Commons Sitting of 25 June 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

  1387
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  Central London Railway (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

  Newport (Isle of Wight) Gas Bill [Lords].

  Smethwick Corporation Bill [Lords]. Worcester Tramways Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO 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 which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

  Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  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.;—

  Bristol Corporation (Docks and Railways, Etc.) Bill [Lords].

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

  LEATHERHEAD GAS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [NOT AMENDED.] (By ORDER.)
  Considered; to be read the third time.
  STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY, AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered; a clause added; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [Lords].
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [Lords].
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Committee, "That, in the case of the Elland Gas Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.'
  Resolution agreed to.

  RAILWAY BILLS (Group 8).
  Sir JOHN KENNAWAY reported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills, that, for the convenience of Members, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen,

1389
and Burgesses of the Borough of Salford to obtain from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and citizens of the City of Manchester a further supply of water in bulk for the township of Salford." Salford Corporation Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Leeds to make additional waterworks; and for other purposes." Leeds Corporation Water Bill [Lords].
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the County Borough of Stockport to construct additional waterworks, and for other purposes." Stock-port Corporation Water Bill [Lords].

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BURIAL PLACES (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Weston-super-Mare; and Swansea; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Gravesend, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Chelsea; Thrupp; Tiverton (two); Shefford; Upper Norwood; Bradford; Westbourne
  1390
  Park; Haggerstone; Paddington; Putney; Knaresborough; Hampstead; Sheffield; Forest Gate; Hyde; Greenwich (three); Blackheath (two); Thorne; Burnley; Millwall; Landkey; and Houghton-le-Spring; to lie upon the Table.

  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  Return [presented 13th May] to be printed. [No. 226.]
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 24th May] to be printed. [No. 227.]
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom in the year ended 31st December, 1900, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers, of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report, No. 324 (Sierra Leone, Annual Report for 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1901–2).
  Estimate presented, of the additional amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1902, to defray the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland in respect of Manual and Practical Instruction in National Schools [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 228.]
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—NATAL FARM OWNERS.
  MR. CHAINING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that British owners of farms in Natal are still being prohibited from re-stocking and re-letting their farms, on the ground of the proximity of the enemy; and whether he will consider the possibility of removing these restrictions.
  The SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have no information on this matter, which is one for the consideration of the Natal Government.

  CAPE COLONY—FINANCIAL PROVISION IN LIEU OF TAXATION UNDER PARLIAMENTARY SANCTION.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say up to what date financial provision for the public service in Cape Colony has been made by the Cape Parliament, up to what date that Parliament has been prorogued, and how it is intended to authorise such expenditure for the public service as may be necessary during the prorogation of the Parliament.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1) Provision has been made up to 30th June, 1901; (2) Parliament is prorogued to 27th August. (3) This is a question for the responsible Government of the Cape Colony.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: May I ask whether in the case of the Cape Parliament it is not the duty of the Governor to summon it if necessary, and is he not responsible to the right hon. Gentleman and consequently to this House?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman had better put that question down on the Paper. It seems to involve constitutional matters of great importance.

  BOERS IN CAPE COLONY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary
  1392
  of State for War whether he can give the House any information as to the number of Boers (both invaders and rebels) now in Cape Colony.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): From the latest information there would appear to be between 1,000 and 2,000 men in arms against us in Cape Colony.

  WATER KLOOF AND COLESBERG ACTIONS.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can communicate to the House any particulars of the action fought at Water Kloof, in Cape Colony, on Thursday last, and as to the casualties sustained by our troops; and whether he can give any information to the House as to the circumstances under which 500 horses were captured by the Boers near Colesberg at the latter end of May.
  MR. BRODRICK: No information on the matters alluded to in the question has reached the War Office.

  COST OF THE WAR.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state for how long a period he has the financial means to carry on the war in South Africa at the present pressure without appealing to Parliament for sanction of further expenditure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I am not in a position to make any statement of the kind the hon. Member asks for. It is a question, not of financial means, but of the Army Estimates.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is now the approximate weekly cost of the war in South Africa, including the maintenance of the concentration camps in South Africa and the Boer prisoners in St. Helena, Ceylon, and elsewhere.
  MR. BRODRICK: The approximate weekly cost to Army Votes is one and a quarter millions.

  TYPHOID FEVER AMONG THE TROOPS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of cases of typhoid fever and the number of deaths among the troops in South Africa for the month of April.
  MR. BRODRICK: For the four weeks ending 26th April, the approximate figures are: admissions, 1,484; and deaths, 187.

  FLOGGING A SOLDIER.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a soldier was flogged on board a transport ship carrying mules from Naples to Port Elizabeth, and whether he will inquire by what authority this punishment was given.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I have made inquiry and find that in November, 1899, a driver of the Army Service Corps was given ten lashes for maliciously wounding a mule by stabbing it with his knife in the head. The officer in question, despite the bad conduct of the driver, acted wrongly in awarding this punishment, and he was severely censured, being informed of the grave displeasure of the Commander-in-Chief at his conduct.

  IRISH YEOMANRY.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the Government to allocate to Ireland a certain number of the proposed new Yeomanry regiments.
  *MR. BRODRICK: This question has not yet been decided. If any proposal should be made to make the Irish Yeomanry who served so well in South Africa the nucleus of a permanent corps, it would be carefully considered.

  INDIAN RELIEFS.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of men in units now in India awaiting relief.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The total number of men due for discharge or transfer to the Reserve up to the 30th September, calculation of this sort being always made in regard to the trooping season, is about 13,500.

  MARK IV. BULLETS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state how many expanding bullets were manufactured for the War Office in 1899 and 1900 respectively by the Government and by private contractors; how many were issued to home and foreign stations respectively; how many were withdrawn, at what date were they withdrawn, and for what reason.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The hon. Member doubtless refers to the Mark IV. bullets, on which he has already asked numerous similar questions, and to the replies to which I have nothing to add.
  MR. WEIR: Is the noble Lord aware that I have never put a question on these lines?

  ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT WRITERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of placing the writers in the Army Clothing Department upon the same footing with respect to overtime as the storehouse men and ledger keepers.
  *LORD STANLEY: The storehouse men receive overtime pay at the rate of 1¼ hour pay for each of the first two hours overtime, and 1½ hour pay for any further overtime, but have to work 48 hours before receiving overtime pay. The writers receive ordinary pay for overtime, but have only to work 42 hours a week before receiving overtime pay. In all probability, therefore, the writers would lose by being put on the same footing as the storehouse men.

  NEW ROYAL YACHT.
  MR. HOULT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty

  1395
  if the persons who designed and superintended the building of the new-royal yacht design and superintend the building of vessels for His Majesty's Navy, and whether he will consider the advisability of providing additional supervision.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The Director of Naval Construction designed the new royal yacht and superintended the building of the vessel. He has designed, and is superintending the building of, other vessels for His Majesty's Navy. The question of adding to the personnel of the Constructors' Department is under consideration.

  COAL DUTY EXEMPTIONS.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what proposals the Government have decided to submit to the House in Committee with reference to the exemption of contracts entered into before the Budget statement from the operation of the export duty on coal.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The only proposal I intend to submit to the House is the insertion of the date of the 1st January, 1902, in the clause relating to this subject. But I may state that, under the power granted by that clause, I propose to grant exemption from duty to post-Budget exports of coal under pre-Budget contracts, f.o.b. and c.i.f. alike, up to 31st December, 1901, provided that the contracts are shown to the satisfaction of the Customs to have been operative and binding subsequently to 18th April, 1901, that they specify the amount and price of the coal to be supplied, that they are bona fide covered by buying contracts for coal or by the ownership of coal, and that the quantities of coal exported are such as, in the opinion of the Customs, are properly exported between 19th April and 31st December, 1901, both inclusive, under the terms of the contracts. If the contracts specify only the price, not the quantity, of the coal to be supplied, exemption may be granted to them also under the foregoing conditions, in either case not beyond the period to which the cover extends, nor beyond 31st December,
  1396
  1901, in any case. I may add, in explanation, that I have endeavoured to allow a liberal period of exemption for all contracts which are fair business transactions. When contracts are made for a long period they necessarily assume a more speculative character, and therefore have much less claim to exemption, and this is particularly true of uncovered contracts to supply an unlimited quantity at a named price, which seem to me purely gambling transactions.
  An HON. MEMBER: What will be the effect on the Budget?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper for Thursday, I shall be happy to answer it. It will, I have no doubt, have a considerable effect on the yield of the tax.

  H.M.S. "CUMBERLAND"—BELLEVILLE BOILERS.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what rate of progress in construction has been reached with H.M.S. "Cumberland," building under contract on the Clyde, and how much of the 5,895 tons estimated to be built into the hull on completion has now been built in, and how far the Belleville boilers have been advanced, and whether the framework of this vessel is yet erected; whether the Admiralty at first decided to revoke the order for Belleville boilers, and afterwards rescinded such decision in favour of retaining Belleville boilers in the projected construction of the vessel; whether he can state if the "Cumberland" is expected to be finished earlier than 1904, and whether the Admiralty have in the case of this projected ship conformed to the recommendation of their Boiler Committee, that, as regards ships recently ordered, for which the work done on the boilers is not too far advanced, Belleville boilers be not fitted; and whether he will state the number of ships recently ordered in which the above-named recommendation of the Boiler Committee has been acted upon by changing from Belleville to other types of boilers, and what definition as to rate of progress the Admiralty acts upon

  1397
  in determining in which case the work is too far advanced.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The "Cumberland" is partly in frame amidships. The exact weight of material worked into the hull cannot be given at present. Over 2,500 tons weight of material has been delivered upon the contractors' premises. At the time a change in the type of boilers was contemplated a large quantity of material had been delivered, and a considerable further amount was due for delivery. The value of this material, and of the labour expended upon it, represented three-tenths of the total cost of the installation. The Admiralty decided to revoke the order for Belleville boilers in the ships in question provided that the change could be made in accordance with the terms of the recommendation of the Boiler Committee. It has been found, however, that the change cannot be made without departing from the terms of the recommendation. It is expected that the "Cumberland" will be finished in 1903. The decision to retain the Belleville boilers in the "Cumberland" is in conformity with the recommendation of the Boiler Committee, as I am informed that it would not be possible to change to another type of boiler without delaying the completion of the ship. The following are the ships from which it was originally hoped that the Belleville boilers might be removed, but in which they are now to be retained, namely, "Prince of Wales," "Cumberland," "Donegal." The question of the boilers of the "Cornwall" is still under consideration. The reason why the change has been made in respect to these ships is that the cost of introducing the Babcock and Wilcox boilers would involve a very large addition to the original Estimates; that the contractors would not guarantee the designed horse power if the Babcock and Wilcox boilers were substituted for the Belleville; and that the change would involve a serious delay in the completion of the ships. In reply to the last paragraph of the question, I have to say that the recommendation of the Boiler Committee in favour of changing from the Belleville boiler to another type of water-tube boiler will be acted on in the case of four ships, namely,
  1398
  "Queen," "Suffolk," "Berwick," and "Encounter." The Belleville boilers of the "Hermes" are also being removed, and will be replaced by Babcock and Wilcox. The determining consideration which has guided the Admiralty in applying the recommendation of the Boiler Committee has been, whether or not delay would be involved by making the alteration? I may add that the President of the Boiler Committee has informed us with regard to the three ships in question that, in making the change, we are acting in conformity with his view as to the interpretation which should be placed on the recommendation of his Committee. The hon. Member may be interested to know that we have ascertained that, in order to obtain the designed horse power with the cylindrical boiler, structural alterations in the ships would be necessary, owing to the serious alteration of weights involved.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much money has been spent and what delay has arisen in consequence of this change in connection with the "Cumberland"?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The particulars as to the delay are very indefinite; in fact, in the most important case, that of the "Prince of Wales," we can get no definite date at all. We cannot give the exact extent of the delay in the case of the "Cumberland," but it will be serious.
  MR. KEARLEY: Are we to understand that the alternative to the Belleville boiler is the Babcock and Wilcox boiler?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  PROPOSED INQUIRY INTO THE COAL QUESTION.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to make any statement in regard to the proposed investigation into the coal question and the effect of the new coal duty on trade and shipping, and further as to the remission of duty he intends making on contracts entered into prior

  1399
  to the 19th April last, and the remission he proposes on small coal and patent fuel, if any.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have already made a statement with regard to the remission on existing contracts, and I think any statement as to small coal and patent fuel should be reserved until the Amendment on the subject is moved. As to an investigation, I could not advise any such limited investigation as is suggested in the question. But I rather gathered, in the course of the debate last night, that hon. Members representing the districts specially concerned in the export coal trade, and especially those representing the miners, thought that the interests of their constituents were being unfairly dealt with on account of insufficient inquiry, and desired that the whole question of our coal supply and its probable sufficiency for the needs of our own country, should be considered by an impartial tribunal, as well as the effect of the duty on the trade primarily interested in the matter. The last thing that I should wish would be that any action of mine should afford ground for a feeling of unjust treatment on the part of a large and hardworking section of my fellow-countrymen, and if on further inquiry I find that a complete investigation of the whole subject, such as I have referred to, is really desired, I should certainly be disposed to recommend to my colleagues that such an inquiry should be initiated without delay. I must, however, say that in no case would it be possible for such a tribunal to make a report which would affect the next Budget. I agree with what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said last night, that it would probably take two years, and certainly one, before any opinion as to the effect of the coal duty could be formed.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I placed no limit on the investigation. I want a full one.

