deal to be said for a project of that kind. It would be one of the greatest things that could be done to consolidate the Empire and propagate free-trade principles. But we all know the conditions of our colonies. We know the difficulties they have in raising revenue. They have different conditions and different difficulties which make a proposal of that kind at present impossible, although we may hope that at some distant date it may pass from the present stage to a case of probability. I think we should be grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford for putting his case so broadly. What would be the results of this proposal? The first would be that this sugar tax would have to become

  951
  permanent, because if we are going to confer this benefit on the West Indian colonies, holding out inducements to the planters to cultivate their estates and provide machinery, it would certainly be considered a great hardship and very unfair to them if we suddenly withdrew that advantage given to them and abolished the sugar tax altogether, and we should do a bad thing in the way of tying our own hands, if we were to give any such preference.
  MR. FLOWERdissented.
  MR. BRYCE: That would be one result of adopting the proposal. What would be the second result? This is only intended for sugar coming from the West Indies, Queensland, and the Mauritius. I was struck with the observation of the hon. Member for Canterbury, who said the proposal would be received with enthusiasm in the colonies. I understood the hon. Member for South Longford to say that it would be received with enthusiasm in Canada.
  MR. BLAKE: I did not express any opinion.
  MR. BRYCE: My hon. friend the Member for South Longford is very cautious. The hon. Member for Canterbury speaks for Australia, where he said the proposal would be favourably received. Why? Because they would immediately expect preference for some of their articles. They would expect preference for wine and brandy, and possibly some other products, but above all for wool. We should at once have to reduce all our tariffs on wine and brandy, and we should have to impose a duty on wool. But we could not stop there. Suppose we gave benefits to Australia by reducing the duties on wine and brandy, we should next have to deal with Canada. At present none of the large staple products of Canada are taxed, and if we gave benefits to the West Indies, to the Mauritius, to the Cape, and to Australia, we must do the same for Canada and put a tax on timber. Would that be regarded as good policy by the working men? Do you think we should have the working men of Yorkshire and Lancashire eager for a policy which imposed taxes
  952
  on wood and wool? No doubt we should also have to consider the case of New Zealand, so that we should be embarked upon a policy which would revolutionise our fiscal system, which would affect in the greatest way the food of the people and the raw material of our manufactures. We should have to embark in an endless set of bargains with the colonies the constant shifting of the tariff up and down, which would be not only the despair of the Chancellor of the Exchequer but which would make it impossible to conduct our fiscal policy on a sound and permanent principle. Further, we would be imposing the greatest possible difficulty on foreign Powers, and that at a time when our trade is threatened in other ways, requiring a policy of wisdom I think that the more this proposal is examined the more its impracticability is demonstrated, but it will be of great benefit if the debate and the firm stand which has been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer prevents these proposals from being put forward in the future.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: It will not prevent that.
  *MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he trusted that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool would be accepted, and that the mover and seconder would be satisfied with the discussion and withdraw the Amendment. It had been well said that we should not swop horses in crossing the stream. We had a very difficult stream to cross just now. No one shared more strongly than he did the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield, but it was impossible to get a fair expression of opinion in that House at the present moment. There were Members who told them that free trade had made this country great. Was not this country great before forty years ago? Was it not great in the days of Queen Elizabeth and Oliver Cromwell? He did not think that the country was ever in a more critical position than it was at the present moment. [Nationalist cheers.] With regard to that cheer, and in spite of it, he believed that hon. Members below the gangway were in their hearts as bitterly opposed to free

  953
  trade as he was himself. This was not an opportune time to bring this Amendment forward, but he hoped it would be introduced again when the country was in a more settled state. As regarded the position of the West Indies, if something was not done for them they would gravitate naturally to the United States of America, and we would lose them just as we had already lost the Hawaiian Islands. The first necessity was to live. What had the policy of free trade done for this country during the last forty years? Had it not increased their difficulties? Had not the land gone out of cultivation day by day?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is going a long way from the Amendment before the Committee.
  *MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he did not for a moment dispute the ruling. This was a great question, and raised, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had frankly admitted, not merely the relief of the West Indies, but the whole question of protection. That was one of the greatest subjects which this country had to consider. The colonies had been taunted with the fact that, although their energies were admired, they were not going to contribute to the cost of the war. To his own knowledge colonists had paid large sums of money in connection with the war, and he could tell the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire and those sitting near him that it was possible to form a syndicate of colonists to-morrow who would take the whole of our responsibilities in South Africa off our hands for 150 millions, and think it dirt cheap at the price.
  *MR. HOLLANDsaid he should like as a business man to express his gratitude, in common with that expressed by several of the previous speakers, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very great stand he had made in the interest of Free Trade. Yet, of course, it was only the stand one would have expected him to make in view of his public utterances on this question. He remembered a short time ago hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer address an important meeting in the city of Liverpool on that matter,
  954
  and on that occasion he referred to the question of an Imperial Zollverein. He thought he was accurately quoting the sense of the remarks when he said that he declared that he would only favour the idea of an Imperial Zollverein on the basis of free trade. He fancied that would hardly suit the desire of his hon. friends on the other side of the House. He remembered, also, that this question of an Imperial Zollverein had been brought before the chambers of commerce of the Empire on several occasions. There was an Imperial Congress of the chambers of commerce held about five years ago. On that occasion the subject was thoroughly debated, but it was found by practical business men who took part in that discussion that there were insuperable difficulties in the way of carrying out any scheme which could be laid before that congress, and for that reason the idea was abandoned, or, if not abandoned altogether, the original resolution was withdrawn, and an innocuous one substituted. It was seen, for instance, that we should have difficulties with our own colonies at once. There would be claims on the part of the Indian cotton-grower as against the American cotton-grower; and what would happen if we were to discriminate against the American cotton-grower? And he did not think that would suit the Lancashire mill-owner who used American cotton. The same difficulty would arise in regard to the great staple of wool if we attempted to discriminate in favour of Australia and against the Argentine and Turkey. It would be seen at once that insuperable difficulties would be placed in the way of the successful conduct of the wool spinning and weaving industries of the country. When these points were laid before the Imperial Congress it was seen at once that the scheme could not be proceeded with. He must say that he had a great deal of sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield when he referred to the preference which Canada had given to this country. He appreciated the spirit which had animated Canada in making a preferential arrangement in our favour; but he would like to point out to the Committee that that preference conceded by Canada was not limited to this country alone, or to the

  955
  Empire alone, but was to be conceded to any part of the world which conceded similar treatment.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: No.
  *MR. HOLLAND: In the first instance it was. He thought it was under the influence of that feeling, and also with the knowledge that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose name had been so often quoted with sentiments of admiration and respect, was a Free Trader at heart, that the Cobden Club a few years ago voted him its gold medal. That gold medal was not to be interpreted as an approval of the whole of the fiscal policy of Canada, but merely as an acknowledgment of his splendid services and the stand he had made, surrounded as he was by Protectionists, in Canada. There had recently been a general election in Canada, and he believed with the hon. Member for Central Sheffield that this question of preferential trade was more prominently discussed than any other subject before the constituencies. He would like to ask whether those who were most strongly in favour of this country abandoning its system of free trade emanated from the polls with a satisfactory majority. They knew, as a matter of fact, that they came out very much worse than before, and therefore they found Sir Wilfrid Laurier again returned as the leader of the Canadian Parliament. It was true that British traders appreciated the action of Canada in making this preference in favour of British goods. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed a doubt as to whether British trade had derived any benefit from it. As a trader himself, he must confess that he had derived considerable benefits which would not have been possible under previous conditions. What was proposed to be done by such an Amendment as was now under consideration was not to make any attempt at reparation to Canada for its treatment of the mother country. The Amendment proposed to confer benefits not on Canada, but on the West Indies. Now, although the condition of the sugar industry in the West Indies had been lamentable lately, many competent judges considered that that was owing to the antiquated
  956
  methods pursued there of producing sugar. He could quote authorities in support of that statement to which even the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield would attach importance. The commissioner of The Times. newspaper declared that by better methods the cost of production of sugar in the West Indies might be reduced by 50 per cent.; and the commissioner of another London newspaper said that no well equipped and managed sugar estate in the West Indies failed to pay as well as any other well-managed industry at home. Therefore, before asking us to depart from our free-trade position, it would be well that there should be some attempt to modernise their methods in the West Indies; and if these failed, there might be some excuse for the question being raised again in the House. He could not share in the feeling of regret which the hon. Member for Central Sheffield had expressed that the price of sugar had been so low in this country during the last few years. He knew that the lowness of the price had been artificial, and that it had been caused by the bounties given by various states on the Continent. But he thought that the House ought not to lose sight of one particular effect of the bounties. It was that the low prices created by these bounties had enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fasten on this cheap commodity, and put a duty upon it. If the price of sugar had been higher the right hon. Gentleman would have hesitated before putting on this tax. He believed that another convention was about to be held in Brussels in regard to sugar bounties, and he would not be sorry if the Continental nations which were giving these bounties decided to abandon them. We did not want gifts thrown at our heads as if we could not afford to pay a fair price for what we consumed. But the disadvantage had not been with us who had been receiving this bounty-fed sugar; it had been with the foreign nations which had been penalising themselves by giving the bounties. When goods were sold below cost price it was for the seller who was losing by that transaction to stop rather than the buyer who was gaining by it. I saw by the papers this morning that French Ministers were protesting against

  957
  the continuance of the bounties being given to the French sugar refiners, because they found that it was an expensive policy, and that by it France was impoverishing herself, and that it was to the interest of France to do away with these bounties.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid this question was not one, after all, of bounties. The Committee was face to face with a direct proposal—namely, that we should give an advantage of 4s. 2d. per cwt. to sugar coming from British colonies and possessions.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he proposed 33½ per cent.; how was that 4s. 2d. per cwt.?
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid very well; but he wanted to know on what sugar that 33½ per cent. advantage was to be allowed? How did his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield know that sugar that came from Barbados had been produced there? Could they ear-mark sugar?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Yes.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: His hon. and gallant friend said "Yes." He had a little knowledge on the subject, and he declared that sugar could not be earmarked. They would have a most extensive system of fraudulent trading at the other end. If an advantage of thirty-three and a half per cent. was given to colonial sugars, they would have all the sugar from Cuba going out to Australia and then being reshipped here as Australian sugar; and the hon. Gentleman could not prevent it. He maintained that those who wished to help the colonies were bound to go to a division. He asked the hon. Gentleman who they were going to help. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman and his friends knew themselves, or that they realised that it was impossible to help the producers of sugar in any part of the world as against the producers of sugar in another part of the world, for the articles were identical and could not be distinguished. He had heard with great regret hon. Members from great constitu-
  958
  encies like Liverpool had been giving a halting expression of opinion on this subject; and therefore he spoke for one of the great constituencies which had prospered under the beneficent effects of free trade, because they had always been able to buy their materials freely in every part of the world. They were told that they must help the West Indian colonies in their staple product, but if so they must deal in the same fashion with all British colonies and possessions, and thus they would be face to face with protection, which would lead to confusion with all foreign nations in the scramble for trade. If one industry were protected, all must be protected; and the first to demand it would be the wheat-growing industry. They ought to have a clear exposition of what a tax on wheat meant. It meant dearer bread. The farmer might benefit at first by such a tax, but before many years the main advantage would be reaped by the owners of wheat land. Not all of his hon. friends who supported this proposal were landowners, but they would all fight with each other as to how they could get most protection for the particular industry in which they were engaged, and the end would be that they would raise not only the rent of the land in this country which produced wheat, but the price of bread, and of every commodity which we manufactured.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the only satisfactory speech which they had heard from the other side of the House, except that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been that from the hon. Member for Camlachie, who had denounced in strong and well-deserved terms the proposal of the hon. Members for Bradford and Central Sheffield. It was most desirable that those who had the courage of their conviction on this question should not shirk a division. This was a most opportune occasion; the issue was definite and specific; and good care would be taken that this Amendment was not withdrawn. We should be able then to see who were the protectionists on the other side of the House, and who came there to preach principles which they had not the courage to vote for. These speeches raised false hopes, that were impossible of realisation, and for that reason, if for no other, it was

  959
  as well that the motion should receive its quietus that night. During last Parliament, on the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary, £500,000 had been given to the West Indies under the pretext that it would revive their industry; and the first shot had been fired that night in this new Parliament in behalf of a similar campaign. If they did not resist this motion strongly and firmly, there would be a repetition of these gifts by the Colonial Secretary to the West Indies. If the House would bear with him, he would undertake to prove conclusively that the West Indian sugar planters had no case whatever. On the contrary, they were highly prosperous. [Cries of "Oh."] He meant those who conducted their business on proper lines. The groans and complaints came from a body of men who had got deep down in bad financial circumstances owing to the fact that when their trade flourished they charged their estates with all sorts of family settlements, and neglected to supply their businesses with modern machinery and to apply the best methods in growing the cane and manufacturing the sugar. We were being misled in this country as to the real facts of the case in the West Indies. He should prove that the West Indian sugar industry was highly prosperous and likely to continue so.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: That will be very interesting.
  MR. KEARLEY (continuing)said that those who talked about the depressed West Indian colonies always pointed to the producer of beet sugar as having brought about their distress. But what had the producer of beet sugar done? He had conducted his business on scientific lines, had built large central factories, and increased the extraction of sugar from beet double in fifty years. What was the state of the West Indies? Most of the planters had obsolete machinery, and although nature favoured them with soil and climate the extraction of sugar from the sugar cane had been much less than that from beet, unless on those plantations which had adopted the most modern machinery and the best methods. These were making stupendous profits. A large West Indian planter admitted himself in a memoran-
  960
  dum submitted to the Colonial Secretary in 1897 that he could produce cane sugar at £8 16s. 8d. per ton. We had it beyond dispute that no German beet factory could produce sugar under £10 per ton, but he was paid a bounty of 25s., so that the cost price for German beet sugar was £8 15s. per ton, as against. £8 16s. 8d. in the West Indies. Now, what was the relative market value of the two sugars? The bulk of West Indian sugar did not come to this country, but went elsewhere, but it invariably commanded in the market from £1 to £2 per ton more than the beet sugar. How, then, could an industry of that sort be in. a bad way? The truth was that the large West Indian companies were making at least 20 per cent. on their undertakings, and he hoped that the Committee would not listen for a single moment to the demand now made on it. It was said that prices were now lower than they were three or four years ago, but when the prices were higher the grumblers complained as much as they did now, and this was merely an attempt by those who were not sufficiently enlightened to conduct their business on proper and modern lines to extract a subsidy from the British taxpayer.
  MR. FLOWERasked how many West Indian companies produced their sugar at a cost of £8 16s. 8d. per ton.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he referred the hon. Gentleman to the memorandum given to the Colonial Secretary in 1897. The principal market for West Indian sugar was the United States, where there was both an import duty and a countervailing duty. Now, if we gave a deferential duty to West Indian sugar the result would be that the West Indies would lose the American, which was their best, market. If anyone doubted what America would do he would refer them to the notification that had appeared in the Press as to the course the United States Government was adopting towards Russia. Russia was supposed to give her sugar exports a certain premium, but the United States Government got to know that Russia was giving these exports indirectly something more than was declared. The result had been that there was something like a tariff war at

  961
  present between the United States and Russia, which was very likely to spread into a very serious affair. The American Secretary to the Treasury said:—"When we find export bounties are given we must impose a countervailing duty." The French Government had adopted in recent years a policy of giving their colonial cane-sugar producers precisely the same bounty as to their beet-sugar producers. In 1885 the production of beet sugar in France was 140,000 tons, and the importation of French colonial cane sugar was 140,000 tons; but in 1900 the production of beet sugar had increased to one million tons, while the production of cane sugar in the French colonies, though it was granted the same bounty as beet sugar, had fallen to 80,000 tons. That proved conclusively that these bounties would not put an industry on its legs where there is not a power to compete with the rest of the world. That was the secret of failures in the West Indies. They had made money formerly very easily, and hoped that the good times would last for ever, and they had not been businesslike in their methods. He was perfectly certain that in years to come they would prove themselves as capable of making a profit on cane sugar as the best companies had been, and that they would continue to make that profit.
  MR. HOULTsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down undertook to prove to the Committee that the West Indian colonies were at the present time successful. He was very much interested when he heard that statement, and he thought he was going to be enlightened, but the hon. Gentleman had utterly failed to prove to the Committee that the West Indian colonies were in any way successful. Most of them were at the present time in a state of utter ruin. In Antigua sugar production had gone out; in St. Kitts it was the same; in Barbados it was almost entirely gone, too; and Trinidad was not much better. In Demerara it was true that sugar was still produced. If was a very curious fact that the distress in the West Indies commenced at the time when bounties on sugar were given by European countries. At that time he ran a line of steamers
  962
  to the West Indies. These steamers conveyed from this country all sorts of things required by the islands, and they brought back sugar. He had to give up that line of steamers because the trade no longer existed. He always had been a free trader, and he was a free trader still. He strongly believed in free trade, and he also believed in fairness in trade. He believed the sugar planters in the West Indies had not been treated fairly. They had to struggle under the bounties which were given by foreign Governments, and those bounties proved too much for them. The land went out of cultivation, and the planters lost the whole of the money they had invested. That was a matter which should have been dealt with by the Government at the time. He did not think it could be dealt with now. It seemed to him utterly impossible to do anything at the present time, but he trusted that somebody with energy and capital would go to the West Indies and make use of the productive land which was there, and the climatic conditions, which should bring about successful result in some way or the other.
  MR. SCHWANNsaid he thought perhaps the discussion had been carried on by many hon. Members who had no practical acquaintance with the sugar industry. Now he owned a sugar plantation in Trinidad, and though he had not been able to make the profits which had been described by his hon. friend, at the same time he had not the slightest intention of voting for the Amendment, because the moment they made a preference in favour of colonial sugar they would open the flood gates on every other raw material. He thought it would be perfectly absurd to depart from their old and safe free trade principles. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield and other hon. Gentlemen spoke for large centres of industry. He did not know whether employers in Sheffield were wanting in that ingenuity which was necessary at the present time. He knew they were fairly reactionary, and not very much in favour of education, and it was very possible, perhaps, that they they were not keeping themselves in the van. But he objected to the House of

  963
  Commons being asked to legislate for every declining industry. He believed in industry and commerce being allowed to take care of themselves. If they invested their money in the Argentine or some other country and found it was not successful, they had no right to come whining to the House of Commons to alter the laws or turn them in their own favour. He was exceedingly glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had disclaimed any tendency to protection, because he was bound to say that the tax on sugar and coal seemed as if he were following in the direction which was urged by The Times. A year ago The Times newspaper fell foul of the right hon. Gentleman because he would not broaden his basis of taxation, and recommended sugar and wheat as points to which he should direct his attention. He had no faith in The Times, either as to its policy at home or its policy abroad, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had turned his back on that great and potent element for evil that existed in London. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the counsels of the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him, whose chief energies during his life had been turned in a different direction from that of industry and commerce.
  *MR. TAYLORsaid that two very old and dangerous fallacies had been trotted out in the course of the debate. One was that it was the business of the Government to make the community at large pay extra in order to relieve industries which were not remunerative in themselves. The other fallacy was that they allowed raw materials to be imported into this country without duty for the benefit of foreign nations. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield asked what recompense did countries like Russia and Germany give this country for receiving their exports free. But this country received their exports free not for their benefit but for its own, and they knew it well. He hoped they had heard the last of these two fallacies for some time to come. He was not, however, surprised that hon. Gentlemen like the hon. and gallant. Member for Central Sheffield and the
  964
  hon. Member for Bradford should expect something in the direction of protection from a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had put a duty on an article of food. Those who had egged the right hon. Gentleman on to that duty might egg him on to put a duty even on bread. He came from the woollen district of Yorkshire, and had lived for fifty years within nine miles of Bradford, and he wondered what the working-men constituents of the hon. Member opposite would think when they read in the newspapers to-morrow that the hon. Member had proposed a policy which would mean putting a duty on wool, which was the staple of the Bradford industry. That would be a necessary consequence of the establishment of preferential duties. As a manufacturer, he himself had to compete under very difficult circumstances with German manufacturers of cloth in the markets of this country, and he had been often sorely tempted to throw in his lot with those who wished to make cloth dearer for the benefit of the manufacturer, but he resisted that temptation, and would continue to resist it, because, manufacturer though he was, he was an Englishman first. He did not believe that by making the cost of production dearer they would be in a better position than heretofore to compete with other manufacturing nations. What was the cost of manufactured goods? There were two elements. In the first place material and in the second labour. If a duty were put on their raw material it would not enable them to get a farthing more for their goods in competition with other nations. If their raw material cost more, the result would be that there would be less to pay in wages, and the working man would not only have his food taxed but his wages would be lowered. That was a working man's question as well as a manufacturer's, and he hoped that hon. Members who thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield was right would have the courage of their convictions, and vote with him in the division lobby, so that they might be able to see what backing the Colonial Secretary really had in the policy enunciated in his recent speech.
  MR. MITCHELLdiscussed

  965
  the question whether this country had enjoyed free trade or not in the past and was deriving as much advantage from our fiscal system as in times past. He contrasted the present condition of England and America, and said that he had heard some of Mr. Bright's speeches in which he predicted the failure of America through the adoption of protection. Could any commercial man deny that America to-day enjoyed absolute free trade with eighty millions of people, and that she commanded a free selling power to the markets of England?—a distinct and decided advantage which we ought not to forget or minimise. He could only say from his own experience that many of the advantages that we were supposed in times past to possess had vanished, and we now had to compete against heavy duties. What he desired to know was, could the free traders of this country influence foreign Governments to readjust those
  duties in the way they had a right to expect? The duties were increasing, and the only trade which showed an increase was the colonial trade and the trade under the flag. England should, as far as she could, respect that which Canada had done, which was so much to the benefit of England. In conclusion, he asked the hon. Member for Central Sheffield whether it would not be a grave mistake to go to a division. He thought it would, because the result would not represent a correct decision so far as free trade or protection was concerned, and its import might he misconstrued. Under these circumstances he thought the decision might be postponed until the direct issue was in question, and therefore he appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 366. (Division List No. 263.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Malcolm, Ian

  Younger, William

  Delany, William

  Montagu. Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. B.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Cawley, Frederick

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bigwood, James

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Black, Alexander William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Blake, Edward

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Boland, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Colville, John

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brigg, John

  Condon, Thomas J.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Cox, Irwin Edward B.