  CHINA—FRENCH SETTLEMENT IN SHANGHAI
  MR.GRETTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French
  1400
  authorities are now acquiring at Shanghai control of a tract of land beyond the limits fixed by Lord Salisbury in his agreement with the French Government upon the question of the French settlement in that city; and, if so, under what conditions they are acquiring it, and whether any claim upon their part to exclusive jurisdiction and control over such territory will be recognised by His Majesty's Government.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): We were informed some time ago that the French were building quarters for their troops at Shanghai, but we have no definite information as to the site. We have no further information, but inquiries are being made.

  CHINESE TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the concession to China of an effective 5 per cent. tariff has been made without obtaining some guarantee from her for the effective fulfilment of her various treaty obligations.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: A proposal has been made to exact certain compensating advantages to trade in China in return for the concession of an effective 5 per cent. tariff. His Majesty's Minister at Peking has provisionally given his support to this proposal, and the matter is still under discussion.

  MALTESE LANGUAGE QUESTION.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he intends to lay upon the Table Papers relating to the language question in Malta.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated in answer to a previous question on the 20th May, I am afraid that until the correspondence reaches a more complete form it will not be possible for me to fix any definite date for laying the Papers.

  THE "SOUTH ESK"—CREW'S GRIEVANCES.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade

  1401
  whether his attention has been called to the complaint of the crew of the British barque "South Esk" that for over six months they were on a short allowance of provisions, and had to go without tea, sugar, flour, and pork, and that the beef supplied was unfit for human consumption; and whether, in view of the complaints by seamen regarding the provisions on board British ships, he will advise His Majesty's Government to appoint a Select Committee of this House or a Royal Commission to inquire into the provision scale contained in ships' articles of agreement and the quality of the food supplied.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called by the Seamen's Union to the case to which the hon. Member refers. I have been in communication with the owners of the "South Esk," and have received a statement made by the cook. It appears that the vessel left Glasgow in January, 1900, fully provisioned with inspected provisions for a twelve months voyage. This voyage was unexpectedly prolonged, and the master had to take in a fresh supply abroad and from two ships he met in the course of the homeward voyage from Chili, which occupied 146 days. Without accepting as entirely accurate the statement in the first paragraph of the question, it is admitted that in some respects the food was seriously deficient, and that some of it was bad, but according to the statement of the master it was the best he could get. In answer to the second paragraph, I am not prepared to advise the appointment of a Committee or Commission for the purpose of making an inquiry of the limited scope suggested by the hon. Member, but as I stated yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for the College Division of Dublin, I am considering the advisability of instituting an inquiry of a wider character into questions affecting the general interests of the mercantile marine.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the Committee be a departmental one?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not prepared to make any statement as to that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when he will be prepared?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot say.

  MERCHANT SHIPS—TONNAGE MEASUREMENTS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to introduce regulations regarding the registered tonnage of coasting and cross-channel steamers, so that they should be rated upon the displacement system in force in His Majesty's Navy or in accordance with the Moorsam plan adopted in the Suez Canal; and whether he is aware that, owing to the prevailing method of rating, port and dock boards cannot supply the necessary trading facilities from the paucity of tonnage dues.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Moorsam system for measuring the tonnage of merchant ships is the one in force in this country. There is no power, without legislation, to adopt the modifications in the system applicable to the Suez Canal, but as I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member's previous questions, I am doing what is possible by regulation to minimise the grievance of which he complains, and it is open to port and dock boards to seek authority to charge their dues upon a proportion of the gross instead of upon the net tonnage.

  COAL TRADE STATISTICS.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say when the Return relating to the production, consumption, and export of coal to the principal countries of the world in recent years, and ordered to be printed on the 17th instant, will be issued to Members.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Return in question is now under revision, out I am unable to say when it will be ready for issue.

  FOREIGN EXPORTS OF COAL FROM CARDIFF.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask he President of the Board of Trade if

  1403
  he can explain the discrepancy in the figures relating to the foreign export of coal from Cardiff for May, 1900, and 1901, as supplied by the Customs to the proprietors of Brown's Export List and to the Board of Trade respectively.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The matter is being inquired into by the Customs, but I am informed that the investigation will occupy a day or two.

  THIRD CLASS RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to minimising the inconvenience to which persons of limited means are now subjected through being obliged to find house-room at a distance from their employment, owing to the congested state of central London, and seeing that the railway companies serving the suburban districts are unable without inconvenience to their general traffic to run a sufficient number of workmen's trains, he will suggest to them as an alternative arrangement the advisability of issuing third class season tickets at the correspondingly low rate at which they now issue first and second class season tickets.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, railway companies are not under any statutory obligation to issue season tickets, but I shall be happy to call the attention of the Railway Companies Association to his suggestion.

  SCOTLAND YARD OFFICIALS' SALARIES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of raising the salaries of the staff generally throughout Scotland Yard, seeing that some departments have already been dealt with.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): It is the practice for the salaries of various sections of the staff at Scotland Yard to be considered as occasion arises in each case. I think this is the proper course, as it may well
  1404
  be that there may be a claim for consideration in the case of one or two-departments when a general increase for all would be out of the question.

  COLCHESTER MURDER CHARGE.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether His Majesty's Government propose to make any compensation to the man Lillywhite, who was arrested in New Zealand on a charge of murder and brought here for trial, and in whose case the Crown Prosecutor has now entered a nolle prosequi.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am not yet sufficiently in possession of the facts to be able to express any opinion as to what, should be done.

  NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC LEAGUE—PROHIBITION OF MEETING AT BIRMINGHAM.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can explain upon what ground and by what authority the chief constable of Birmingham issued a notice recently prohibiting the holding of a meeting of the National Democratic League in the Bull Ring in that city.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed that the chief constable objected to the use of certain language which he considered illegal and amounting to an offence, but that an interview subsequently took place between the promoters of the meeting and the chief constable, at which an undertaking was given that such language should not be repeated, and meetings have subsequently been held without interference by the police. No meeting was actually stopped.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who this language was used by and what it was?
  *MR. RITCHIE: It was used by one of the speakers at one of these meetings. It was language of a very gross character, which, in the opinion of the chief constable, and in mine, was likely to lead to a breach of the peace
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Was this speaker prosecuted, and was the language used by him a breach of the law?
  *MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir, he was not prosecuted.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Did the chief constable act on his own initiative or did he refer to the right hon. Gentleman?
  *MR. RITCHIE: He acted entirely on his own initiative.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are we to understand that a person in the position of the chief constable is to be the judge whether the language used—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDdid not resume his seat.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I again call the hon. Member to order, and have to say that, if he persists in disregarding me when I call him to order, I shall have to direct the attention of the House to his conduct.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  *MR. SPEAKER (calling the next question): Mr. Gibson Bowles.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I rise to a point of order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I: repeat, is not in order in asking the question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I claim, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of personal explanation—
  *MR. SPEAKER: A personal explanation is not a point of order.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: A personal explanation, Sir. I trust you will allow me to say that I did not hear you call me to order at all, and I had not the slightest intention of disregarding your ruling. I thought I was putting a
  1406
  question which legitimately arose out of the answer as to whether the chief constable—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is the question which I ruled was not legitimate. I quite accept the hon. Member's statement.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I shall raise the subject on the Home Office Vote.

  ALIENS AND CONTAGIOUS DISEASES.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the fact that all aliens suffering from dangerous contagious diseases are excluded from admission to the United States under the Immigration Laws of Congress, and that by a recent decision of the Washington Treasury tuberculosis of the lung is henceforth to be so regarded; and having regard to the importance of excluding such diseases, whether he will introduce the same or analogous regulations as those laid down by his predecessor at the time of the cholera epidemic at Hamburg to keep out that disease.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. As regards cholera cases, the regulations require the isolation in hospital of persons who arrive in this country suffering from the disease and the supervision by the local authorities of other persons landing from an infected ship. It does not appear to me that similar regulations could be made with regard to such a disease as tuberculosis.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LIBRARIES.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that whilst the Day School Code, 1900, in Footnote to Article 90, encourages elementary schools to establish libraries, and allows the school accounts to include expenditure upon libraries, auditors are surcharging members of school boards for such expenditure, notwithstanding that in its Instructions

  1407
  to Inspectors, issued by the Board of Education on 27th February, 1900, it is stated that a good library is considered as the necessary complement of an efficient school apparatus; and whether he will take steps to harmonise the action of the two Departments.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am aware that a surcharge has recently been made in respect of expenditure incurred by the Norwich School Board in connection with a library. On receiving a formal appeal from the Members surcharged, I will carefully consider the legality of the expenditure, and before arriving at a decision I will communicate with the Board of Education on the subject.

  BOLTON POSTMEN'S GRIEVANCES.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if any decision has been come to respecting the matters named in the petition presented to the inspector by the Bolton postmen on 19th July, 1900, and whether he is aware that the more serious grievances therein complained of are still unremedied.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The Bolton outdoor postal services are now being revised, and the duties of the postmen will be greatly improved.

  BRITISH POST OFFICE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that British postal orders are on sale at the British post office in Constantinople, whether he can explain why the English Post Office has refused to supply postal orders to the British post office at Salonica.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has had this matter under his consideration, but he is not in a position to make any statement upon it at present.

  KEYHAM BARTON POSTAL STAFF.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing
  1408
  the Postmaster General, whether a recommendation has been made to increase the postal staff in the Keyham Barton, district of Devonport; and, if so, whether it is intended to give effect to it.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; such proposals have been made, and they are now being considered.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK RULES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Comptroller of the Post Office Savings Bank to inform depositors that when a deposit is made by means of a cheque the usual acknowledgment is not despatched until a period of twelve days has elapsed, including the date of deposit of the cheque; will he explain why the Department requires a period of twelve days to clear a cheque; and will he say whether the rule applies to London as well as to provincial cheques.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The practice with regard to deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank by means of cheques is as stated, and applies to London as well as provincial cheques. To keep a record of the clearing of each cheque would be unnecessarily expensive; and the rule has therefore been adopted to retain the acknowledgments of all deposits by cheque for a uniform period of twelve days, by which time notice of failure to clear any particular cheque will have been received by the Department. Experience has shown that a shorter period is not sufficient in all cases to guard against the risk of loss. For calculation of interest a deposit by cheque is treated as having been made on the date of deposit, and not on the date of the acknowledgment.

  NEWTON ABBOT POSTMEN'S PETITION.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can without further delay reply to a petition from the Newton Abbot postmen, sent to the Postmaster General in August, 1900, which was in April last said to be in course of careful consideration in conjunction with other similar memorials, and to which a reply was promised as soon as practicable.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A reply has been given to the memorial in question.

  AMERICAN MAIL SORTING.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that on board the North German Lloyd and American lines of mail steamers from this country to New York there are post offices, with an official or officials who during the voyage sort all mails, so that its delivery in New York or forwarding thereon to the interior takes place three hours earlier than the mail matter from on board the steamers of the Cunard or White Star lines; and, in view of the inconvenience caused thereby, whether he will adopt such measures as will prevent this delay.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that there are post offices on board the steamers of the North German Lloyd and American lines, and the sorting of the correspondence on board of course admits of its earlier disposal in the New York Post Office, where, it is understood, the contents of unsorted mails arriving by sea cannot be so expeditiously distributed as in the case of mails reaching this country in such circumstances. The advantage, however, which would be gained if similar post offices were established on British steamers has not been thought sufficient to justify the heavy expense which such an arrangement would involve.

  HOUSE TO HOUSE LETTER DELIVERY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the
  * The following is the Return alluded to:—
  "Return for the year March, 1900, to the 31st day of March, 1901, of the Seizures in Scotland by Revenue Officers, and in Ireland by Royal Irish Constabulary, for Illicit Distillation, in the following form and Summary:—

  District in which seizure occurred, townland, etc.

  Person charged with illicit distillation.

  Person or persons who discovered and reported.

  Rewards paid for discovery.

  Whether prosecution resulted.

  Result of trial.

  SUMMARY.

  Number of cases.

  Rewards paid.

  Scotland

  Ireland

  Postmaster General, if he will state whether the house-to-house delivery of letters, authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget for 1897, is now effected throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland; and will he state approximately the number of letters per annum estimated to have thus been brought into the official delivery, and which, under the arrangements existing prior to 1897, would have been left at post offices or places of call.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The house-to-house delivery of letters is now effected throughout England, and practically throughout Scotland and Ireland as well. There are a few places in the two latter countries at which it has not yet been possible to afford a delivery, but steps are being taken to provide a service in all cases where it is practicable to do so. From May, 1897, up to the end of September, 1900, it is estimated that about 57 millions of letters a year had been brought into the official delivery. Since that time it has not been considered necessary to keep a special record.
  MR. WEIR: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I have answered that.
  MR. WEIR: Then I beg to give notice—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice in the ordinary way.

  ILLICIT DISTILLATION.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant the Return relating to Illicit Distillation standing on to-day's Paper.*
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am unable to consent to the Return asked for.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider that answer in view of the fact that during the discussion on the Estimates a most extraordinary state of things was disclosed, and he was good enough to promise to make inquiries. If he does not grant this Return, we shall get no information until the Estimates come on again next year, and I would therefore respectfully ask him to consent to the Return.
  MR. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the result of his inquiries so far?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have communicated with the Board of Inland Revenue, but I am not at present prepared to make any statement as to any steps I may propose to take. The matter is under discussion. I could not give a portion of the information asked for in this Return under any circumstances, but at the same time I hope that the steps to be taken will render it unnecessary to have any Return at all. I am unwilling to throw additional work on the Inland Revenue at the present time, and I will ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until I have been able to decide what steps shall be taken.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make some statement as to the result of his inquiries, or must we wait another year?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman as soon as I am able to take any action.

  NEWSPAPER POSTAGE TO THE COLONIES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is contemplated to reduce the cost on the transmission of newspapers to Australia, and will the Canadian postage rates for papers be applied to the other colonies as well.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No reduction of the postage on newspapers is in contemplation. The rate for newspapers to Canada and to Australia is already the same.

  SASINE OFFICE, EDINBURGH—REGISTRATION FEES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that the registration fees imposed by the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, were increased in 1891 by the imposition of 5s. on each writ recorded; and that this presses on small proprietors, whose deeds form the main part of the register; and, in view of the fact that the net revenue of the Sasine Office shows a surplus for the year 1901 of £12,799, and that under Section 25 of the Land Registers Act, 1868, it is laid down that the fees to be drawn from the Department shall not be greater than may reasonably be held sufficient for defraying the expenses of the said Department, or the improvement of the system of registration, will he consider the expediency of rescinding the Order of 1891.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I am informed by the keeper of the Sasines Office that the basis upon which the hon. Member's question is founded is entirely wrong. The scale of fees introduced in 1891 only increased the fees of the register to a very small extent. The uniform fee of 5s. for each writ instead of the former sliding scale was approved as necessary to cover the actual cost of registration. It is certainly extremely moderate, less than half the agent's fee for ingiving and uplifting the writ. There is no surplus revenue of £12,799 or any such sum. The hon. Member has omitted to take into account the expenditure in other branches than salaries. These are noted on page 281 of the printed Estimates, and include office accommodation, stationery and printing, and the non-effective class pensions, etc.

  MUNICIPAL COUNCILS AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education

  1413
  whether he will submit to the law officers of the Crown the question whether municipal councils may make subventions from the funds at their disposal, under the Technical Instruction Acts, to school boards in aid of the instruction of adult pupils at evening schools in the obligatory and standard subjects of the Whitehall code.
  *THB VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOAED OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): This question would be decided in the first instance by the local authority under the Technical Instruction Acts; then, by the Local Government Board auditor; and finally by the Courts of Law. The Board of Education have no jurisdiction to interfere, and would not be justified in asking the opinion of the Law Officers merely to gratify their curiosity. I may add that, so far as I know, instruction of this kind is now given without objection being taken.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has referred the Leeds School Board to the municipal authorities?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  EVENING CONTINUATION CLASSES.
  MR. BATTY LANGLEY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state what will be the position of evening continuation classes under the management of such bodies as Polytechnics and Young Men's Christian Associations in the event of the Education Bill of 1901 becoming law; and will it be allowable for the new local educational authorities, which are to be created under the Bill, to aid such classes as are now carried on under the management of these institutions and are in receipt of Government Grants under the Evening Continuation Code.
  *SIR J. GORST: The Bill now before Parliament does not in any way affect these classes. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1414
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the number of agricultural holdings sold to the occupiers under each of the Purchase Acts, namely, the Church Disestablishment Act, the Land Act of 1870, the Land Act of 1881, the Purchase Acts of 1885, 1888, 1891, and the Land Act of 1896, and the amount actually advanced on account of said purchases.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The numbers of tenant purchasers under the Acts mentioned, in the order stated, are 6,057, 877, 731, 25,368, and 29,208, making a total of 62,241 purchasers to 31st March last. The amount advanced under each of the Acts, to the same date, is £1,674,841, £514,536, £240,801, £9,992,640, and £8,759,450, making a total advadce of £21,182,268.

  POLICE PROTECTION IN SLIGO—CASE OF MR. PHIBBS.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Charles Phibbs, of Doobeg House, county of Sligo, has been under military and police protection during many periods between the years 1881 and 1893; whether he was in the habit of supplying cars for the conveyance of his own escort; and, if so, what has been the amount paid him on account of car hire for these years; and from what source has this amount been drawn.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will at the same time reply to the similar question of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for East Antrim. Mr. Phibbs received special police protection from 1880 to 1892. It does not appear that he was afforded military protection. The conveyance of his police escort was necessary from time to time; on such occasions his vehicles were employed as being the most suitable, and payment was made to Mr. Phibbs for their hire. The amount so paid cannot be ascertained at such short notice. The payments were made from the Constabulary Vote. He has not been required to defray any portion of the cost of his protection.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the

  1415
  amount paid yearly to Mr. Phibbs for the use of his own vehicle?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I should like to have longer notice.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Charles Phibbs, of Doobeg House, county Sligo, who has been under military and police protection during many periods between the years 1881 and 1893, will be called upon to pay any share of the expense incurred for this protection; and whether he is aware that such protection has been from time to time necessitated by his being denounced by the Land and Irish National Leagues in the past and by the United Irish League at the present time.
  MR. O'DOWD: I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is competent for an hon. Member to copy almost verbatim a question of which another Member has given notice.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The question seems to be different in some respects.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I can only repeat to the hon. and gallant Member the reply I have just given to the hon. Member for South Sligo.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT: Was not this man held up to odium at the instance of the League?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I should say, generally, yes, because of resolutions purporting to come from local branches.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman particularise the kind of risk this man has been exposed to?
  [No answer was returned.]

  IRISH BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Intermediate Education consists of an equal number of Protestants and Roman Catholics,
  1416
  with two paid assistant commissioners, one a Protestant and the other a Roman Catholic; that the principle has always been recognised that a due proportion of the Protestant members should be Presbyterians; and that the office of assistant, commissioner has been held for some twenty years by a member of the Church of Ireland; and whether, seeing that there were five Presbyterian candidates; possessing the highest qualifications for the recent vacancy, he can explain why their claims were again passed over in favour of a member of the Church of Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of members on the Board of Intermediate Education was fixed at seven by the Act of 1878. The Board then consisted of three Roman Catholics, three Church of Ireland, and one Presbyterian. In 1880 the number of Presbyterian members was increased to two, and the number of Church of Ireland members reduced to two. This proportion was maintained down to last year when the strength of the Board was increased by Act to twelve members. The Board now consists of six Roman Catholics, three Church of Ireland, and three Presbyterians. The selection of a Church of Ireland candidate for the vacant assistant commissioner-ship was not made on the principle suggested in the second paragraph.

  IRISH WORKHOUSES—COST OF PAUPER MAINTENANCE.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause an inquiry to be held as to the reason why the average cost per week per inmate for the past year has been 3s. 11¾d. in Carrickmacross Workhouse, while in Clones 3s. 0½d. and Monaghan workhouses 2s. l0½d. suffices for the average cost per inmate per week.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not the practice of the Local Government Board to cause an inquiry to be held into the differences in the cost of maintenance in various unions. These differences are attributable to the terms of the contracts for supplies in each case and the proportion of sick to healthy, and other similar causes. The average weekly cost of

  1417
  maintenance in the Leinster unions is 4s., and in the Ulster unions it is 3s. 5¾d. It does not appear, therefore, that there is anything exceptional in the case of Carrickmacross.

  UNSANITARY CONDITION OF DROMORE.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the medical officer of health reported to the Dromore (county Down) Urban Council at its meeting on 4th March that several tenement houses in the town were in an unsanitary condition and in need of better accommodation, namely, houses in Meeting Street, houses in Gallows Street, and houses in Rampart Street; and that only as regards the houses in Rampart Street the sanitary law has been enforced, and will he state why the council has not compelled the other owners to carry out the recommendations of the sanitary officer; and will he direct the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry as to the alleged unsanitary condition of Dromore, with the view to the improvement of the housing accommodation in that town.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Urban District Council have taken steps to ensure that the premises reported on are put in a proper sanitary condition. The council have ordered their medical officer to make a street to street inspection of the township. No interference on the part of the Local Government Board is called for at present.

  BAWNBOY HOSPITAL NURSE.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Bawnboy Board of Guardians elected for the union hospital, on the 21st January, 1899, at a salary of £60 a year, a trained nurse who possessed all the qualifications prescribed by the Local Government Board to enable the county councils of the counties of Cavan and Leitrim, on behalf of this board of guardians, to get half of this salary refunded out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 58
  1418
  of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, and will he state under what authority the Local Government Board on behalf of the Treasury refused to pay half the salary of this nurse while in the service of this board of guardians.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sum of £60 was proposed by the guardians as remuneration, including both salary and rations, and was apportioned by the Local Government Board in the proportion of £36 for salary and £24 for rations. Recoupment is allowed under the 58th Section of the Act of 1898 in respect of salary only.
  MR. M'GOVERN: But was it done in accordance with Section 58?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand so.

  CAVAN OLD PRISON—TRANSFER TO MILITARY AUTHORITIES.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the building which was formerly used as a gaol in Cavan, built at the expense of the ratepayers in the county Cavan, has been handed over by the General Prisons Board in August, 1900, to the War Department to be used as a military barrack in future, without any compensation to the County Council, who represent the ratepayers; and, if so, upon what grounds and by what authority.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The building formerly used as a prison at Cavan was built by the Grand Jury out of county rates, but at what cost I am unable to say. Section 31 of the Prisons Act of 1878 authorises the Prisons Board, within twelve months after the closing of a prison, to allow it to be used for any public purpose, with the consent of the Treasury. Subject to this provision the prison was handed over to the military authorities in August last with all liability for rent and cost of maintenance. There is no power to award compensation, as suggested.
  MR. M'GOVERNcomplained that part of his question had been struck out, and was proceeding to put another question

  1419
  relating to that part when he was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION REPORT.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the Report of the Irish Land Commissioners will be presented to the House.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Every expedition is being used to complete the work of printing this Report, which it is hoped will be laid on the Table this month.

  BELFAST RATES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the decision of the King's Bench regarding the rates struck for Belfast, there can be no municipal, harbour board, or jurors' lists prepared at the present time for the coming year, and whether, seeing that such complications do not arise in England, where the local authorities are the rating authority, he will consider the advisability of assimilating the Irish system to that in force in England.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. I am aware of the decision referred to, which is now under appeal. I do not admit, however, that if the decision be upheld all the consequences mentioned will follow from it. I think it is generally admitted that the Irish system of valuation by a skilled central body is superior to that existing in this country. The reply to the last paragraph is, therefore, in the negative.
  MR. FIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is the intention of the English Government to assimilate the English system with that in Ireland?
  MR. ATKINSON: That question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.