  Austin, Sir John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Crean, Eugene

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Burns, John

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Burt, Thomas

  Crombie, John William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Caldwell, James

  Cullinan, J.

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

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

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

  Davies, M Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cavendish, V. C. W. Derbysh.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd

  Newnes, Sir George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Dillon, John

  Holland, William Henry

  Norman, Henry

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hoult, Joseph

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Doughty, George

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, David Brynm'r (Swansea

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Dowd, John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Kennedy, Patrick James

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

  Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  O'Malley, William

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  O'Mara, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Keswick, William

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Knowles, Lees

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Partington, Oswald

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Field, William

  Lawson, John Grant

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

  Fielden, Edward Procklehurst

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Penn, John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N.S.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Flower, Ernest

  Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Randles, John S.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Garfit, William

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Russell

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Reddy, M.

  Gilhooly, James

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Reed, Sir E. James (Cardiff)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Gore, Hn G R C. Ormsby-(Salop.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Renwick, George

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Govern, T.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (St'lybr'dge

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Rigg, Richard

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Roberts, John H. (Debighs.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Mitchell, William

  Ropner, Col. Robert

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Round, James

  Hammond, John

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Russell, T. W.

  Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert W.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Rutherford, John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (M'nm'thsh.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Harwood, George

  Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Helder, Augustus

  Murnaghan, George

  Smith, H C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Henderson, Alexander

  Myers, William Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'th'nts

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Wallace, Robert

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Stock, James Henry

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Strachey, Edward

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmamian)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Webb, Col. Wm. George

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfd.

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower

  White, Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Tomkinson, James

  Whiteley, George (Yorks, W. R.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Valentia, Viscount

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  MR. KEARLEY,in moving an Amendment to reduce the duty on sugar which indicates a polarisation exceeding 98 degrees from 4s. 2d. to 2s., said the Amendment he had the honour to move was one which affected the whole question. He was moving to reduce the duty by half. It was dear that the money would have to be raised somehow, and therefore he did not move the rejection of the duty altogether, but he thought it would be more convenient for the people if this duty was reduced to one farthing on the pound. He objected to the tax altogether because it increased the price of this food by 35 per cent.; it was contemptible in its character and most reactionary. Sufficient had been heard in the previous debate as to the tendency of taxation, and the taxing of bread-stuffs was only a question of time. So long as this great expenditure—the normal expenditure—went on increasing in this way there could be very little doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sooner or later, would be forced to come down to the House and propose a tax upon breadstuffs. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not admit it for a moment, because he rather prided himself upon the patriotism of the working man, who, he said, was proud of the amount he contributed to taxation. The President of the Board of Agriculture had taken the same line, and said that the working men of the country would regard it as an insult if they were not allowed to contribute. One hon. Gentleman opposite had also said he rejoiced in the tax because it would restrict the use of sugar. As regards the popularity of
  970
  this tax, one of the last public proofs with regard to that was given at Saffron Walden.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is now attacking the whole tax. He is himself proposing a 2s. tax, and, therefore, all he is entitled to do is to discuss the merits of his proposal as compared with that before the Committee.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he would endeavour to keep himself within the ruling of the Chair, and perhaps he might be permitted to refer to what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking in the country, had said that the cost of this tax to the working man would be about 4½d. per week per family, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described that statement as being grossly exaggerated. He had, however, made an inquiry into this matter, and he found that the cost to a workman's family of six persons would be 5d. per week, or 21s. 8d. per year. That amount would probably be exceeded, because, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer only expected £5,000,000 from this tax, the consumers would have to pay £7,000,000. That was the direct effect of indirect taxation. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed the opinion that in the past the incidence of taxation had fallen unequally, and consequently unfairly, on the direct and indirect taxpayer, and had taken credit to himself that in his Budget he had succeeded in equalising matters. But that was a most fallacious line of reasoning, because the only

  971
  test of the burden of taxation was the taxable capacity of the individual. The amount paid was no test whatever. The man with £50,000 a year who paid 2s. in the £ income tax had still £45,000 to spend, and therefore would not feel the burden as it would be felt by a man whose income was very small. The point of equalisation was not arrived at by taking the direct and indirect taxation, but by taking the circumstances of each individual tax, and that was a point which was not recognised in this Budget in any way. The right hon. Gentleman had piled tax upon tax on the working man. Last year it was the tea, tobacco, beer, and spirit duties; this year there was to be a sugar duty, and the object of his Amendment was to induce the right hon. Gentleman to admit that, although he was obliged to get new revenue, he had put too heavy a burden upon the people by the imposition of this sugar duty, and that it was not equitable to place such a burden upon them. He admitted that the working classes should be made to feel the cost of the war, but they were feeling it with a vengeance, for half the national revenue was derived from taxes they paid; in fact, the working classes were being taxed to death. A tax upon the food of the population was hurtful to them directly and indirectly; they would have to pay a good deal out on the one hand, and they would suffer on the other because they would not be able to indulge to the same extent as they had done in the article taxed. Indirect taxation was tremendously costly for the consumer, and he objected to this tax for that reason. He objected to it also because it imposed a burden on the most important article of food after meat and corn, and it imposed a tax upon a raw material out of which industries had sprung all over the country. All of those industries—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now using an argument just as applicable against his own proposal as against the Bill. All he can now do is to show good reason why his proposal of 2s. is better than the proposal of 4s. 2d.
  MR. KEARLEYcontended that if the duty was 2s. it would be reduced by half
  972
  the amount, and only half the harm would be done. He moved the reduction because, he submitted, the working classes were too heavily taxed; because a tax upon food was a retrograde movement, the extension of which no one could foresee; and, finally, because indirect taxation was so costly to the consumer.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 8, to leave out '4s. 2d.,' and insert '2s. 0d.,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That '4s. 2d.' stand part of the clause."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that the working classes are being taxed to death. That is one of the most absurd statements that has ever been heard in this House. I do not deny for a moment that the sugar duty of 4s. 2d. per cwt. is a tax which must fall upon the working classes; I have held that all along. I never said it was a popular tax, but I do say that, having regard to the circumstances of the time, the working classes are prepared to bear it. The hon. Gentleman says that for some reason a tax of 2s. would only be half as hurtful as a tax of 4s. 2d. With regard to the manufacturers, he knows as well as I do that the manufacturers who use sugar for export trade will have the duty back, whether it be 2s. or 4s. 2d.
  MR. KEARLEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to give a drawback on exported goods?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member has stated that the working classes will pay two millions more than the duty yields to the Exchequer. Why? Because of the illegitimate profit of the dealers and grocers, a body of men of whom the hon. Member knows a great deal, and on behalf of whom he has often addressed the House. The result of reducing the duty to 2s. would be to put more money into the pockets of these gentlemen and less into the Exchequer. The retail price of sugar to the consumer is always varied by a halfpenny in the pound, and for that reason I carefully considered the matter, and am convinced that if I imposed a duty of 2s. 1d. instead

  973
  of 4s. 2d. per cwt. the price of sugar to the small consumer would be raised by a halfpenny in the pound just the same, and the balance would go to the dealer and the grocer, a thing which I desire to avoid.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONregretted that he was not able to agree with the Amendment. He objected to the tax entirely. As regards the merits of the tax itself, he was at one with the hon. Gentleman. His chief objection to the Budget was that, while the Government were incurring a war expenditure of £150,000,000, they were only imposing on the country additional taxation to the amount of £27,000,000, so that he for one should like to see the sugar duty increased rather than reduced; therefore he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He could not help feeling that there was a great deal of weight in what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to the hon. Member. Another objection to this Amendment was that the same inconvenience to the consumer and the manufacturer would be caused by a 2s. duty as by a 4s. 2d. duty, and the revenue would receive only half the amount. If the Amendment had been a proposal to increase the tax he should have been more inclined to support it. The principle of late years had been that when a tax was either reduced or increased it should be by a substantial amount, so that the amount actually paid by the consumer should be practically the same as that which went into the Exchequer. When the alteration in duty was a slight one the difference usually went into the pocket of the middleman, as was recently the case with regard to the tobacco duty. If the increase was a large one the Exchequer would receive almost as much as the consumer paid; and if trade was to be harassed and disturbed, as it would be by this tax, it was better that it should be for a large rather than a small amount. Holding this view, he could not support any Amendment which proposed to reduce the tax.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid the objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a reduction of this tax on the ground that it would add to the profits of the middleman was derived
  974
  from his experience with regard to the tobacco duty. When a portion of that duty was remitted he (the hon. Member) warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the consumer would not obtain the slightest advantage, either in quality or in price. The right hon. Gentleman doubted that theory, but in the following year admitted its correctness.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHdissented.
  MR. BROADHURST: By reimposing the tax.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I wanted more money.
  MR. BROADHURSTcontended that the experience of the right hon. Gentleman had taught him that that theory was a correct one. If, however, this tax was reduced from 4s. 2d. to 2s., he believed the middleman would not get all the advantage. During the last twenty years the cheapness of sugar had largely revolutionised the condition of poor homes as regarded the luxuries they were able to obtain. Cubes and sweet-stuff which, twenty years ago, it was impossible for the poorer classes to obtain, were now common articles of consumption in the homes of moderately-paid working people. If the tax was reduced from 4s. 2d. to 2s. these cubes and sweet biscuits and so on would be obtainable at practically the same prices as had recently been paid; because the extra cost of the sugar, in the quantities bought by the manufacturers, would be so small. In that case the reduction of the tax by one-half would be a distinct advantage to the working classes. The hon. Member for Devonport, an admitted authority on the subject, had stated that, after inquiries at 200 different industrial centres, the extra cost per family of six persons involved in this sugar tax was calculated to be 5d. per week. That was really equivalent to a reduction of wages. To a mechanic earning 40s. a week it was not an extraordinary, though still a great consideration, but to the casual labourer in towns whose average earnings were perhaps 16s. per week, and the agricultural labourer in the country, with his 12s. per week, it was a most serious matter. Agricultural labourers were