  GIBRALTAR WORKS—COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of
  1420
  the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government when laying upon the Table of this House Admiral Rawson's letter or Report to the First Lord of the Admiralty on the Gibraltar works, dated 30th March, intend also to present the letter of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis to the First Lord of the Admiralty on the same subject and dated on the same day.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I have not had time to consult my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty; but if my hon. friend will put his question down on Thursday I shall be glad to answer him. I do not think that in any case the letter of my hon. friend could be laid as part of the Papers embodying the Report of Admiral Rawson's Committee.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In that event, will my right hon. friend consider whether he cannot publish this letter separately, and so avoid the necessity I shall otherwise be under of publishing it myself?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that there is any objection to my hon. friend's publishing the letter. There may be parts of it which it might be expedient to make public; but I daresay my hon. friend will exercise a wise discretion in that respect.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I shall be quite ready to omit any portion the publication of which may be contrary to the public interest.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYput a question the point of which was understood to be that there had been no debate whatever on Class 3 of the Naval Votes, which provided for an expenditure of over nine millions. He hoped the First Lord would make special arrangements for some discussion of it.
  [No answer was returned]
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the promised Reports of the Gibraltar Committee will be laid upon the Table.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report has been laid, and I hope it will be in the hands of hon. Members by Thursday next.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state on what day he proposes to make his promised statement of the decision of the Government as to the naval works at Gibraltar.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will put a question to the Secretary to the Admiralty on Thursday, I think he will be able to make such a statement as can be compressed into the limits of an answer to a question.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received a communication from the secretary to the Irish Trades Congress urging that the minutes of evidence of the Royal Commission on University Education should be printed in Ireland; and whether, assuming the sittings of the Commission are held upon this side of the Channel, and seeing that the inquiry is one affecting Ireland only, he will undertake that the claim put forward on behalf of Irish printers will be favourably considered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received the communication to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have no doubt the Commission find it convenient to have many of its meetings on this side of St. George's Channel, but as it is an Irish Commission dealing exclusively with an Irish question I think, in all probability, the printing will be done in Ireland.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Can the First Lord of the Treasury say when the Votes will be taken for the salaries of the Colonial Secretary and of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as well as the War Office Vote? I think we ought to have some notice.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: And as to the Shipbuilding Vote?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite impossible for me to make a statement now as to when these various matters are to come up for discussion, but of course due notice will be given.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts, of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Youthful Offenders Bill:—Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Boland, Mr. Bond, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Flower, Mr. Gray, Sir Brampton Gurdon, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Lough, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Nicol, Mr. Orr-Ewing, and Mr. Yoxall.
  Mr. WODEHOUSE further reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. Crombie; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Joseph Leese.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  MARRIAGES LEGALISATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]
  RAILWAY (LABOUR DISPUTES) CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.
  Bill to make better provision for Conciliation and Arbitration in Railway Labour Disputes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bell, Mr. Tomkinson, Mr. Lawson Walton, Mr. Channing, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Colville, and Sir Fortescue Flannery.
  RAILWAY (LABOUR DISPUTES) CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL.
  "To make better provision for Conciliation and Arbitration in Railway Labour Disputes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]
  CANAL TRAFFIC.
  Bill to provide for the better regulation of Canal Traffic, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Holland, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Field, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Joseph Walton, Mr. Whitley, and Mr. Wolff.
CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
"To provide for the better regulation of Canal Traffic," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]
CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, the sum of £35,443,233 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  MR. DILLONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some explanation as to what had necessitated the introduction of this resolution. Did the resolution cover a large amount of the Supplies voted for the continuance of the war in South Africa? If so, he would be entitled to raise the whole question of the conduct of the war. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might not like it, and indeed it was neither his desire nor his intention to do so; but he wished to raise a comparatively narrow point, but one of which had become a question of definite matter, of infinite public importance, seeing that it had attracted unfavourable comment, not only in what was called the pro-Boer press, but in newspapers which supported the Government. He referred to the plan of keeping the people of this country in the blankest ignorance of what was going on in South Africa. All the country was treated to was a series of telegrams from Lord Kitchener, some three or four lines long, which might be described as the weekly butcher's bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: How does the hon. Member connect that question with the Vote out of the Consolidated Fund?
  MR. DILLON: This is an Appropriation Bill, as I take it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): A Consolidated Fund Bill.
  MR. DILLON: It is the same thing. This is a resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, which is to be followed by a Consolidated Fund Bill. I assume that the resolution is concerned with some of the large Votes granted for the use of the Army. If that is so, I am entitled to raise the question of the conduct of the war.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that follows as a matter of course. It depends upon the services for which the money is required.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES, on a point of order, suggested that this was a resolution on which it was intended to found a Consolidated Fund Bill. That Bill did not appropriate sums to specific purposes, but it authorised the Treasury to issue the sum named out of the Consolidated Fund for the expenses of the year. Was not that issue authorised by the Bill an act of Supply? If so, did it not come under the rule that grievance must precede Supply?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the rule as to grievance preceding Supply is applicable. Under this Bill about £21,000,000 will be issued for the Army services. These Army services, which have been already voted, are military education, miscellaneous services, pensions, superannuation, ordnance factories, remounts and so forth. I was asking the hon. Member for East Mayo how he could connect the conduct of Lord Kitchener in not sending fuller telegrams with any of the Votes to which this Bill applies.
  MR. DILLON: The larger part of the sum is for miscellaneous effective services—in other words, for the conduct of the war, including the pay of Lord Kitchener.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Vote for it.
  MR. DILLON: What are the miscellaneous effective services?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will come on on Thursday, and then the hon. Member will have before him exactly the Votes with which the Bill deals. There will be a full and much more convenient opportunity for debate then.
  MR. DILLONsaid the First Lord of the Treasury had correctly defined the position. No doubt it would be a more convenient opportunity for a long discussion on the Second Reading. This, however, was a question of order, and it was not his intention to do what he was entitled to do—namely, to raise a general discussion on the conduct of the war. He wanted to call attention to the un-satisfactory character of the news placed before the public in regard to the conduct of the war generally, and the widespread dissatisfaction which existed in this country as to the insufficiency of the news sent from South Africa.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That is why I asked the hon. Member how he connected that subject with this resolution, and I still think that he has not answered the question. I have been endeavouring to find out how he can connect his observations with any of the Votes contained in the resolution, and they do not seem to me to be connected with them in any way. There is nothing about the salary of Lord Kitchener, and the pay of the Army is not borne on any of these Votes.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not a fact that this sum is issued for the services of the Army, and that any portion of it may be by the direction of the Treasury diverted to any portion of Army service? If that be so, does not the issue of any sum for Army services cover any portion of the grievances connected with any portion of it?
  MR. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for War, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say whether any portion of the
  1426
  £35,000,000 was to be used for the support of the Army in South Africa.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I think it is more than probable that that will be so, but this does not settle the point upon which the hon. Gentleman asked the ruling of the Chair. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has suggested that the debate might extend to services not included in the resolution, because the War Office in certain circumstances can allocate money voted for one service to another service. But it would not be possible in Committee of Supply to raise a debate on a Vote which was not before the Committee because of the power of the War Office to allocate the money in that way, but the discussion would have to be confined to the Vote actually before the Committee.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Committee had not yet heard a definite statement as to whether any of the £35,000,000 was to be used for the purposes of the war in South Africa. He believed that a large portion of the Vote was for the expenses of the war in South Africa, and therefore he was surely entitled to ask a few questions on the subject.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: There is a Vote for transport and remounts, and that of course is applicable to the war in South Africa; but I do not think that on this question it would be possible to discuss the conduct of Lord Kitchener in not sending fuller telegrams. The same rule must apply now upon this resolution as would apply in Committee of Supply. On any particular Vote you must discuss a question connected with that Vote.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether for the convenience of the Committee the Chairman would read the Votes which were covered by this resolution.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: "War Office Estimates—military education, miscellaneous effective services, pensions and other non-effective charges, superannuation, compensation allowances and gratuities, works, buildings, and repairs, transport and remounts, and ordnance factories."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that this was a very important point. Was he not right in saying that any one of the items of money allocated to these purposes might be by the direction of the Treasury diverted to the salary of Lord Kitchener, the salary of the censor, or to any other purpose connected with the war? That being so, was it not open to an hon. Member on a general issue like this Consolidated Fund, and considering the power of diverting such sums, to raise grievances before this kind of Supply?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It is true that with the assent of the Treasury money voted for one purpose may be used for another, but I do not think that opens the discussion upon all the other purposes to which the Treasury assent that the money might be applied, because, if so, all limitation would be futile. On any particular Estimate it would be open to any hon. Member while discussing the Estimate to say—"It is true that this money is to be devoted to a particular Estimate, but the Treasury may permit it to be devoted to another Estimate; therefore I do not propose to discuss the Estimate before the Committee, but some other subject not before the Committee." The same rule of relevancy must apply to a resolution which empowers the money to be devoted to its objects as to a resolution in Committee of Supply.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether the Government had any information as to 500 horses having been captured by the Boers from a remount station near Colesberg, at the latter end of May last.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I have already answered the hon. Member's question. I have no information.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid if one could be perfectly certain of all the news which came from South Africa one could accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with perfect equanimity, but in one or two cases certain items of news came from various sources, and the Government knew nothing about
  1428
  them. He would like to ask what was being done with regard to the remounts in Cape Colony, whether the horses there had been commandeered, or whether the horses were being left for agricultural purposes on the farms.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think that the bewilderment in the mind of hon. Members arises from the common practice of Parliament, founded upon a necessity of which I am not aware, of attaching a certain air of mystery to these proceedings in Ways and Means. The Committee is only told of the resolution; it comes upon us like a thunderbolt, and it seems to be a much more formidable and terrible proceeding than it really is, because of the mystery attaching to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moves a resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, but we never see the resolution; it is not put on the Paper for the information of the House until the House is called upon to "stand and deliver," and to pass the resolution. You, Sir, have been reading from a document which enumerates the Votes dealt with. Why should it not be given to the House? This is a matter for which I do not blame the Government in the least, but it seems to be a somewhat futile and anomalous proceeding that the House should be put in the position in which it now finds itself. The Leader of the House is right in saying that in the main this stage is purely formal, and that the proper time to raise any serious questions involved in the money voted is on the Second Reading of the Bill. But it is certainly anomalous that undescribed resolutions should come as it were from the blue sky, and should not be explained, except in the most general terms, by the Minister. The Committee generally is placed at a disadvantage. You, Sir, have ruled that any discussion must be confined to the subject actually involved, and I think you are undoubtedly right, but the Committee cannot exercise any intelligent confidence in your decision unless we know what are the subjects in the resolution. The Government are acting according to rule, but I think that the rule and practice are bad, and I hope that there may be some arrangement made to avoid this difficulty

  1429

  in future. We quite understand that there is necessity for some kind of secrecy before the Budget is introduced, in order that there may be no premature disclosure of the terms of the Government's proposals. But there is no necessity in this case, and I think it would be a good thing if in the future a simpler method were adopted.
  MR. DILLONsaid that he was in agreement with the views of the right hon. Gentleman. Except in the case of the Budget resolutions, there was no reason for not giving notice of all resolutions to be moved in Committee of Ways and Means. He hoped that in future reasonable information would be given to the House.
  MR. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for War how long the Government could carry on the war without coming to Parliament for further funds. He also asked whether the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would be the first Order of the day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member's first question does not come within the terms of any of the Votes included in the resolution. As regards his second question, the Second Reading of the Bill will be put down as first Order.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDremarked that, even after the interchange of views that had taken place, they were still in the dark as to the Votes covered by the resolution.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All the Votes that have been taken in Committee of Supply and agreed to on Report will be included.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDobserved that if that information had been given at first it would have saved this discussion. He hoped a division would be taken in order to indicate the view held on the question of remounts. It had been abundantly proved that in regard to that subject there had been more incompetency and more blundering by the War Office than in regard to any other matter in the whole of the South African campaign.
  1430
  It had been shown that on the question of buying remounts, and getting horses suitable for the campaign in South Africa, the officials had been guilty of the greatest blunders. It was notorious that horses had been sent out which, when they arrived in South Africa, were found to be wholly unsuitable. Having regard to the fact that the war was being carried on in such a fashion, he hoped the discussion upon its general conduct would be taken at an early date. With regard to transport arrangements, he too might say he had received a number of letters from private soldiers which said that on some of the ships the men had been treated most disgracefully, and the accommodation provided for them was grossly insufficient.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: There has been a good deal of misapprehension in regard to the procedure that has been adopted. The Secretary to the Treasury was quite right when he said this is not an Appropriation Bill. It is a Consolidated Fund Bill. Money for the public service is voted in Supply, and the Vote is sanctioned by the House on Report. But that is not sufficient to get the money out of the Treasury. Sir Erskine May said with reference to that procedure—
  "Until a grant in Supply has been appropriated by statute to the service and object for which the grant is destined, the Treasury, unless otherwise ordered, is not capable of making the issue of the sum so granted from the Consolidated Fund. The introduction of the Appropriation Bill cannot, however, take place until all the grants have been voted for the service of the current year, a process usually ranging over a period of six months. A more prompt issue must therefore be made of the money granted from time to time for the current service of the Crown, and accordingly from time to time Bills are passed during each session known as Consolidated Fund Bills, which empower the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the Departments for whose use the grants are voted such sums as they may require in anticipation of the statutory sanction granted by the Appropriation Act."
  There is no statutory sanction until the Appropriation Act is passed for the expenditure of the year. By the Bill now to be brought in, the Treasury is authorised to issue the money, but it will not be an Appropriation Act. Sir Erskine May goes on to explain that the first Consolidated Fund Bill of the session