  975
  notorious for large families, and to deduct 5d. per week from their wages would frequently just make it impossible for them to maintain their sick club or benefit society contribution. While he was not averse to reminding those who had shouted for the war that they must pay for it, he thought this new sugar duty was levying an unfair proportion of the burden upon the part of the community who could least know for what they were shouting. It was a grave and serious injustice to impose this additional indirect taxation upon the classes who were already unduly burdened. Speaking from memory, he believed that wines, the drink of the rich, brought in only about £1,500,000 a year, while beer, the drink of the poor, benefited the Exchequer by about £14,000,000 per year. From that example, it could be seen how unfairly the burden of taxation fell upon the different classes of taxpayers, and on that ground he felt he was justified in supporting this proposed reduction. He was entirely opposed to any tax on sugar. Why had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the duty on spirits, or doubled the duty on wines?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing the Budget as a whole: the time for that has passed.
  MR. BROADHURSTfully recognised the correctness of the Chairman's ruling, but this was a very tempting subject. If the tax per family could be reduced from 5d. to 2½d. per week, it would be a consideration of enormous importance to a large portion of the community. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not agree to the reduction, would he assure the Committee that, if the tax was found to fall as heavily as it was feared it would do on the poorest classes, he would consider its readjustment next year?
  MR. M'KENNApointed out that in the Bill as it at present stood the amount contributed by indirect taxation was about £7,000,000, while the amount contributed by direct taxation was only about £4,000,000. He asked whether this was an intentional departure from the principle of, roughly speaking, making direct and
  976
  indirect taxation equal. If it could be shown that on other grounds that general principle had been maintained, he for one should not be prepared to support the present Amendment, but if no explanation was given he should certainly vote for the proposed reduction, because its effect would be to put the direct and indirect contributions under the Finance Bill on practically the same footing.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he would not be in order in going into the point raised by the hon. Member, but, as he stated in his Budget speech, the effect of the proposals of the Bill, together with the existing taxation of the country, would practically equalise the amounts derived from direct and indirect taxation. The coal tax was of course left out of the calculation.
  *MR. CHANNINGcordially supported the Amendment, because he could not agree with the principle that they should be content with merely balancing the products of direct and indirect taxation. The question should rather be considered from the point of view of the sacrifices involved in the proposals in proportion to the individual incomes of the classes who had to contribute to the revenue. According to a statement made in 1885 by the present Colonial Secretary, the taxes on articles of consumption amounted then to about 8 per cent. upon the average wages of working men. Since that date the percentage had largely increased, until it now stood at about 10 or 12 per cent. By the present proposals there was added what amounted to about 3 or 3½ per cent. of taxation if they took the average wages of agricultural labourers. Considering what these increases meant to men whose incomes were from 12s. to £1 per week, he thought the hon. Member was amply justified in moving to reduce this tax by one-hall In 1874 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Northcote, took the greatest pride and satisfaction in sweeping away the sugar tax, his argument being that its abolition would mean the removal of a great hardship from the poorer classes and the removal of a serious interference with trade, and

  977
  Sir Stafford's forecast had been more than fulfilled by an immense development of important industries since then. The whole of these arguments applied therefore with even greater force at the present time, and therefore he should support the Amendment.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he should vote for the Amendment, because the tax would fall very heavily upon the working population of Ireland. Tea was a necessity of life in Ireland, and therefore sugar was also a necessary, because tea could not be taken without sugar. However hardly the tax might fall on the agricultural labourers and artisans in England, it would fall with much greater force on the corresponding classes in Ireland, because Ireland was a poorer country. It was therefore only right that some Irish Member should associate himself with the mover of this reduction, and he should have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. JORDANexpressed his intention of supporting the reduction of the tax on the principle that half an evil was better than a whole evil. He should do this in the interests of trade as well as of the people generally. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed that in the event of the tax being reduced to 2s. the balance of 2s. 4d. would go into the pocket of the middleman, he had very little knowledge either of the middleman or the small trader, or of their customers. He was not ashamed to say that he was a
  middleman himself, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the consumers were too keen on getting their goods at the lowest possible price to permit this difference to go to the benefit of the small trader. If the small farmers and labourers found that by buying half a stone or a stone of sugar they could get it ¼d. or ½d. per lb. cheaper, they would buy the larger quantity instead of purchasing a single pound. The assumption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was therefore altogether erroneous. The saving effected would go into the pockets of the consumers, where it ought to go. He repudiated entirely the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to middlemen, for he was a middleman himself. From what the right hon. Gentleman had said, they would be inclined to think that middlemen were Jews, who were always ready to grasp by force everything they could; but even in Ireland they had some sense of business morality, and the consumers were keen enough to prevent them doing what the right hon. Gentleman had insinuated. He repelled the accusation made by the right hon. Gentleman, because the middlemen could not get the advantage, and they would not do so if they could. When he heard it insinuated that middlemen were prepared to gobble up everything he felt that he must protest against such an accusation.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 264.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bigwood, James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. E.

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H.

  Doughty, George

  Austin, Sir John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christch'rch)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (St'lybridge

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Garfit, William

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ropner, Col. Robert

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Round, James

  Gore, Hn. G. R C Ormsby-(Salop

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Rutherford, John

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds

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

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Spear, John Ward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maiendie, James A. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stock, James Henry

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd.)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stroyan, John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Penn, John

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Kenyon, Jas. (Lanes., Bury)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Knowles, Lees

  Randles, John S.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Lawson, John Grant

  Renwick, George

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  Black, Alexander William

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Blake, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Boland, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Brigg, John

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Burt, Thomas

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Dowd, John

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Malley, William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  O'Mara, James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Colville, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Partington, Oswald

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Russell

  Cullinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Reddy, M.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dillon, John

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Rigg, Richard

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mooney, John J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murnaghan, George

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Spencer, Rt Hn C R. (Norchants)

  Whiteley, George (York, W R.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  Taylor, Theodore Cook

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'ld

  *MR. LOUGHsaid he had four Amendments on the Paper, but they all referred to one subject. It was the only legitimate Amendment, if he might say so apart from party purposes, that ought to be moved in regard to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer except the Amendment to oppose the clause altogether. They had in the clause a very ingeniously devised system of graduation of the sugar duty, and the object he had in view was to substitute for that a simple system which he would describe to the Committee. He moved to insert after "sugar," in line nine of Clause 2, the words "of a polarisation of ninety-eight degress or less, the cwt., 2s." He had adopted the figure 2s. because it was the lowest proposed in the Chancellor's scale. The simple system he proposed would involve only two duties, one of 4s. 2d., if they liked, on refined sugar, and 3s. 6d. on raw sugar.
  *MR. DOOGANcalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: A division has quite recently been taken, showing that there are more than forty Members in the precincts.
  MR. LOUGHsaid any Member of the Committee who had given the matter his attention would agree that the graduation of the duty was by far the most important consideration embodied in the sugar clause. His first reason for the proposal he made was that the history of the sugar duties favoured the adoption of a simple duty of this kind rather than a graduated system. During the last ten years of the graduated duty on sugar opinion in the House of Commons tended steadily towards a simple duty such as he now proposed. In the Budget of 1864 Mr. Gladstone made his great argument in favour of a graduated system of sugar duties, reducing at the same time the
  982
  duties to half the amount at which they stood before. It might appear to the Committee from the admission he had made that Mr. Gladstone was in favour of a graduated system of duties. He must go a little further back than that. A Committee of the House of Commons examined the matter in 1862, and reported in favour of the system of graduation to a certain extent. The sugar duties of this country had always been graduated, and the Committee reported that they should still be graduated, and Mr. Gladstone said it would be a ridiculous thing to abolish the graduation, but, with all that, he reduced the graduation to smaller proportions than ever before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed that the lowest duty should be 2s., and the highest 4s. 2d. That meant that the highest was more than 100 per cent. over the lowest. Mr. Gladstone's proposal was that the highest should only be a little more than 50 per cent. over the lowest duty. He would ask the Committee not to pay so much attention to Mr. Gladstone's arguments as to what happened during the last ten years the sugar duty was in force. He would point out what was the effect of the graduation proposed in 1864, because he was going to argue that the same effect would follow the worse kind of graduation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed now. Within two years after the Budget of 1864 the importation of the highest quality of sugar fell from 85,000 tons to 1,000 tons, and, on the other hand, the importation of a low grade, then admitted for the first time, rose to 53 per cent. of the sugar imported into this country. The evils arising from the 1864 scheme of graduation became so great that it had to be altered in 1867, again in 1870, again in 1873, and, finally, in 1874 the sugar duties were abolished. The graduation was reduced at every alteration, until in the scale of 1873 there was only a difference of 1s. between the highest and the lowest sugar duty, being a much smaller difference than was

  983
  established by the present proposal. He would suggest that a difference of about 6d. between raw and refined sugar would be sufficient.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There were five rates of duty then.
  *MR. LOUGH: Quite so. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had interrupted him. The right hon. Gentleman was now proposing twenty-four duties at which sugar was to be admitted to the country. There never had been so much graduation as the present Chancellor was giving. In the Budget of 1873 the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the evils which arose from graduation. He would ask the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the admission made by the Government in 1873, through the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time, with regard to the question of graduation. The Chancellor said:—
  "As we reduced the tax we reduced the range The effect has been considerable and very beneficial.
  He also gave this other reason—
  "Refining gives rise to innumerable practices which I will not call by any harsh names."
  When he said he would not use any harsh name he meant adulteration. It was desirable to get rid of this practice, and they got rid of it by reducing graduation. The next point, which was the most important of all, was alluded to in the Budget of 1873, and it was one which the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to push entirely aside. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then alluded to the fact that, owing to the graduation of the sugar duties, the revenue of the country was subject to continual losses. These arose through the drawbacks which were given on sugar exported, being at a higher rate than had been received by the Exchequer when the sugar was imported. Dressing and other practices were adopted to improve the appearance of the sugar and make it pass as quality of a higher grade, so that the Revenue was greatly injured. Similar frauds would commence the moment a graduated scale was re-introduced. In 1873 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this would
  984
  cease because "The scales will be so near that it will not probably be worth the while of anyone to take much trouble." so that the safety against fraud was that the graduation was slight. But here we had a worse graduation introduced. He had shown that the experience of the House of Commons was that these graduated duties tended to give an opportunity of defrauding the Exchequer, and opinion was against the repetition of them. His second objection was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposed scheme had come from a bad quarter. He did not know whether any hon. Members were aware from where the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got his scheme. But he would tell the Committee that this was the American sugar tariff imported into this country. He would like to make that good. In the United States the sugar tariff began at a little less than a halfpenny and went up to a penny. The Budget proposal was that we should begin at a farthing and go up to a halfpenny—exactly the same scheme of graduation as in America. There was scarcely a doubt that if the Committee admitted the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year of a graduation from a farthing to a halfpenny, a year or two hence we would get the full tariff of the United States. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say what better origin could a proposal of this kind have? In the United States they had got smart business men, with very go-a-head notions. But he would remind the Committee that the United States was a protectionist country, and it was openly avowed that they had got a protectionist tariff. We were a free trade country, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was going to stick to free trade in all his proposals in his Budget; but if he was going to stick to free trade he would find some difficulty in defending his scheme of graduation. The United States scale had done every possible harm. Under it the American Sugar Trust had been founded, and of all the monopolies in the United States that was the worst. It controlled the production, importation, and distribution of all the sugar in the country. Nine-tenths of all the sugar distributed in the United States were touched by that Trust, and it avowedly prevented anything but the commonest

  985
  classes of sugar being imported into the United States. The origin of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme of graduation ought to satisfy the Committee that it should hesitate before adopting it. His third argument was that sugar refining was an industry which could not be expected to flourish in the United Kingdom. It might be asked what had that to do with the graduation of the duties? The only reason we had yet had given for adopting this extraordinary scale was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to give "fair play" to the sugar refiners; but why not "fair play" to the public, the consumers of sugar? It was quite contrary to our system in this country for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give "fair play" or protection to any manufacturing industry. It was said that the scheme was to do something to restore the sugar-refining industry in this country; but he maintained that nothing could set it up again. The proportion of refined sugar imported into and consumed in this country in 1860 was only 2 per cent., but last year it was 59 or 60 per cent., so that there had been a steady tendency to get a large proportion of refined sugar from abroad. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was putting the highest duty, 4s. 2d. per cwt., on refined sugar and only 2s. per cwt. on raw sugar. Mr. Gladstone, in 1864, laid down a principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to adhere to on the present occasion. He said—
  "The form of our duty should be such as to least interfere with the natural course of trade."
  And again it was said that the House—
  "would have been left open to the charge of offering to the producer or manufacturer an opportunity of doing something different from that which he would do if there was no duty at all."
  There never was a better principle laid down, but Mr. Gladstone had not lived up to it. He had no experience of a period in which there was no sugar duty at all in this country. During that period the refining was done abroad. If the tendency of a graduated scale was to develop in this country an industry of this kind, which had failed once, and which would be contrary to the best interests of the country, then they ought
  986
  not to adopt the scale. But graduated sugar duties were not at all necessary to give fair play to sugar refining. In the period of free trade in sugar the largest and most productive sugar refinery in the country had sprung up in Liverpool and London—that of the Messrs. Tate, and it was never so successful and prosperous as it was to-day. Therefore none of these protective duties or "fair play" were necessary to build up the sugar-refining industry. But he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think of the British public. The consumption of sugar had increased immensely in this country during the last forty years. In 1801 the consumption of sugar was 15 lb. per head of the population; in 1840 it was 16 1b.—practically no difference. In 1860 it was 30 lb. per head, and in 1900 90 lb.; that was, the consumption had trebled under free trade. He believed that the graduated scale would cause an immense interference with trade in this country. When there were five grades, five millions of samples had to be taken. How many millions would be necessary when there were twenty-three or twenty-four gradations? A maximum of interference with trade and inconvenience at the customs would be caused. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had got a correct instrument for testing the quality of sugar. He questioned whether the polariscope was a correct instrument. The operation of a graduated scale would depend upon the uniformity of the eyesight on the part of the Custom House officers, and he doubted whether that could be attained, and there would be a great deal of uncertainty about the exact amount of duty that would have to be paid on any parcel of sugar. He thought, even if it were a little unfair, it would be better if there were a fixed scale—so much on raw and so much on refined sugar. He had wanted to see a polariscope, but could not find one. He went into a shop and asked to see one, but the shopmen looked upon him as a person not quite right in his mind. The shopman called the proprietor, who asked what it was he wanted. He replied a polariscope. The shopkeeper asked him if he knew what a polariscope was, and he answered that it was an instrument which the Chancellor of the

  987
  Exchequer was going to test sugar with, whereupon the old man said that if he had had any idea of the mischief caused by Chancellors of the Exchequer he would not have come into the shop and asked for a polariscope. Then the shopkeeper, who had not even a picture of a polariscope, told him that if he really wanted one he would send to Paris for it, and that it would cost £20. He maintained that it was a pity to base customs duties in this country on such a complicated instrument as that. In conclusion he thought the main objection to the proposed new system was that if the graduated scale were adopted there would be a great loss to the revenue in the matter of drawbacks. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer took a simple scale of 3s. for refined and 2s. 6d. for raw sugar he would get as much money as by this complicated graduated scale, and would, moreover, save all the worry and inconvenience to the trade.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 9, to leave out from the word 'polarisation' to the end of line 15, and insert the words 'of ninety-eight degrees or less, the cwt. 2s."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Gentleman ended his speech by saying that if a duty of 3s. was placed on refined sugar and 2s. on raw the result would be more agreeable to the trade and more beneficial to the revenue. I need not say that I have had many communications from the trade, but I have never heard from any quarter the objections which the hon. Member said the trade entertained to my proposal. The hon. Member denounces me for putting a protectionist tariff on sugar, and is apparently imbued with the idea that I have framed this scale in order to protect the refiners of this country. I have done nothing of the kind; I have simply framed a scale which, according to the words he quoted from Mr. Gladstone, will not interfere with the ordinary course of trade and will leave the refiners of this country and the trade generally, as far as possible, in precisely the relative position they were in before the duties were introduced. The
  988
  hon. Member seemed to ignore the extraordinary difference of quality and value and in the amount of crystallised sugar which exists between the kinds of raw sugar which are imported into this country, and the difference, therefore, in the duty that they can bear. If the hon. Member's proposal were adopted the affect would be that no raw sugar polarising below ninety-five degrees would be imported into this country at all, for if there was a fixed duty on all raw sugars importers would confine themselves to that class of raw sugar which contained the highest amount of pure sugar. The lower classes of raw sugar, which are about 95 per cent. of the 12,500,000 cwt. of raw sugar annually imported, would not be imported at all, the importation of sugar being thus confined to refined sugar and the very highest class of raw sugar. That, of course, would absolutely kill the refining industry in this country. The hon. Member has spoken of Messrs. Tate's refinery, which, no doubt, has prospered greatly in spite of the difficulties which have been put in the way of refining in this country by the bounties to refiners in other countries in Europe; but I will venture to say that it would be absolutely impossible for even that refinery to continue to exist under the proposal of the hon. Member. The hon. Member seems to think that there is no reason why sugar should be refined in this country at all, that it would be better if it was not so refined, and that foreign countries are the proper places where that refining should be done. Why should we destroy the industry in this country? I should like to quote to the hon. Member some words used by Mr. Gladstone in 1864, because I think they put the case so fairly and clearly that they are better than any words I could use myself. Mr. Gladstone was arguing infavour of a graduated duty on sugar as against a uniform duty such as the hon. Member suggests, and he gave an example of the operation of a uniform duty by comparing the effect of such a duty on 1 cwt, of refined sugar and on 2 cwt. of low-class sugar, which yielded, after being refined, 50 per cent. of crystallisable sugar. Mr. Gladstone said—
  "These 2cwt will, when refined, yield, without including the minor profits of refining,

  989
  1cwt. of sugar. The question is, Who is to manufacture the article, the refiner in India or the refiner in England?"
  Mr. Gladstone was alluding to East India sugar, and therefore spoke of a refiner in India. He continued—
  "The point for our decision is, how are we to adjust our law in such a way that we shall by means of the duty give no inducement to any man to refine in England rather than in India, or in India rather than in England? The Indian refiner buys this 2cwt. of sugar, refines them, and sends the refined sugar to this country, and if the duty in this country is 10s. a cwt. he pays 10s. for the introduction of the 1cwt. of sugar. The British refiner, under a uniform duty, when he has brought his 2cwt. here so that he can refine it, has to pay 10s. duty on each cwt., so that while the English refiner, to get his 1cwt. of sugar into the market, has to pay a duty of 20s., the Indian refiner sends it in for 10s. And yet we are told that that is the way to do justice and to escape the stigma of protection."
  That is a conclusive answer to the argument of the hon. Member.
  *MR. LOUGH: The illustration was quite wrong.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, it was not.
  *MR. LOUGH: Two cwt. of sugar would produce more than one cwt.; it would produce nearly one and nine-tenths cwt. of refined sugar. The illustration was wrong. Mr. Gladstone was not a refiner, although he had other great qualities.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In all these technical matters of finance Mr. Gladstone thoroughly mastered the subject, and I venture to say he knew far more about it than the hon. Member. Mr. Gladstone went on to say—
  "Now, Sir, our sincere and impartial desire is to consider the question without prejudice, but there is no doubt of what the operation of such a uniform duty would be; it would be simply equivalent to a bounty approaching, more or less, nearly 10s. per cwt. upon refining abroad as against refining in England. We are not willing to give any premium for the employment of capital and labour in England rather than abroad, but certainly we are unwilling to be parties to imposing a penalty upon labour and capital in England as compared with foreign countries, and this is what, in our view, would be the effect of a uniform duty."
  By killing the refining industry in England, the hon. Member would do
  990
  something more. He would distinctly diminish competition in the sale of sugar in this country, and consequently increase its price to the consumer, and therefore I cannot imagine a more unjust proposal than the hon. Member has made to the Committee. I will not go further into the arguments in favour of a graduated duty on sugar as against a uniform duty. I have quoted Mr. Gladstone, and I could also quote Mr. Cobden, a Committee of this House presided over by Mr. Cardwell, and also the opinions of representatives of the nations who discussed this matter in 1864. From that day to this there has never been a proposal seriously made for a uniform duty on raw sugar. The hon. Member finds fault with the particular mode which I have adopted of calculating the graduated duty. I admit it is difficult, and at first sight I thought it was more complicated than the proposal which existed in 1874, under which there were five graduations in the tariff: 3s., 2s. 10d., 2s. 8d., 2s. 3d., and 2s. But why was it impossible in these days to do more than adopt steps of that kind? The reason was that the test was a most imperfect one. It was not a chemical test, but a colour test, and depended entirely on trained eyesight, and the result of that scale was, I admit, not satisfactory. But under the system of the polariscope it is now possible to calculate accurately the amount of crystallizable sugar in any cwt. of raw sugar. The hon. Member created a laugh by the statement of his experiences with regard to the polariscope. I expect he went to the wrong place to find one. I have tested the polariscope myself, and I have seen it worked by a gentleman who thoroughly understands it, and he showed me how it was worked, and though I cannot profess to have any knowledge of chemistry, I think it was one of the simplest and easiest tests that any person with ordinary eyesight can conceive. There was nothing like the possibility of variation between the results of different persons using the polariscope that the hon. Member spoke of. The Customs Department have obtained a good many of these instruments, and they are now in use in places where raw sugar is imported. Of course

  991
  I do not say that the particular scale I have adopted in this Bill is absolutely perfect, but I do say, in spite of what the hon. Member has said, that it is the most perfect scale in use in the world.
  The hon. Member blamed me for having adopted it from the United States, but the United States understand these things very well. [An HON. MEMBER: They are Protectionists.] What does that matter? What has that got to do with the adoption of a scale for the detection of the amount of crystallizable sugar in a cwt. of raw sugar? The hon. Member says that it is protection for the refiners. I have already told the hon. Member that I cannot believe it is anything of the kind. I have had remonstrances from refiners in this country against the scale, who contend that they are placed by it in a worse position than they were in before. On the other hand, I have had a very few objections that it would interfere with the importation of refined sugar. The hon. Member anticipates that the large imports of refined sugar into this country will be diminished by the operation of the duty, and that raw sugar will be substituted. That is a matter of opinion. I do not believe it; but it can only be tested by results. If it be found, by the experiences of time, that the scale works unfairly, why, of course, the scale can be altered. In the meantime I must ask the Committee to some extent to repose confidence in me in the matter. At any rate I have no Protectionist leanings. I have shown that, I think, this evening. I have done my best in concert with those able officers by whom I am assisted to make this scale fair to all parties and to all classes of sugar, and to the interest of the consumer quite as much as to the interest of the producer. I can only place my own authority and the authority of the Customs Department against the authority of the hon. Member in this matter. But I must say that I believe that the hon. Member has been entirely misinformed as to the operation of this scale. In my judgment it is fair to the trade, fair to the producers of sugar, and fair to the consumers.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  992
  that when the polariscope test was criticised during the discussion of the resolutions he then gave a certain pledge, if he might so term it. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he wished the Committee to understand that the scale which was fixed was only to be regarded as tentative. He said that he worked on the best material he could obtain, but that he would be perfectly ready to benefit by experience. There was a general feeling that the polariscope test was not reliable, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would consent to the appointment of a Committee of sugar experts—he meant chemists and others who knew the properties of various sugars—who would make an independent examination on behalf of the Revenue? He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deny that the sources of his information originally were the sugar refiners. He thought he knew where the right hon. Gentleman worked a polariscope. It was at a sugar refinery.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It was in my own room at the Treasury.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid of course he would accept that. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the new method was discovered in 1874. That was a long time ago in chemistry. He said: "Since 1874 a new method has been invented."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: "Since" 1874. [The right hon. Gentleman added an observation which was not audible in the press gallery.]
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was distinguishing himself by being particularly polite to him that night. He thought, however, that he would make better progress with his Budget if he adopted the advice which was once given by the Colonial Secretary, and kept a civil tongue in his head.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That is language which should not be used to any member of the House.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he used it under provocation and would withdraw it. He had no desire to misrepresent the Chan-