  1431
  must be passed during the month of March. That Bill finally appropriates the amount of the Supplementary Estimates and of the expenditure which has taken place between the close of the last session and the end of the financial year. Then—
  "the remaining Consolidated Fund Bills are passed, during the progress of the session, at such times as may be requisite for the maintenance of the public service."
  The Committee will see from that that this is a simple form of procedure to authorise the Treasury to sign cheques and the Paymaster General to pay them, which until this Bill is passed they cannot do. But the final appropriation of the money voted this year will be made at the proper time by the Appropriation Act which will be passed during the last week of the session.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked for information as to the sufficiency of the supply of remounts in South Africa. Very little news had been published as to what was being done by the War Office in this direction. A month or two ago an assurance was given that Lord Kitchener had sufficient horses for his requirements. Since then comparatively few horses had been imported into South Africa, while, according to private information he had received, the colonial stock—the horses in South Africa—was now running short, and there would be some difficulty in finding remounts unless a large number were imported. The only notice he had seen of fresh remounts going to South Africa was that of a shipload of about 1,000 horses from South America the other day, and those, he believed, were not considered to be of the best description for the purpose. Statements had repeatedly been made that the great difficulty in South Africa was not the scarcity of rifles or of ammunition, but the question of horses. The war would be decided by our being able to outlast our enemies in the matter of horseflesh, and that could only be done by keeping up a good supply of remounts. He therefore hoped an assurance would be given that the supply of horses was not running short, and that the Government were fully alive to their responsibilities in this matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I respectfully repeat that this has invariably been regarded as a purely formal stage of the procedure, and, because I understood that it would be again so regarded, I promised to put the Bill down as first Order on Thursday. Of course it is impossible that we should have a discussion to-night and another on Thursday. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the Committee will treat it on this occasion as it always has been treated before, as a formal stage, and I will then put the Bill down as first Order on Thursday.
  MR. LAMBERTdesired to know of whom he should ask a question with regard to the period for which the war could go on without pressing the Treasury.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that that question hardly arose on the resolution before the Committee.
  MR. LAMBERTpointed out that the subject of remounts could be discussed on the present occasion, and his question would naturally arise on that. But he did not want to discuss it; he merely wished to know to whom he should apply for the information.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that it is relevant to the Votes which have been put from the Chair.
  *MR. JOHN ELLISregretted the First Lord of the Treasury had not made some response to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition. A great deal of time had been lost owing to the Committee not knowing exactly the business that was coming on. All would acknowledge that in one sense the present was a formal stage, but in another sense it was not. The House of Commons had now to watch very jealously every opportunity of discussing matters, and naturally, when Members saw that a resolution was to be moved in Committee of Ways and Means, they snatched at the idea that certain discussion might take place. They all understood that nothing could be brought up other than the matters contained in the Votes covered by the resolution put from

  1433
  the Chair, but everything contained an those Votes could be discussed, and, although the Secretary to the Treasury had attempted to draw a distinction between a Consolidated Fund Bill and an Appropriation Bill, there was no distinction in respect of the discussion which might ensue. Everything arising under the Votes which made up the sum of £35,443,233 in the resolution could be discussed; that was the point he desired to make good. He also wished to press on the Leader of the House the desirability of most seriously considering whether he could not respond to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition, so that Members might know in every case, except that of the Budget, the business that was coming on. Such an arrangement would save a great deal of time, and he hoped the matter would be seriously considered.
  MR. PHILIPPSsaid that in a recent debate the Secretary of State for War quoted a portion of a telegram from Lord Kitchener to the effect that he had plenty of mounted men and ample remounts. That telegram
  had not been laid on the Table, and as only a portion of it had been quoted he thought the Committee were entitled to press for it on the present occasion. He therefore asked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give Members the full telegram, so that they could judge of Lord Kitchener's statement for themselves. If he would not do that, could he repeat the assurance that Lord Kitchener was still amply satisfied with the number of horses and mounted men generally that he had in South Africa.
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think it is very convenient to lay isolated telegrams in the way the hon. Member proposes. I quoted the exact words of Lord Kitchener, and there is no change whatever in his attitude as regards either mounted men or remounts. I am in constant communication with him, and he is absolutely satisfied at the present moment with the supplies he is receiving from England.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 330; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 275.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Boyle, James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

  Brigg, John

  Crombie, John William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Burt, Thomas

  Denny, Col.

  Austin, Sir John

  Butcher, John George

  Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Caldwell, James

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Doxford, Sir William T.

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

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

  Dunn, Sir William

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Edwards, Frank

  Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christch'ch)

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

  Coddington, Sir William

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Bell, Richard

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

  Bignold, Arthur

  Colville, John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bigwood, James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Finch, George H.

  Bill, Charles

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Langley, Batty

  Rankin, Sir James

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt, Penrose-

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool]

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lawson, John Grant

  Renwick, George

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Flower, Ernest

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Rigg, Richard

  Forster, Henry Wm.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Robson, William Snowdon.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Galloway, Wm. Johnson

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Garfit, William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

  Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol S.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sackville, Col. Sir G. Stopford-

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipmen, Dr. John G.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Gretton, John

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Capt. John Forfarshire

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Majehdie, James A. H.

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

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hain, Edward

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Mather, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Mitchell, William

  Stroyan, John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mst'w

  Tennant, Harold John

  Helder, Augustus

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Thomas, Dv. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

  Morton, Arthur HA. (Deptford)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

  Holland, William Henry

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Wallace, Robert

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Newnes, Sir George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Norman, Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

  Webb, Col. Wm. George

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Weir, James Galloway

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Welby, Lt-Col AC. E. (Taunton

  Joicey, Sir James

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

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

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Parker, Gilbert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Luke, York, E. R.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pease, J. A (Saffron Walden)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kenyon, James (Lancs. Bury)

  Percy, Earl

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Perks, Robert William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Kimber, Henry

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Bir.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lambert, George

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Younger, William

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Yoxall, James Henry

  NOES.

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Field, William

  O'Doherty, William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Blake, Edward

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Boland, John

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Boyle, James

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Caine, William Sproston

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Cameron, Robert

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Carew, James Laurence

  Lundon, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Govern, T.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cullinan, J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Daly, James

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whte, George (Norfolk)

  Dillon, John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 3:—
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid his Amendment raised the question whether an export duty ought to be levied upon small coal as well as large. This in South Wales and other parts of the country was a very Important matter. He proposed to insert the words "large or through and through." The effect of this would be that the duty would be taken off small coal, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the opportunity of telling them whether in dealing with small coal he proposed to put upon it a smaller duty than upon the larger and more valuable kind of coal. He would like to see this duty restricted to large coal, but at any rate he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to meet the owners of small collieries with respect
1438
to the exemption of small coal from the duty. The effect of putting the same duty on all kinds of coal would be very serious. Speaking broadly, large coal was sold f.o.b. at 12s. per ton, while the price of small coal would be about 6s. per ton. When coal was at 12s. a tax of 1s. became a duty of 8 per cent. upon large coal. A duty at the same rate upon small coal at 6s. per ton amounted to 16 per cent. It was not fair to impose twice the percentage on small as upon large coal. In some collieries the proportion of large to small coal was very great; whilst in others there was a very much bigger percentage of the smaller coal. Take as an illustration a colliery producing four tons of large to every one of small, and suppose that amount was 1,000 tons. According to that percentage of large and small coal they would have 800 tons of large and 200 tons of small. The value of 800 tons at 12s. per ton would be £480 and 200 tons at 6s. would be worth £60. The price of 1,000 tons in that proportion would be £540, and upon that they levied a duty of £50 at 1s. per ton. Take another colliery further west, in Glamorganshire, where out of 1,000 tons only 300 were large and 700 small. Those 300 tons at 12s. would produce £180, and 700 tons at 6s. would make a total of £210. From this colliery 1,000 tons only produced

1439
£390, upon which was levied £50 duty, and yet upon a commodity worth £540 only the same amount of duty was imposed. That was a very important matter. He gave those two illustrations to show how the inequality would work in cases where the collieries were not so valuable, and that was the reason why they should be treated much more mercifully. If they put this large duty upon the small coal it must have a tendency to destroy the market for small coal. The result would be that, in many cases where the small coal was now brought to the bank, it would be left underground. That was a very important matter, affecting the safety of the men, for if the small coal was left in the mine there was a greater danger of explosions occurring. Therefore, from the point of view of the safety of the miners, it was important that they should not discourage the raising of small coal to the bank. If they imposed this large duty upon the small coal, then the tendency would be that three-fourths of the people who worked collieries would be encouraged rather to keep the coal inside the pit rather than deliver it on the bank. A great deal had been said about the large fortunes made by coalowners, and he had no objection whatever to see them taxed. If they had ample time to go into the figures with regard to these collieries they would find, even with regard to those mines producing the best coal, that the average return to the coalowner was not so large as had been represented by the right hon. Gentleman. He knew of one colliery employing between 800 and 900 men where the interest paid on the capital sunk in the colliery was not more than one and a half to two per cent. The small collieries depended to a large extent upon the small coal which they were able to sell in order to make a profit, and with this tax they would not be able to sell it in bad times. It was perfectly true that if these collieries were unable to dispose of their small coal at a profit they would have to close their collieries altogether. Therefore, from both these points of view, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer was convinced that the duty ought not to be placed on small coal at all. He hoped, at any rate, that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to make the duty payable at the same
1440
rate for both small and large coal. It appeared to him to be a very hard thing that one colliery producing small coal, and exporting it to Belgium, France, or Italy, should have to pay this duty, while a colliery in the same district producing; the same coal for home consumption would contribute nothing in the shape of duty. Those were the considerations which had induced him to put down this Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman was not able to meet them to that extent; he hoped that when they came to a quality of coal which was worth only 6s. a ton he did not propose to make the duty payable 1s. a ton.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 29, after the word 'on' to insert the words 'large or through and through.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan will perhaps forgive me for saying that I think he has been rather prolific in Amendments upon this particular matter.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: They are all, good Amendments, and there is no harm, in them.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member has made three proposals. In the first place he suggested a graduated duty of 6d. on large coal, 4d. on through and through coal, and 2d. on small coal, without reference to value. Then he proposed a similar scale of duty-based on the value as well as the description of the coal. These proposals appear to me to be entirely impracticable, and either of them would absolutely destroy the yield from the duty which I have proposed The third proposal, which he has just laid before the Committee, was that, while the duty should be 1s. a ton on large and through and through coal, small coal should be altogether exempt from any duty. But then comes the difficult question of what is small coal. I have been endeavouring to ascertain that for some time past. I have communicated with many authorities on the subject, in different parts of