  993
  cellor of the Exchequer, and would put his words before the Committee. They were: "Since 1874 a new method has been invented by which the amount of crystallisable sugar in raw sugar can be ascertained." Whatever the date might have been, it had been conclusively proved since that time that the methods were not accurate. The right hon Gentleman had said that this scale had been adopted by the trade, but he did not explain what he meant by the trade. As a matter of fact, he meant the shippers of raw sugar to this country. It was true that the polariscope was used as the test to find the saccharine matter upon which revenue was to be paid. In the calculation the amount of ash had a very important bearing; it was assumed that the percentage of ash prevented five times its weight in crystallisation, but he was informed by two of the best chemists in this country that one per cent. of ash prevented only three times its weight, so that any sugar which did not crystallise was treated as molasses, and the refiner got a greater amount of crystallised sugar than was supposed. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he was open to criticism with regard to the polariscope, and he ventured to say that the suggestion he offered was a reasonable one, namely, that a Committee of experts should be appointed to test this instrument, to ascertain whether the deductions which had been arrived at were accurate. He expressed regret that he should have imported any heat into the observation he had made, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take no notice of it.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I should be very sorry to say anything to any hon. Member that was calculated to give offence. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member, I will say this, that it is to my interest more than that of anybody else that this test should be accurate and fair. I do not see how, prima facie, you could get a fairer test than one which is accepted by the seller of the article on the one side and the buyer on the other as the means of determining what is the amount of sugar for which the buyer pays. I am quite aware that there are differences of opinion as to the precise action of the
  994
  polariscope on certain kinds of sugar, and I shall carefully watch the matter, and if I see any cause for entertaining doubt upon the subject I shall be very willing to consider the appointment of a Committee of experts to inquire into it.
  *MR. MOULTONsaid that he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a division. They were now endeavouring to ascertain how best to arrange a tax which the country would have to bear, and to do this they must avail themselves of the known means of measuring the article taxed. It was ridiculous to discuss the polariscope, as if it were not an instrument of which the results were not perfectly well known as an instrument of science. It might be true that it was not more than fifty years ago since the rotary polarisation of sugar was discovered, and that in 1874 it was first put to practical use; but the reliability of the instrument had been fully established, and it was perfectly well known that one could now read off the degrees of polarisation upon this instrument just as easily as one could read off the results of any other instrument. In fact, the polariscope was to sugar what the hydrometer was to alcohol, and to quarrel with an instrument which was scientifically accurate, and which had been accepted as a practical test by buyers and sellers for twenty-five years, was surely a mistake for a Committee engaged in a task like this. If scientific men only were agreed upon this matter there might be room for the discussion, but when practical men also were satisfied with the instrument the Committee could not do better than to adopt it. With regard to the scale, in the schedule which was taken from the customs regulations of the United States of America, as representing fairly the amount of sugar which might bear taxation in mixed goods, he had not heard one word to lead him to think that that scale was inaccurate. It was not the interest of any Government, in collecting duties, to adopt an inaccurate scale, and therefore, as they must start with a scale of this kind, they could not do better than start with one which came from such a high authority. Personally so far as he could form an

  995
  opinion, he thought the scale was fairly accurate, but in any case he urged the Committee to adopt the polariscope, which the trade and the shippers had adopted, the gradations of which would neither favour the high or the low qualities of sugar. If they favoured the low qualities it was protection to the sugar refiners of England. If they favoured the high it was a distinct advantage to the foreigner. He thought the Committee could with confidence trust the right hon. Gentleman in this matter.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid he thought there was nothing more monstrous in this Committee than for hon. Gentlemen, especially lawyers, to plunge into a discussion in this way merely because they understood a scientific instrument possibly better than any other gentlemen on the Committee. The only argument for bringing an instrument of this kind into use was that it was accurate, but there had been business men who had been able to arrive at an accurate result of the quality of the goods they dealt in although they had no such scientific instrument. On Tuesday the Committee were proposing a graduated duty on tea and the hon. Gentleman who brought forward that proposal showed that the method which prevailed in the trade for testing tea was perfectly accurate, and although that was admitted, the Government rejected the graduated duty. The hon. Member did not prove his case when he said that this was an instrument scientifically accurate, He had to go further and prove that it was desirable to drag this instrument in at a certain stage of the production of sugar, and measure the duty by this instrument. In the earlier stages of the sugar industry the qualities were tested by taste, by colour, and by scent, and the man who was a large dealer in sugar tested it in that way. He did not know how many degrees of sugar it might contain, and he did not care, and when a man went about buying sugar abroad he knew what he could sell it for in England, but now with this complicated scale of duties they could not do that; they could only say that this will have to bear one of twenty-four duties, and we cannot tell which.
  996
  The argument of the hon. Member for Launceston was good so far as it went, but it did not go far enough. He did not prove that it was desirable to introduce this scientific instrument into the dealings of the market. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted a passage from a speech which Mr. Gladstone made in 1864, and he then ventured to state that the right hon. Gentleman would find all the bad arguments for the policy which he was introducing in that speech of Mr. Gladstone's. In 1864 Mr. Gladstone said that 2 cwts. of low-class East Indian sugar would yield 1 cwt. of crystallised sugar. There were two mistakes in that statement, which showed that Mr. Gladstone had not gone to the bottom of the subject. Ten years later he would not have used that argument at all. In the first place, 2 cwt. of low-class East Indian sugar would yield 1½ cwt. of crystallised sugar; and, in the second place, the refuse would be of value, and taxable in the Budget. The mistake of the right hon. Gentleman was in thinking that it was necessary for him to mark by differential duties the differences in the value of sugar. But this was not so. The higgling of the market accomplished all that was necessary. The day these duties were proposed to the Committee the prices of sugar in England ranged from 8s. for the lowest to 13s. for the highest quality. This was a difference of 5s. per cwt. By putting a duty of 2s. on the lowest of these qualities and 4s. 2d. on the highest, in a single night the House of Commons bad established a difference in the price of sugar of 7s. 2d. a cwt. He submitted that nothing ought to be done in this House which would affect in this way the price in the market; and in his opinion the fair thing was not to differentiate between the qualities but to tax all alike. He had worked out what the effect would be of introducing 1 cwt. of sugar into this country and refining it if the same duty was paid upon all, and he found that, even where the lowest class sugar was dealt with, the duties being equal, a very respectable profit was left to the refiner. This system of taxation could only result in giving protection to the sugar refiners of this country. He had had the opportunity

  997
  of seeing an advance copy of a prospectus which was about being issued to the public, in which it was pointed out that the action of the Government had made it possible by imposing these duties for a sugar refinery which had not paid during the last ten years, and which was doing only half what it did before the Spanish and American war, to be worked at a profit. That single instance would show the foolish act which the Committee were hurriedly committing to-night, and would have its effect upon the consumers of this country before many months were over.
  *MR. MOULTONsaid the hon. Member for West Islington drew a piteous picture of the man who in the early years of sugar refining had nothing but his taste to trust to, and protested against the terrible accuracy of the polariscope being introduced as against this trade custom. But the argument answered itself. In those years people tasted to find what the sugar would sell for. But it was sold; by the polariscope, so that, in other words, they tasted in order to find what the polariscope would now tell them. It was because they found that their taste enabled them to anticipate what the polariscope would say that they trusted to their taste, and for the same reason they might trust to it now. The only change was that then it was used for determining the price; now it was to be used for determining the duty also.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid he was opposed entirely to the sugar duty, and this Amendment was neither more nor less than a red herring drawn across the scent which the Committee ought to pursue. Many speeches had been made to-night upon the subject, including that which had fallen from his hon. friend the Member for Launceston, who, perhaps, knew more about it than any other Member of the Committee. He might say with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Islington that they clearly proved to him that the hon. Member did not know what a polariscope was. He was informed that there was only one firm in the world who made the polariscope for testing sugar, and that was a firm in Berlin, and their method was that instead of having to estimate when the light was darkest
  998
  there was a comparison between two lights, and one had to determine when those lights were alike, which everybody knew was the easiest thing in the world to do. That was the method adopted by that particular class of polariscope, and the whole argument as to the difference of human eyes went by the board. It was only since 1874 that the polariscope had been used to test the amount of sugar in various products, and 1874 was the last year in which a duty was levied upon sugar imported into this country, and that being so, he was right in assuming that until the right hon. Gentleman made his speech there was not a custom house officer who had used it. Under those circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to organise a whole army of custom house officers who would be experts in the use of the polariscope, to test the sugar which came into this country. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was going to collect this £5,000,000 at an expenditure of £40,000. He did not know how many polariscopes the right hon. Gentleman would have to buy, but having inquired into the price of these instruments and of Iceland spar, he did not think his estimate of £40,000 would purchase the number that would be required, owing to the very limited supply of Iceland spar in the world. That limited amount of Iceland spar was hoarded by those who had it, and instead of being able to get a reduction of price by taking a large number of the instruments, the effect of trying to make a large purchase would be to raise the price enormously, because it would result in the taking of Iceland spar out of the kingdom. It was said that a concession was given to a particular firm in Iceland twenty-five years ago for the production of Iceland spar, and that that firm had gone on the economic principle of limiting the output, and that they, having got out a certain amount of Iceland spar, would not get out any more. Even supposing they could be compelled to increase the output by the Icelandic Storthing, that body only met once in three years, and their last meeting was during the late autumn, and, inasmuch as the present price of the polariscope was £30, he ventured to suggest the right hon. Gentleman would not collect his

  999
  £5,000,000 for a total expenditure of £40,000.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSdid not think the right hon. Gentleman had appreciated the argument of the hon. Member for West Islington, which was that the use of this scientific instrument was an imposition on the trade; that when a foreign seller sold a fine class of sugar, and was asked to make a price, he would not be able to do so; that that was a serious impediment to place in the way of those introducing fine sugars into this country, and that it would make it impossible for them to introduce these fine sugars. The Committee would see that there was a distinct difference between a man who could say "I sell at 8s. 6d. per cwt." and a man who said he sold at 8s. 6d. per cwt. per cent. The accuracy of the test depended on the by-products which were to be obtained in the process of refinement, and he submitted that the result of the system to be instituted would be the giving of a certain stimulus to the refining industry in consequence of the profit that would be obtained in by-production. The molasses coming into the country were to be taxed, and he would like to know whether the molasses produced in the home refineries would be taxed to some extent.
  MR. JORDANsaid that a great number of hon. Members interested in the sugar trade knew nothing whatever of the polariscope, which was a most costly scientific instrument. Would the right
  hon. Gentleman place one in the tea-room for their examination and consideration?
  MR. O'MARAagreed with a great deal that had fallen from the hon. Member for West Islington, and that any graduation of sugar duties was bad, but he did not believe it would affect the sugar refineries. The right hon. Gentleman might be trusted so far that he would see that any graduation would be so directed that it would not afford any protection to the manufacturers of this Kingdom. This, however, did not reconcile him to any system of graduation in the sugar duties. The right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion had strongly opposed any system of ad valorem duties, but this was an ad valorem duty on sugar. The right hon. Gentleman had said that an ad valorem duty would increase the cost of collection; this graduation of the sugar duties was of the same nature exactly as an ad valorem duty. But, apart from that, there was a much stronger objection against a graduation of any duty, which was that it raised the prices of the high-class article beyond the market value, and reduced the lower class to below the market value. The consequence was that a premium was placed on the low and a discount on the high class article. On these grounds he would support the hon. Gentleman if he pressed his Amendment to a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 226 Noes, 132. (Division List No. 265.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bigwood, James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bousfield, Wm. Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Brassey, Albert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Arrol, Sir William

  Butcher, John George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Austin, Sir John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Baird, John G. Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worcr'

  Doughty, George

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Doxford, Sir William T.