1441
the country, and with several Members of this House. I am aware that the subject has been discussed by the Mining Association, but many different views were expressed, and no decision was arrived at. The difficulty of defining small coal is clearly shown by the various Amendments which have been placed on the Paper with a view to arriving at a definition. I am sure that hon. Members acquainted with this subject will be ready to admit that there is a great deal of small coal of a low value, and it is that which, I think, the hon. Member opposite has in his mind. But there is also a good deal of small coal of a higher value than some large coal. I am informed that the bituminous small coal, which goes through a very small sieve, is of as high a value as the large coal from the same district. So that any attempt to differentiate between large and small coal would be absolutely unfair, and would not secure what I believe the hon. Member opposite desires. There are Amendments on the Paper prescribing the size of the mesh through which small coal should pass, with the view of arriving at a definition of small coal. But, in my opinion, it would be absolutely impossible to legislate on such a basis as that. It would be troublesome to the trader to attempt to stereotype in an Act of Parliament the size of the mesh which should differentiate between the coal. I am informed, too, that it is not only a question of the size of the mesh when settling what is small and what is large coal, but that the angle at which the screen is placed has a very material effect on the process of screening. At many ports there are practically no facilities for screening, and although there would be a screen, I suppose, at every colliery, the Customs officers could not attend them. Again, a good deal of coal is sold without being screened at all. I think I have now dealt with the Amendment of the hon. Member, and I contend that I have shown that it would be impossible and unfair for the Committee to exempt small coal, as such, from the operation of a duty which would apply to large coal of less value than some kinds of small coal. I observe on the Paper Amendments attempting to graduate the duty on an ad valorem basis. There is a great deal that is taking
1442
in that proposal, but I do not think it is likely to commend itself to hon. Members from those parts of the country where the most valuable coal is produced, because it is perfectly obvious that, if we attempt anything of the kind, I shall have to ask the Committee to sanction a rate of duty higher on the more valuable coal than that which has been already sanctioned. I am not quite sure that that would be fair in all cases, for some of the very valuable coal is, I imagine, produced at a cost, owing to the depth of the pits and a variety of reasons, which make the profits to the owners not greater, at any rate, than those on some of the inferior kinds of coal which are produced at much less cost. Further, any attempt at an ad valorem duty would, I cannot help thinking, entail so many chances of fraud and so many cases of dispute between the Custom House officers and the persons interested, and so much continual trouble to the trade as to render it almost impracticable.
Having gone through the different proposals I come to what the hon. Member seems to me to have really in his mind, and that is what I alluded to last night—namely, the more favourable dealing in point of duty with the cheapest class of coal. That is a point on which I am prepared to meet the hon. Member and hon. Members on this side of the House, who are equally interested in the subject. There are two ways in which it might be met, but in either case it would be by a rebate of the duty in the Bill. We might either give a rebate of part of the duty on coal below a certain price f.o.b., or we might give a rebate of the whole of the duty on lesser priced coal. I have been personally rather inclined to the former course, but I have reason to suppose that the latter course would be more agreeable to hon. Members who are interested in this matter, and who desire some amelioration for this kind of coal. This particular point of the Bill is not, however, the point at which an Amendment of that kind can properly be moved. If hon. Members will look at the wording of the Bill, they will see that we will come to that point later in the clause, probably at the end of line 31, and I hope I shall be able by the time we get there to suggest definite proposals to the Committee, which may deal with this matter in one or other of the ways I have mentioned.

1443
I may say that I have also examined the case of patent fuel, and I feel that, having regard to the interests of our manufacturers of patent fuel, we must treat patent fuel in the same way as we treat small coal, and therefore any proposal I will make on the subject will apply to patent fuel also. I hope the hon. Member will not now press his Amendment.
MR. MCLARENsaid he was very glad to hear the favourable view the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken of the representations addressed to him, and after what the right hon. Gentleman had said he would suggest that the Amendment be withdrawn. Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted to the Committee the exact terms in which he was prepared to allow small coal to go out of the country he ought to carefully consider the effect of railway rates on the price of coal f.o.b. He had had various figures suggested to him, such as 5s. and 6s., but although they might suit Durham and Northumberland very well, where the collieries were near the sea, any hard and fast line would operate very hardly in collieries in South Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Leicestershire, and also in South Wales, where some of the most prolific collieries, not the very best collieries, had a rate to the sea of 2s. or 2s. 6d. He could state from personal knowledge that, unless collieries in South Wales got a fair return for their small coal, it would be impossible for them to pay. He was not addressing the Committee as a colliery proprietor, but as the representative of a constituency which contained a large number of miners, who would feel the direct effect of cutting down profits by the unfair treatment of small coal. In South Wales the sliding scale would operate to reduce wages next month; already a reduction of wages was in operation in Durham, and a reduction was freely talked of in the Midlands in the autumn. That seemed to him to be the very worst time to try an experiment which would affect wages without the most prolonged and most careful consideration. He had not the least doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the subject that consideration, because the right hon. Gentleman now saw the intricacies of the question
1444
and the complications which every step involved. The coalowners were willing to bear their share of the national burden; all they asked was that the duty should be put on in such a way as to cause the least friction in carrying out their obligations. If there was one thing which a coal owner abhorred and feared more than another, it was the question of a wages dispute with his workmen. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into account the various burdens which the colliery owners had to bear, and if, in fixing the limit of the abatement of the duty, regard were given to the price at the pit's mouth, and not to the price f.o.b., or by some combination which could be arrived at without any difficulty, the gift which it was proposed to give to the coalowners and miners would be doubly valuable. He felt sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciated the importance of the question, and he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to meet them in South Wales and the Midlands on as favourable terms as he had met Members from the North of England.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he was very glad indeed to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to some extent to meet the demands that had been made on him from different parts of the country with regard to the coal duty. He confessed that he did not fully understand the purport of the concession which the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to make, but at the same time he did not think that it went nearly as far as the demand which they in West Glamorganshire thought they had a right to make. The Amendment of his hon. friend in effect would secure the total exemption of what was called small coal. Of course, the words "small coal" and "large coal" were technical terms, but they were fairly well known in the trade, and contracts were made and carried out every day in respect of them. So far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his argument against the Amendment on the difficulty of drawing a distinction between the different classes of coal he would respectfully point out that that was really a matter of language to be

1445
determined by a definition in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the questions of the mesh and the angle, but it would be quite easy to find a form of words which would put beyond all doubt what was the meaning of "large coal" as opposed to "small coal." He was informed that the ordinary screen which separated large coal from small coal had 1⅛ inch mesh. If that were taken as the basis for distinction, the angle could also be determined. He did not, however, desire to enter into detail. What they in West Glamorganshire wished was the total exemption of small coal from the duty. The matter was from the point of revenue a very small one indeed. The amount of small coal exported from Swansea, except for coasting purposes, did not exceed more than two or three cargoes a year. What, then, was the meaning of putting a duty on small coal for revenue purposes? What was really the important factor was the question of manufactured fuel, and he confessed that the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding it was entirely unsatisfactory. One of the largest manufacturers of patent fuel in West Glamorganshire had sent him a communication stating that before the manufacture of that fuel small coal was practically wasted, and remained in huge quantities at the collieries. It was by the energy of a former member of the House that the great patent fuel industry was started, by which small coal was utilised instead of being thrown aside at the mouth of the pit. The reason why they had taken such a great interest in the question was that if the manufactured article were to be taxed, an industry which, notwithstanding obvious advantages, was not at present in a very flourishing condition, would be practically destroyed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his promised concession in regard to small coal, had lost sight of the fact that it was not merely small coal compressed into blocks. It involved not only the use of most expensive machinery, but the introduction into the article in the course of its manufacture of a substitute called pitch, which was highly expensive. He should say, indeed, that from 10 to 15 per cent. of the substances in the manufactured article, which he proposed to treat as
1446
small coal, was pitch. In some instances this very substance had been imported into Glamorganshire in order to carry on the patent fuel manufacturing business. If that was the case, surely the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wholly inadequate to meet the case. He ought not to treat the article as small coal at all, but to put it into a category by itself.
MR. ABEL THOMASsaid that until he had received an idea of the full extent of the proposed concessions he should support his hon. and learned friend's Amendment. In fact, the Amendment was not inconsistent with the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the Amendment simply aimed at the exclusion of small coal altogether. He was surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that there was no definition of small coal. He (Mr. Thomas) supposed a lease was never granted of a colliery in Wales in which there was not a difference in the percentage of royalties charged on small coal as compared with large coal. He ventured to say that there were thousands of contracts made in the course of every year in Cardiff and Wales generally in which they specified for through and through and small coal only. There should be no difficulty in formulating the distinction between these coals. They were dealing with a tax which this year seemed to be reasonable enough, and which last year was reasonable enough. But in 1876, 1877, and 1878 practically the whole of the small coal delivered and sold free on board never reached six shillings a ton, and was often as low as three shillngs. One would see, therefore, that a shilling tax during bad years was an impossible tax, although it was true that in a year like this and last year it very likely was a small matter. The whole idea of taxing coal was a leap in the dark. It was a very dangerous experiment, and still more dangerous when the Government were dealing with such substances as small coal, the price of which in bad times sank to an insignificant figure.
*SIR JOSEPH PEASEthought that those hon.

1447
Gentlemen who were in the House when the right hon. Gentleman made the statement which he made must have felt that the difficulty of defining coal was very great indeed. If the right hon. Gentleman made any concession at all it should be a full and free concession. He thought that the only definition of small coal on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could act was that which its value afforded. But it would much facilitate discussion if the right hon. Gentleman would give particulars of the concession he proposed.
MR. D. A. THOMAStook rather a different view of the concessions which had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought the concession which was promised to the patent fuel manufacturers would be no concession at all. The right hon. Gentleman was going to tax small coal according to its value and put patent fuel upon the same basis, but inasmuch as the cost of manufacture of patent fuel was about double the price of small coal he could not see how that was to be done. The price of patent fuel never went down to anything like the price of small coal. The proper definition of small coal was that, whatever its size, so long as the price remained below 6s. it was small coal. When the coal duties were in operation in 1842 and 1845 the duty was 2s. a ton on the large coal and 1s. a ton on the small. The right hon. Gentleman was adding to the uncertainty of the revenue by this means; a year or two hence all coal might be shipped at only 5s. a ton. The right hon. Gentleman had no idea what proportion of coal shipped was small coal and what was large coal, yet notwithstanding his lack of knowledge upon that point he was going to make a leap in the dark by undertaking to remit duty altogether, or to charge a very small duty, on coal that was below the value of 5s. a ton. Such a thing would make a difference to the right hon. Gentleman of one-fourth or one-fifth of his revenue. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had consented to consider the question of patent fuel. He thought the argument of the manufacturers was unanswerable, but he would point out that once the right hon. Gentleman
1448
made any remissions he accepted the principle of an ad valorem duty, and he could not tell where it would lead him to.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot say more than I have on the Amendment before the Committee. It is an Amendment which I have said I cannot admit, and therefore I think I must ask the Committee to come to a decision upon this matter.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the question was an important one for South Wales. Everybody in business there understood what small coal was. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had made these concessions, and he was grateful to him for them.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESrecognised the value of the principle of the concessions made, and was inclined to think that at this stage it was unnecessary to go to a division on the subject. But at the same time he desired to point out that it would be a relief to the north country Members if as soon as possible some indication were given as to the point which the right hon. Gentleman regarded as the point at which the duty should be remitted. In Durham not more than 5 per cent. of the coal exported was small coal, but in Northumberland it was something like 20 per cent. of the total export, and Northumberland would be put at a disadvantage if a permanent charge, partly payable in royalties and partly payable to the State, of 1s. 8d. a ton were made. English coal was already heavily handicapped in competing with foreign coal. The German competition, which was most keen of all, came from Westphalian coal, and if the price of English coal were increased the radius in which the competition of Westphalian coal was felt would be extended. He submitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should choose a low figure as the price at which duty on small coal should be remitted f.o.b., and if he did that he believed great satisfaction would be felt in the north.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. D. A. THOMASmoved an Amendment providing that the duty should be

1449
levied on "smokeless steam and Durham gas coal." He said he did not intend to press this Amendment to a division; his only object was to confine the duty to the coal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech assured the House we had a practical monopoly of. There was no strong objection to imposing an export duty on such coal, because it in no way affected the principle of free trade, but if it could be shown that there was no monopoly, then he submitted it was a violation of the free trade principles upon which this country had prospered for fifty years. So far as South Wales was concerned there was no such monopoly; in all parts of the world competition with Welsh coal was increasing, and in the last ten years they had lost some great markets altogether. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to confine this duty to such coal as had a monopoly.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 29, after the word 'on,' to insert the words 'smokeless steam and Durham gas.'"—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): said the hon. Member could hardly expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment, which would destroy the yield of the duty.
MR. JOHN WILSON, while admiring the self-sacrifice of the hon. Member for Merthyr, was not prepared to be laid with him on the same altar. If the hon. Member would exclude Durham, then he would vote for the Amendment.
MR. ROBSONsaid that though the Amendment might be moved in humour, it had great argumentative merits on the general principle; he pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself instanced smokeless Welsh and Durham gas coal as the two kinds that could hold their own in spite of competition. The Amendment would confine the right hon. Gentleman's duty to his argument, and if it was not
1450
accepted they would know that this was a trade tax imposed to the detriment of the English producer and for the benefit of the foreigner. Even if the Amendment were not accepted now and its principle conceded, a discussion might be raised upon that question later on.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have attempted in more than one way to meet the reasonable views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in return I am met with an Amendment that would absolutely destroy the tax. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with the tax let him vote against the clause; but the Committee will discuss it in a businesslike way.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. D. A. THOMASnext proposed that the duty should be charged on "the fixed carbon as indicated by analysis" in the coal. He pointed out that in small coal there was a percentage of ash to the extent of 15 per cent. on incineration, and in most of the contracts for the export of small coal it was expressly provided that the percentage of ash should not be larger than a certain amount, otherwise a penalty had to be paid.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 29, after the word 'on,' to insert the words 'the fixed carbon as indicated by analysis in.'"—(Mr. David Thomas).
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and negatived.
*MR. LAWadmitted that the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated his intention of granting would be a great advantage to the coal trade of the country, especially that of Scotland; but he felt very strongly that the only proper way of levying the duty was on the price f.o.b., and, therefore, he desired to place before the Committee very briefly the case for an ad valorem, versus a specific, duty. If this question were now being considered for the first time, he was certain there would be no difference of opinion whatever that the Draper and only fair way, as between the different districts of the country

1451
and the different collieries in those districts, would be to levy the tax in proportion to the price which could be obtained for the coal. There was a great difference in value between the various qualities of coal exported. There was still exported a considerable quantity of cannel coal which, although not large in comparison with the total amount exported, yet amounted to several hundred thousand tons per annum, was worth about £2 per ton. Then came the Welsh coal, of the value of 18s. 6d. or 19s. per ton, after which there was the Scotch coal, worth only one half the value of best Welsh. That meant that coal of one kind was taxed at only 2½ per cent., another kind at only 5 per cent., while Scotch coal was taxed at more than 10 per cent., and Northumberland coal at nearly 10 per cent. But the case for an ad valorem duty was even stronger than those figures indicated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when introducing the Budget urged as his strongest argument in its favour that the tax would be paid by the foreigner. The right hon. Gentleman was probably not so sure of that now, and, at all events, to whatever extent it was true it applied only to coal in which we had a monopoly—more especially to Welsh coal, which had a monopoly absolutely in our own Navy and, to some extent, in other navies. If, therefore, Welsh coal could not pay its proportion of the tax according to its value, the main argument of the right hon. Gentleman fell to the ground. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the Welsh Members would not approve of an ad valorem duty, but surely that could hardly be the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, in discussing a previous Amendment, had spent the whole of his time in proving that it was absolutely unfair to tax Welsh coal of a low quality at the same rate as Welsh coal of a higher value. If that was the view of the Welsh Members, how could they possibly maintain that it was fair to tax Scotch coal at the same rate as Welsh coal, seeing that the former had only half the value of the latter? On the question of expediency he admitted there was much to be said. There were difficulties with regard to the imposition of an ad valorem tax, but they were not
1452
insuperable. There was no commodity upon which it would be easier to levy an ad valorem duty than would be the case with coal. But it was not necessary to argue the question, because, according to the public press, the right hon. Gentleman himself had intimated to the representatives of the coal trade that if they were unanimous in desiring an ad valorem duty he would be prepared to concede it.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he could not admit the accuracy of that statement.
*MR. LAWsaid that whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted it, he was perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman believed it was the right way of levying the tax, and consulted the people concerned, he would find a way of overcoming the difficulties. The difficulties in this matter were not half so serious as those which the right hon. Gentleman had already overcome in regard to the graduated tax on sugar. A great advantage of an ad valorem duty was that when the coal trade suddenly passed from a period of depression to a period of prosperity the revenue would get the advantage of the change, and it would get the benefit at a time when the coal trade would not feel the higher tax. All would admit that a year or two ago a tax of 2s. 6d. a ton would not have done half the harm to the coal trade that a tax of 1s. a ton would do at a time when the trade was depressed, profits were disappearing, and miners' wages had been reduced to the lowest level. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in conducting this Bill had shown great patience and courtesy, and if he adhered to his proposal of a specific duty, it would be felt that he had manifested that most difficult of Christian virtues—love to his enemies, politically. Wales returned to the House of Commons Members who were almost unanimous in their opposition to the Government, whereas Scotland, especially the part affected by the coal trade, and the North of England returned a large part of the majority which kept in power the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of which he was a Member; and yet, by levying the tax in the manner proposed, the right hon. Gentleman would impose upon Scotland a tax exactly twice as

1453
heavy as that imposed upon Wales, and upon the North of England a tax nearly twice as heavy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the question of profits came in, that it cost very much more to obtain the higher priced coal, and that, according to his information, the profits per ton were not greater on the Welsh than on the Scotch coal. That was a statement which anybody could make but nobody prove. On the face of it it was obviously absurd. It implied that to extract Welsh coal cost 8s. per ton more than to extract Scotch coal, which was hardly probable. But it was not a question of profits. There was the same difference between different collieries in the same district as between one district and another, and the only way to vary the tax would be to levy it on the profits themselves. Under the circumstances, he had stated the case very briefly, and not as strongly as he could have wished, for the case was a very strong one, and he believed that even yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it easier in practice to carry out an ad valorem duty than a tax which varied from nothing to a shilling, in the manner at present proposed.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 30, to leave out the words 'a duty of one shilling per ton,' and insert the words ' an ad valorem duty of seven and a half per cent. on the price "free on board," but not exceeding one shilling per ton.'"—(Mr. Law.)
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am very grateful to my hon. friend for the kind way in which he has referred to myself, and I can assure him that I am far from wishing to complain either of the Amendment which he has thought it necessary to place before the Committee, or of the manner in which he has proposed it. He has put forward, I frankly admit, a number of good arguments in favour of an ad valorem duty, and there is no doubt that in the case of an export duty there is more to be said in its favour than in the case of an import duty, and that the difficulties are not so great. But I hope my hon. friend will not wish me to embark on any comparison of the respective interests in this matter of the different coalfields of the United Kingdom. He has given me credit, at any
1454
rate, for impartiality in the manner in which I have dealt with this tax, and he has suggested that I have proposed the tax in such a way as to inflict greater burdens on my political friends than on those who are not supporters of the Government. Well, Sir, if that subject were followed to its conclusion I am afraid we should be led into a comparison of the national rights of Scotland and Wales, not to say the North of England, which might rather detract from the harmony of our discussion, and not lead to any satisfactory conclusion. There is one point on which I think I may, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, take praise to myself. My hon. friend has said that an ad valorem duty in a year such as last year would have produced much more to the Exchequer. That is so, but I have been anxious in this, as in other proposals, whatever the merits or failings in principle might be, at any rate to give as little trouble as possible to the trade affected. I feel quite certain that any attempt to graduate this tax by an ad valorem duty would lead to such trouble in the trade and such disputes that it would be an unwise proposal. I trust that hon. Members will be reasonably satisfied with the concessions I am about to propose, which will certainly be a great advantage to the districts which produce the cheaper classes of coal, and not prolong the debate on this particular mode of levying the duty, or press the Amendment to a division.
Amendment negatived.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In accordance with the intention I have indicated I beg now to move the insertion of the following words—
"That a rebate of duty shall be allowed on any coal, the value of which free on board is proved, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs, not to exceed 6s. per ton, and on any fuel manufactured from coal ingredients which are so proved not to be of a higher value."
I have already sufficiently explained the matter, and I would only add that this Amendment places manufactured fuel on precisely the same footing as coal. I would remind the hon. Member for Swansea, who takes a very natural interest in the matter, that it is under precisely the same conditions—the imposition

1455
of no duty on either—that the trade in manufactured fuel has grown to its present proportions. Therefore I do not think I can be charged with doing anything that will really injure that industry. I think the hon. Member will see that by my proposal all kinds of fuel manufactured from coal under the value in question will be free from duty, and I cannot think that fuel manufactured from coal of higher value should be free.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 21, to insert the words, 'That a rebate of duty should be allowed on any coal the value of which free on board is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs not to exceed 6s. per ton, and on any fuel manufactured from coal ingredients which are so proved not to be of a higher value.'"—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR EDWARD GREY: Speaking for my hon. friends who have more intimate knowledge of the coal trade than I have, I desire to express their sense of the value of the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. Having previously dwelt very strongly on the sense of injustice created by this tax in the minds of those who were most severely hit by it, and having said that the injustice would be greatest in the case of those parts of the country which produced the cheaper kinds of coal, I desire to say that, while the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not remove my objections to the tax—I still think it will be bad in practice, and that there will be hardship connected with it—I do recognise that, in making this concession, and in the trouble, attention, and close consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the subject before coming to the conclusion that he could make the concession which is now before the Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been animated by a genuine desire to do all that he could, at any rate, to mitigate the apprehensions of injustice which his proposals had excited. Though I must leave it to my hon. friends who are specially connected
1456
with the trade to express their own sense of the exact value of the concession, I think it would be ungracious on my part not to express at once my sense of the desire to relieve injustice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown by the Amendment he has moved.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESentirely agreed with the observations of the hon. Baronet with regard to the concessions made and the general good spirit displayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but there were one or two practical points he desired to place before the Committee. Below the 6s. rate, manufactured patent fuel was placed on the same basis as coal. That might be so from the purely legal point of view, but, practically, it was no good at all. No patent fuel could be made at 6s.—
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The ingredients.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that even taking into account the ingredients it was not possible to send out patent fuel under 12s. or 13s. per ton.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member I think is under a misapprehension. The 6s. is the price, not of the patent fuel, but of the coal ingredients.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESwas inclined to think that even then the concession was not a large one from the point of view of those for whom he spoke. He was not a practical man in these matters, but he understood that the cost of the production of patent fuel was now so high that, even with the concession, the tax would operate disastrously to the trade.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that, of course, the matter was a very technical one, and if, after consulting his advisers, the hon. Member desired to make any representations on the subject, he would be perfectly ready to hear them.
MR. J. ACRON THOMASsaid that in the making of patent fuel two qualities of coal were used.

1457
Some of the coal would, no doubt, be of a less value than 6s. per ton, but the bulk of it would cost more. He therefore desired to know whether the duty would have to be paid on the whole of the coal, or would it be paid on the proportion of the higher class coal used, the remainder of the coal ingredients being free.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that if the manufacturers of patent fuel used, say, half a ton of coal at 8s. or 9s., and half a ton at, say, 4s. 6d., he would consider whether the two prices could be added together and averaged, so that in cases where the average came out at under 6s. the fuel would be free of the duty.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would have it in their absolute discretion to decide in this matter, or would there be an appeal from their decision. He also desired to know how the Commissioners would deal with the question. There would be no difficulty when the coal was sold f.o.b., because the contracts could be produced. He assumed, however, that the rebate would apply also to coal not sold f.o.b. If coal was sold c.i.f., it would have to be ascertained whether, if that coal had been sold f.o.b. at Cardiff, it would have been of the value of 6s. or not. This Amendment would show as much as any other portion of the Bill how hard this tax was as a whole. The fact was two counties out of the fifty-two in England and Wales would contribute far and away the largest proportion of the total duty. According to their shipments, Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire would contribute more than half of the amount raised for taxation purposes from this export duty, and that proportion would be increased as the result of this Amendment. With this present concession and the question of the contracts the benefit of the duty for this year would be to a great extent given up, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that it would have been better for him and his Government if they had never departed from the principles hitherto professed by the right hon. Gentleman, and had not attempted to impose a coal duty at all.
MR. ASQUITH: In the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill I ventured to point out to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of that part of Scotland which I have the honour to represent with what extreme hardship and inequality the tax as originally proposed would weigh on the less productive and less conveniently situated coalfields from which coal was exported abroad. I do not think any coalfields in the country would have suffered more from the tax than the coalfields of Fife. The hon. Member opposite, in a speech to which we all listened with interest and attention, ingeniously suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a spirit of excessive quixotry, had scourged the coalfields represented by political friends in order to do an act of more than Christian charity to the coalfields represented by political opponents. I am not sure, if the facts were analysed, that that theory could be in any way supported, but, at any rate, I am glad to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised, not a quixotic standard, but the strict standard of justice and equality so far as it can be applied to so complicated a subject as this. There are many arguments to be urged in favour of the proposal for an ad valorem duty which, if worked out in a practical scheme, would work out perhaps more strictly in accordance with abstract justice, but that being a scheme which presents great practical difficulties, it appears to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted the only possible alternative when he fixed in this Amendment a minimum figure below which the duty should not be imposed. I am not able to say, even as regards my own county, to what percentage of the total exports this modified proposal will apply, but I am quite certain that it will be an enormous relief as compared with the original project of the Government. I desire, therefore, in common with several of my hon. friends, to recognise the spirit of fairness and the desire to adjust the tax—a tax which we still think objectionable—so far as possible to the special requirements of the trade, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown.
*SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid he believed that this concession would be of very