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christchureh

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

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

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Finch, George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Fisher, William Haves

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

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

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Flower, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

  Round, James

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Gore, Hn. G. R C Ormsby-(Salop

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw J.

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbur'h W

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Gretton, John

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Spear, John Ward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stock, James Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hamilton, Marq of (Lnd'nderry

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stroyan, John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm

  Moon, Edw. Robert Paey

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Helder, Augustus

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walker, Col. Wm. Hall

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Mowbray, Sir Rbt. Gray C.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hobhouse, H. (Somerset, E.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Hquldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Houlb, Joseph

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Penn, John

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Keswick, William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Kimber, Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Wylie, Alexander

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Knowles, Lees

  Rasch, Major Fred. Carne

  Younger, William

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Renwick, George

  NOES.

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

  Burt, Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Caldwell, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bell, Richard

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Black, Alexander William

  Colville, John

  Field, William

  Boland, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Crean, Eugene

  Gilhooly, James

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Crombie, John William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brigg, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Hammond, John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Delany, William

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Henry

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Jones, David Brymor (Swansea)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

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

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Dowd, John

  Strachey, Edward

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Malley, William

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  O'Mara, James

  Thomas, J A (Glam'rg'n, Gower)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Partington, Oswald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Lundon, W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Weir, James Galloway

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Price, Robert John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Rea, Russell

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Govern, T.

  Reddy, M.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Rigg, Richard

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Murnaghan, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Newnes, Sir George

  Robson, William Snowdon

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to leave out lines 16 to 20, and insert the words:

  £

  s.

  d.

  'Molasses (except when cleared for use by a licensed distiller in the manufacture of spirits) and all sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be tested by the polariscope—

  If containing 70 per cent. or more of sweetening matter

  the cwt.

  0

  2

  9

  If containing less than 70 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter

  per cwt.

  0

  2

  0

  If containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter

  the cwt.

  0

  1

  0

  Glucose:

  Solid

  the cwt.

  0

  2

  9

  Liquid

  the cwt.

  0

  2

  0"

  —(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSdoubted whether the right hon. Gentleman's desire to assist agriculture in this matter would be carried out by the method adopted.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsuggested that the discussion could better take place on the question of the insertion of the words proposed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. LOUGHpointed out that the words now left out established a maximum duty on molasses of 2s. per cwt. He understood that representations had been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that with regard to some of the qualities of molasses used for cattle feeding the proposed duty of 2s. was too high, and as a result the right hon. Gentleman had agreed that a lower quality of molasses than was mentioned in the original scheme of the Budget should be admitted at 1s. per cwt. That was a very proper decision to arrive at, but on the scheme being laid before the House it was found that, in addition to reducing the tax on the lower quality of molasses to 1s., the right hon. Gentleman proposed to charge 2s. 9d., or 9d. higher than was originally proposed, on the higher quality. If the amount charged for sugar on the polariscopic scale was compared with that suggested for molasses it would be seen that there was something very unequal in the two. Sugar polarising up to 76 per cent. was admitted at 2s., but molasses containing over 70 per cent. of sweetening matter was to be charged 2s. 9d. He could see no reason why that should

  1005
  be so, and therefore he desired to move to omit the words "If containing 70 per cent. or more of sweetening matter, 2s. 9d. per cwt." The effect of this Amendment would be that the highest quality of molasses, which did not contain more sweetening matter than the lowest mentioned quality of sugar, should pay 2s.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 4, to leave out from the word 'containing,' to the word 'more,' in line 6."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHwas understood to reply that molasses was really a by-product of raw sugar, and that practically the first part of the proposal, referring to articles containing 70 or 75 per cent. of sweetening matter, would not apply to it. Extracts from sugar, however, which were extracts from fine sugar or sugar of high polarisation were not by any means by-products like molasses. The hon. Member was apparently under a misapprehension.
  *MR. MOULTONasked how it was that the extracts were charged a higher duty than the 76 per cent. sugar.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he understood that these were extracts from fine sugar or sugar of a very high polarisation, and that, therefore, they could not be contrasted with the article to which the hon. Member alluded. Sugar of 76 degrees polarisation would be a very low class sugar.
  *MR.. MOULTONcertainly did not suppose that the term included invert sugar. Invert sugar was not an extract from sugar; it was a modified sugar. If the provision referred to invert sugar, surely the amount to be paid should be in proportion to the amount of invert sugar contained in the article; it should not stop short at 70 per cent.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the difficulty was that invert sugar could not be tested by the polariscope. It could only be tested by a chemical process, by which the amount of sweetening matter in it was ascertained. At present it was
  1006
  impossible to prepare a precise table for molasses, glucose, and extracts of the kind referred to which could compare with that for sugar itself, but it was hoped that in time something of the sort would be arranged. They had, therefore, to be classified in the way proposed, and he was advised that the words "extracts from sugar" would include invert sugar. If the hon. Member was of a different opinion he would consider the advisability of altering the words at a later stage.
  *MR. MOULTONdid not think invert sugar could be classed as an extract from sugar. But the point to which he desired to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that if the words "sweetening matter" referred to invert sugar and to some of the modified sugars, the clause might land him in considerable difficulties. Glucose might be called a "sweetening matter"—indeed there was a vast class of substances which might be called "sweetening matters." He had presumed the words referred only to cane sugar, but if they were intended to refer to invert sugar he thought there should be some more specific reference to it.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the point should receive his attention.
  MR. KEARLEYassured the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was entirely wrong in stating that invert sugar could not be tested by the polariscope. Cane sugar rotated the plane of light to the right, while invert sugar rotated it to the left. That was the real explanation of the very term "invert." Probably what had caused the right hon. Gentleman to make this differentiation between common molasses, so-called, and high-class syrups was the fact that fine refined sugars were being inverted and used in syrups of a very high character.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that if they could be tested by the polariscope they would come under the sugar definition.
  MR. KEARLEY,to prove that invert sugar could be tested by the polariscope, mentioned an experiment he had made. He desired to watch the action of the polariscope in dealing with cane sugar

  1007
  and invert sugar. An equal amount of liquid of the same class of sugar was placed in each of two glass phials, one sample being of cane sugar not inverted and the other having in it one drop of acid which immediately inverted it. In the first instance, the polariscope indicated the degrees of sugar to the right, but in the other the polariscope rotated to the left. That was conclusive proof that invert sugar could be tested by the polariscope.
  MR. FIELDwas glad an arrangement had been come to with regard to the lower quality of molasses, but he could not understand why an additional 9d. per hundredweight could not be put on the higher quailty. The Amendment was an exceedingly moderate and reasonable one, and ought to be accepted in view of the technical difference which existed. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would keep the range of taxation with regard to molasses as low as possible, as it would be a mistake to handicap manufactures which had but recently been developed.
  MR. DILLONsaid the term "sweetening matter" introduced in the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not appear in the original Bill, and therefore the Committee should have some explanation as to the exact meaning of the phrase. To the ordinary man in the street molasses itself was sweetening matter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would state what exactly was meant by "75 per cent. of sweetening matter," and how the amount of sweetening matter in molasses was to be ascertained?
  MR. ALEXANDER ROSSsaid he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to revise his first proposal in regard to molasses. Of the molasses imported into this country 95 per cent. were used for the feeding of cattle. All the molasses he had seen imported, with the exception of an inferior quality from Germany, contained over 50 per cent. of sweetening matter He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inquire further into this matter.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH,in reply, was understood to say that he could not
  1008
  allow molasses of a very high sweetening power to pay a low duty.
  MR. DILLONsaid that "sweetening matter" was a new term which had been introduced, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform them what it meant. The hon. Member opposite, who was an expert, had pointed out that there was a great difference and much uncertainty about the term "sweetening matter." They did not know whether it was to apply to the crystallisable sugar in the molasses or other substances which were not crystallisable, although they were sweetening matter. This was a very important point, for there appeared to be great uncertainty as to what sweetening matter meant.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he was afraid he could not give a technical definition of sweetening matter.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he should support the hon. Member for Islington if he pressed his motion to a division.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but he should have to do so if he was not met in some way. Some doubt had been expressed in regard to the term "sweetening matter," and he thought that point should be cleared up before deciding the question.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The 2s. 9d. rate will not touch molasses at all.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that sweetening matter was not cane sugar, although it was the same as saccharine.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said it was saccharine, not crystallisable sugar.
  *MR. MOULTONthought it was advisable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should provide a clearer definition upon this point. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently using the term "sweetening matter" in a different sense from that which was implied by cane sugar. Therefore he ought to put in some definition, because there were many glucoses which had different sweetening properties. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to take the proportion of 70 per cent. of sweetening matter as

  1009
  fixing the duty, he ought to indicate the test by which it was to be taken. There ought to be reference to a schedule which gave the definition, otherwise it would be quite impossible to realise what was the exact substance for which they would have to pay duty. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find this an easy solution of the difficulty, for then they would have a perfectly clear scientific definition of the term "sweetening matter."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I shall be very glad to consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member, and I will communicate with him upon the subject.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman does upon this question I hope he will not amend the Bill under the gallery. The Committee is already
  in a somewhat confused state of mind upon this point.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he desired to point out how reasonable was his original request that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should appoint a Committee of experts to go into this question. He the ought the right hon. Gentleman now realised that he might be wrong in some of his deductions, and it would give confidence to the Committee if he would appoint a Committee of Inquiry. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking to call together a Committee of experts to consider this point, and if he did this he was sure they would accept with the greatest confindece the decision arrived at.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 131. (Division List No. 266.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'd

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Henderson, Alexander

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Herraon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset E.

  Austin, Sir John

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brightside

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Hoult, Joseph

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

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cock field

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Doughty, George

  Johnstone Heywood (Sussex)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Keswick, William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Knowles, Lees

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lambton, Hn. Fredk. Wm.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Finch, George H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

  Big wood, James

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Blundell, Colonel

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bond, Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Garfit, William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bousfield, Wm. Robert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gore, Hn G. R. Ormsby-(Salop)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Butcher, John George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goschen, Hon. George J.

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbyshire)

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gretton, John

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Groves, James Grimble

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd.

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

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

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

  Randles, John S.

  Stroyan, John

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Strutt, Hn. Chas. Hedley

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxf'd U.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Renwick, George

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morgah, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Round, James

  Webb, Col. William George

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Myers, William Henry

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. Renfrew

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darling'n)

  Smith, H C (Northm'b Tyneside

  Wylie, Alexander

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Stock, James Henry

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Ambrose, Robert

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hammond, John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

  Harmsworth, R Leicester

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bell, Richard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rea, Russell

  Black, Alexander William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas. H.

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David Brynmor Swansea

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rigg, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Buxton, Sydney

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caldwell, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. Accrington

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cogan, Denis J.

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Colville, John

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R Northants

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Govern, T.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crombie, John William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Cullinan, J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devon port)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Delany, William

  Moss, Samuel

  Tomkinson, James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dillon, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Douglas, Charles M (Lanark)

  Norman, Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Williams, Osmond Merioneth

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Field, William

  O'Dowd, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Malley, William

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  O'Mara, James

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There has just been a division which was entirely unnecessary. My hon. friend rose for the purpose of asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, but it was not conceded. I rise for the purpose of supporting the appeal that has been made to the right hon. Gentleman to consider favourably the idea of having a Committee to inquire into these points. Some of these, which are of extreme technical interest, are matters upon which all of us are not qualified to form an opinion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised, no doubt, by skilled chemists and scientific men, but there is another side to the question altogether, namely, the point of view of practical men of business; and might it not be possible to induce the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether a conference on the subject could be held between men of experience in the trade, who are not, after all, destitute of a certain sort of scientific knowledge and experience, and the purely scientific gentlemen, in order to adjust those questions of difference? I think if that was understood it would tend very much to facilitate the disposal of the Amendments to the clause.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt is not aware that for the last two months there have been constant conferences at the Customs between persons engaged in the trade affected by the sugar duties and experts highly qualified, and all these matters have practically been dealt with to the satisfaction of the trade. I do not wish to say that further consideration may not be required, and I am quite prepared to consider how that could be arrived at. But the right hon. Gentleman has been impressed unduly by the hostility to this measure displayed by two hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him. I do not find that other gentlemen engaged in the trade take at all the same view. Those two hon. Members may be right in some of the views they have expressed, and I should be very glad if they would communicate with the Customs. But I cannot say anything further than that. I would venture to say that if there had been any widespread objection in the
  1014
  trade against the manner in which it is proposed to deal with the sugar duties, it would have found expression in the press and in other ways.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not owe my inspiration entirely to my hon. friends the Members for Devon-port and West Islington. I have received elaborate communications which are perfectly unintelligible to me from per sons in the trade, which are very much to the same effect as what my hon. friends have been saying. That was the ground on which I made the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. MOULTONsaid he wished to point out a serious omission from the clause. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman now included in sweetening matter invert sugar. There was no mention of an import duty on invert sugar unless it was included in the "extracts from sugar," and anything above 70 per cent. only paid 2s. 9d. But if the invert sugar was made in England it must be made from cane sugar, and that cane sugar paid a very much higher duty. He was sure it was an omission, and that there was no intention to give a preference to the foreign over the English manufacturer. He thought the matter ought to be looked into.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am certainly advised that a tax of 2s. 9d. on invert sugar, having regard to its sweetening power, would place it on an equality with invert sugar manufactured here. I will think over what the hon. Member has said. It would perhaps be better to insert the words "invert sugar" in the definition clause.
  MR. DILLONsaid that after all that had occurred there were not two men in the House who could tell what sweetening matter was. He asserted that without out fear of contradiction. He defied all the Members of the House to get up and tell what sweetening matter was. He was not quite sure that it was clear to the Chancellor's own mind.
  *MR. LOUGH,who had on the Paper an Amendment to decrease the duty on saccharine from 1s. 3d. to 9d. an oz., said that saccharine was a substance with 300 times the sweetening property

  1015
  of sugar. The duty on saccharine was not more than 300 times the duty on sugar in the tariffs of foreign countries which he had examined.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid saccharin was an extremely sweet article, and it was necessary to have a duty of 1s. 3d. on it.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid he wished to know what saccharine was made of. He believed it was made of coal tar. That was an industry in this country, and they ought to encourage native industry. He thought this would lead to a good deal of smuggling. Therefore he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain this point, because it made a very great deal of difference.
  MR. MOULTONpointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that saccharine embraced two qualities, one of which was 300 times and the other 500 times as sweet as sugar. He thought the schedule should show the test by which saccharine was to be determined, for it would be unfair to tax saccharin which was 300 times as sweet as sugar upon the same basis as sacharine which was 500 times as sweet as sugar.
  MR. O'MARAthought it would be better to endeavour to reduce the number of duties rather than increase them.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 25, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided that, as from the nineteenth day of April up to the eleventh day of June nineteen hundred and one the duties on molasses and glucose shall be deemed to have been chargeable at the rates specified in the Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means of the eighteenth day of April nineteen hundred and one.'"—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURappealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this point. This duty was referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a temporary duty, and it was to be the maximum duty at the time when it
  1016
  operated. He thought it was only reasonable that it should be reduced. With regard to molasses; the Committee would remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a 2s. rate per hundredweight for all classes of molasses. When it was pointed out to him that a large proportion of molasses was used chiefly for cattle he introduced a differentiation, making the rate 1s. per hundredweight for the low class of molasses. He did not think that the importer should suffer through the want of information on the part of the Treasury upon this matter. Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his statement a large quantity of this low grade of molasses had arrived and it was found by the importers that there were no bonded stores where they could put it in warehouses and the great bulk of it remained untouched. In reply to a question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if these importers had asked for bonding facilities they could have obtained them in their own warehouses. But they had not done so, and he did not think they ought to be penalised simply because they had not been as sharp as they might have been and because they had depended upon the good faith of the Government to treat them fairly. If the duty was to be levied at this higher rate and only reduced from the 11th of June it would be very unfortunate. They had paid the duty and they could not get it back.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My hon. friend has brought this matter under my notice, and I may say that it relates solely to the action of one particular firm. It is impossible to make an exception for one firm alone, who, if they have done what is alleged, have suffered entirely through their own negligence. If I did what has been asked it would give an unfair advantage to the clients of my hon. friend. I believe that other firms have paid the duty and sold and delivered the goods to their customers.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURsaid that in the few cases where the goods had been sold they had been sold on the understanding that the duty would be returned.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a pledge

  1017
  that a drawback would be given to the customers, but now the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have further complicated matters. In the case of certain firms who did not take the necessary precautions the right hon. Gentleman now refused the very moderate suggestion made to reconsider their case. He thought this was a very hard course to take because it would be impossible for these men to get rid of their stocks at the higher rates which they had paid.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the Excise duty on manufactured glucose was not to be levied till 1st July according to the Bill as originally presented, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer came with a resolution the other day by which it was proposed that the duty should take effect in June. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he did not impose the Excise duty on glucose on the same day as the import duty. The right hon. Gentleman imposed the coal duty on the very day it was proposed, but he allowed the manufacture of glucose to go on in this country free from any tax whatever up to a date in June. There had been an enormous amount of glucose manufactured for brewers. The hon. Member did not think it was fair that the right hon. Gentleman should levy a tax on one branch of industry at the earliest possible moment and defer the imposition of a tax affecting another industry.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Whatever I do or whatever I don't do the hon. Member always differs from me. If the hon. Member had studied the history of the Excise duties he would have discovered that they cannot be imposed at once like Customs duties. Excise duties on manufactured articles cannot be imposed without very considerable preliminary arrangements, which can only be made after consultation with the manufacturers in order to see the best method by which they can be imposed. That could not be done before the day the Budget was introduced. The officers of the Inland Revenue told me that it would be impossible to make the necessary arrangements for levying the Excise duty before 1st July. I heard, however, that there was going on a considerable manufacture
  1018
  of glucose in the country, and having ascertained from the Inland Revenue that their arrangements for the Excise duty would be ready earlier I moved the resolution.
  MR. KEARLEY: I imputed no motives whatever, and I do not think the observation of the right hon. Gentleman concerning me ought to have been made.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an unqualified pledge that if there was any alteration made on the duties, manufacturers or importers who had been unfairly charged would, as a matter of course, get back what they had paid beyond the amount due. There could be no doubt he used that language, and therefore any importer who had been charged a higher rate of duty than was now to be levied should receive back the difference.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether the debate could not now be adjourned.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsuggested that the Amendments on the clause should be disposed of now.
  *MR. LOUGH,with the view of obtaining the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved to insert a proviso to the effect that on sugar, glucose, or molasses used in brewing a drawback equivalent to the duty on the sugar, glucose, or molasses should be allowed to the brewer under such regulations as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might make from time to time. The hon. Member explained that this was in accordance with a provision made in the early part of the Budget for distillers who used sugar, and while—if any good reasons were given against it—he did not wish to press the amendment to a division, he would like to know what was the reason for this differential treatment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 25, at end, to iusert the words, 'Provided that on sugar, glucose, or molasses used in brewing, a drawback equivalent to the duty on the sugar, glucose, or molasses be allowed to the brewer, under such

  1019
  regulations as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may make from time to time.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have given a great deal of consideration to the subject, and I must resist the Amendment. It is to be remembered that there is nothing in what I propose which prevents brewers from using sugar or glucose or any other material in the manufacture of beer; all I ask is that whatever they use they should pay the same duty upon it which other manufacturers must pay. There has been a material change in the relative value of sugar and glucose which brewers use as compared with barley, and I do not think the brewers will be seriously affected by the proposal in the Bill.
  *MR. MOULTONasked why the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an allowance to the distiller and not to the brewer.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The duty on the alcohol in spirits is so much more than the duty on the alcohol in beer that I do not like to add to the duty on spirits.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid that in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adhering to sound common sense, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would refuse any Amendment on the subject.
  *MR GROVESappealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow brewers a drawback on sugar used in brewing, on the ground that it was unfair to tax an article twice over. Some brewers might continue to use sugar and tax their profits twice over, but before the additional tax had been on for one year he felt sure that the use of English barley would be largely displaced by foreign barley. It was immaterial to the brewer what he used so long as he produced an article which was appreciated by the public. If he could not produce an article to please the popular taste under these new conditions he would have to fall back upon foreign barley. For these reasons he appealed
  1020
  to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to be misled by his agricultural friends.
  MR. CREANsaid that some of the brewers in Ireland boasted that they used no sugar at all, and that they used home grown barley. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stick to his proposal, and not alter it for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  *MR. LOUGHpointed out that foreign barley could be imported free, and owing to the conditions under which it was grown it contained more sweetening matter than the English barley. This was a very large matter, because no less than 150,000 tons of sugar were used every year by the brewers The right hon. Gentleman was now proposing to deal with distillers differently to the brewers. He did not think anything of this kind ought to be done by a side wind.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that this was a very important matter. As the representative of an agricultural district he had made inquiries in connection with a large brewing interest in his constituency, and he was informed that the effect of this proposal would be that the brewers would consume considerably less English barley. The figures put into his hands showed that whereas up to the present time they had been using 60 per cent. of English barley in future they would only use 30 per cent., and they would make up the difference by using foreign barley. He sincerely hoped that the agricultural interest would not be injured by this proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Committee report to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at One of the clock.