1459
great service to the whole community. But although they approved of the concession, and thanked the right hon. Gentleman for making it, it did not alter their view as to the inexpediency of the tax from a national point of view. Later on they would have an opportunity of making some observations upon the merits of the clause. It would have been very difficult indeed to have adopted any system of taxation based on the size of coal, or any other standard but that of value. The very best coal produced in his constituency was often crushed for the purpose of making first-class coke into small coal, and any arrangement as to the screening of coal would fail altogether. There would be no end to difficulty in the practical working of any standard of screening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now simplified his Bill, and he had also simplified the work of the Custom House officials in asking that there should be a declaration that the coal was not worth more than 6s. per ton, and that the invoice should be produced. He felt sure that the working of this clause would be very much modified and made more easy by the concession which had just been made.
*MR. FENWICKsaid he appreciated fully the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made, and the anxiety he had shown to meet them as far as possible without giving up the duty altogether. But, while he made this acknowledgment, he desired to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was not yet satisfied with the concession made, for reasons which he should have to state when they came to the question "that the clause stand part of the Bill." In times of low prices in the North of England they would no doubt feel the advantage of the concession made. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the generous way in which he had endeavoured to meet them, although he thought it only fair to state that he was not satisfied with the concession. It would be ungracious on their part, after all the labour and axiety which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had passed through, not to acknowledge the concession he had just made.
EARL PERCYthought they ought not to pass from the Amendment without one word of gratitude being offered the Chancellor of the Exchequer from that side of the House for the manner in which he had met their views. The right hon. Gentleman had made a very considerable concession, which he imagined would involve a large loss to the Revenue, but whether that loss was large or small he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have any cause to regret it, for it would be more than counterbalanced by the removal of a sense of injustice.
MR. D. A. THOMASsaid he wished to join in the chorus of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made. In good times this concession would mean nothing at all, although in bad times it might mean a good deal. It seemed to him to be the first step towards an ad valorem duty, to which he objected; indeed, he thought this concession was more unsound in principle than an ad valorem duty. One effect of this concession would be that the class of coal between 6s. and 7s. per ton would be practically abolished. By making this concession the right hon. Gentleman was, in bad times, doing away with the duty upon certain classes of small coal, and he was not carrying out his professed policy of widening the basis of taxation.
SIR JAMES JOICEYdid not think the concession would be of the same value to the county of Durham as it would be to the county of Northumberland. The bulk of the coal produced in Durham did not realise very high prices, and the result would be that in all probability a very small proporton of the coal produced in Durham would ever be below the value of 6s. a ton. The right hon. Gentleman had given a concession to patent fuel, and he wished to know whether, in cases where, say, some of the inferior coals of Durham were used for coke-making, a similar concession would be given to the coke as representing coal of the value of less than 6s. a ton.
MR. JOHN WILSONthought the concession just made was in

1461
the way of mitigating the evils complained of, and it also showed that the tax had been imposed without due consideration beforehand. He did not think that it would affect the position of Durham very much. He believed that only about 5 per cent. of the six million tons exported from Durham would benefit by the exemption. He desired to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would exempt from duty coke made from small coal which, if shipped f.o.b. as coal, would not realise 6s. a ton. Such an exemption would be of greater benefit to Durham than the exemption of small coal from duty.
MR. ABEL THOMASsaid the concession was really much bigger and broader than it looked at first sight, for what it meant was that from henceforth there would be no coal sold between 6s. and 7s. a ton f.o.b. in any port in Great Britain. The person selling the coal would not sell it at 6s. 11d. per ton, but he would sell at 6s. and put the 1s. per ton in his own pocket, and perhaps promise the buyer a goose at Christmas. He agreed that in bad times this concession would be a very great benefit.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am very grateful to the Members of the Committee for the manner in which they have received the Amendment and for what they have been pleased to say with regard to myself. There has been apparently only one dissentient, the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who really, I think, was the original author of the proposal. I quite recognise that my proposal does not remove other objections to the tax in principle, and we can debate that later on. Two or three questions have been put to me. The hon. Member for Mid Durham has asked me whether coke would be treated as it was proposed to treat manufactured fuel. I must reserve that point. I feel the force of the argument of the hon. Member, but I am informed that manufactured fuel is made of very cheap stuff, and that coke is made out of valuable coal. I will consider the matter with the view to dealing with coke fairly. I have been asked as to the effect of this concession on the Budget. I will frankly tell the Committee that I do not think it will be large this year. I
1462
agree with hon. Members who hav spoken that in a bad year this concession will be a considerable sum, and that is precisely why I have made it. When an industry suffers by bad trade, that is just the time when it ought to be relieved. As to the question with regard to an appeal and with whom the discretion rests, the Committee might rest satisfied that the discretion of the Commissioners of Customs will be fairly exercised.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSthought the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made would be cordially accepted. He hoped, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow himself to be involved in questions affecting the composition of fuel, or he might find that fuel would be made in such a way and prepared from such material that it would be perfectly impossible to tax it. He thought this was a wise tax, and he should be very sorry to see it whittled away.
*MR. M'KENNAthen moved—
"In page 2, line 31, after the words last inserted to insert the words 'whereof one-fourth shall be paid by the landlord or royalty owner, being the person for the time being in receipt of any royalty or rent in respect of the coal on which the duty is charged.'"
He said this Amendment raised the question of the person upon whom the duty was to fall. Ordinarily in levying Customs duties on commodities they took care by means of equivalent Excises that the final incidence of the duty should be upon the consumer, but in the case of an export duty they had no hold upon the foreigner, and they could not compel him to buy in the English market. This tax had been defined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a small toll on their mineral wealth made in the interest of the country at large. The question they had now to consider was, Who was going to pay this small toll? Was it to fall exclusively upon the exporter, or was it to be borne by all the persons engaged in the trade, from the person who first sells the coal, the royalty owner or landlord, down to the person who

1463
exports it? If a toll was to be paid by those concerned in the export of the coal, that was a burden to which the original owners ought to contribute as well as those whose capital was engaged in bringing the coal to the surface and preparing it for sale. It had been admitted that this tax would to some extent fall upon the coal trade. He was not going to discuss the conjectures as to how far it would be paid by the foreigner, but he would take his stand on the solid ground of agreement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he thought the foreigner would bear a very considerable portion of this tax, although he entirely admitted that how much he would bear depended upon the state of the market at the time. The degree to which the tax would fall on the trade was uncertain, but the fact that it would do so was not denied. He submitted that the very definition given of this tax was a sufficient argument in favour of the justice of his proposal. Those immediately concerned in the ownership of the national wealth were the only ones absolutely certain of getting a profit. The colliery proprietor risked his capital and gave the initiative in business organisation. The miner risked life and limb and gave his labour. The royalty owners risked nothing and were secure of profit. Was it equitable that they should be the only class who did not contribute to this new toll on the national wealth in minerals? The second reason why this Amendment should be accepted was that the tax would to some extent restrict the sales of coal. It was true that the First Lord of the Treasury concluded the only speech he had made on this subject by saying that—
"so trifling an alteration as will be produced by the imposition of a shilling duty would have no effect upon the trade."
The right hon. Gentleman asserted that with all the parade of confident declamation in the hearing of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who were concerned in the coal trade, and who knew from personal experience that a 1s. duty would have some effect on the trade. In the same speech, however, the First Lord made use of this observation—
"I cannot regard with perfect equanimity the enormous reductions of our coal supplies
1464
for the benefit of foreign manufacturers which we see going on under our eyes."
That observation would have been wholly irrelevant if the right hon. Gentleman had not contemplated, as a result of this tax, that to some extent our sales would be restricted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, also, used these words—
"If the duty restricts to some extent the increase in the coal exports, that is so much to the advantage of the country at large."
It was, therefore, admitted on the Treasury Bench, at any rate by implication, that the effect of this tax would be to some extent to restrict the sales of coal. That was put forward as the argument of public policy in favour of the tax as distinguished from the financial argument that the foreigner would pay.
He would now call the attention of the Committee to the system under which our coal was raised. Our coal was almost entirely raised under a system of mining leases. Under these leases—and this was very important—the lessee was under obligation to work the coal. The colliery proprietor was bound to pay a penalty of dead rent if he did not work the coal. He had entered into that arrangement under a system of unrestricted sales of coal at home and abroad, and if there was any statutory interference with that freedom of sale there ought at the same time to be statutory interference with the conditions of the contract as between the lessor and the lessee of the mines. It was declared to be a public purpose that these sales ought to be restricted. The colliery proprietor's capital interest was annually depreciating, and if Parliament interfered and restricted his sales he was entitled to compensation. The hon. Member submitted that under these circumstances the fairest way for him to recover compensation for the restriction which he suffered was as against the lessor. The lessee should be allowed to deduct some portion of the tax from the royalty which he had to pay to his landlord. There was still another reason why the Amendment should be accepted. This tax had been declared to be a popular tax, because its effect was going to be to reduce the price of coal. He had

1465
argued on the previous day that while the immediate effect of the duty would be to reduce the price, the ultimate effect, once the output had been diminished, would be to raise the price, because a new element was brought into the cost of production. The cost of production of any article could not be increased without the price being ultimately increased. If the duty was to any extent put upon the royalty owner there was exactly the contrary effect. The charge levied by the royalty owner was an element in the cost of production, and therefore in the price at which the coal was sold. If part of the duty were put on the royalty owner, instead of the producer, they would to that extent reduce the cost of production and introduce a permanent factor in reducing the price of the coal to the consumer. If, then, there was any serious argument underlying the proposal that sales should he restricted as an advantage to the nation, the Amendment ought to be accepted.
He was not going to argue the question whether the foreigner would or would not pay the tax. Out of 46,000,000 tons of coal exported only 38,000,000 went to Europe, and it was only as to the European market that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alleged that there was any monopoly for British coal. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted—not directly, in so many words, but in reply to questions—that in the east and west, at Colombo, and in Canada and the West Indies, wherever freights raised our coal to something like competition prices with Japanese, or with American, or Australian, or Indian coal, we had to meet competition, and in these cases the duty would fall, not upon the foreigner, but upon the coal trade. Therefore with regard to 8,000,000 tons of the exports we should certainly have to bear the brunt of the tax. As to a large part of the 38,000,000, he admitted we should not immediately have to meet competition, but no one familiar with the details of the coal trade could deny that in the port of Hamburg we should have to meet with serious rivals. It could not be said that in Germany we were free from competition with German coal. It might he said that he was
1466
putting the figure too high when he said that a quarter of the tax should be borne by the royalty owner. That was his own personal estimate, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the principle of the Amendment, he would be only too anxious to agree with him upon some figure which he or his advisers might think fair in the circumstances. He reminded the Committee that the annual value of the royalties in this country was at least £4,000,000. That was according to the latest official figures published, but the amount now was probably a good deal higher. The actual figure might be taken as representing an average of 6d. per ton, and if a toll was to be charged on the mineral wealth of the country the royalty owners, who had embarked no capital and exercised no industry in the production of the coal, should be the first to contribute to the toll. If the Government were really serious in the principles they had advocated, and if this tax was not merely to be a partial, even a punitive tax, they ought to accept the Amendment, which distributed the burden of the toll equitably over the whole of the persons concerned in the trade.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment will require a little alteration, in this way—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 31, after the words last inserted to insert the words 'one-fourth of the said duty shall be paid by the landlord or royalty owner, being the person for the time being in receipt of any royalty or rent in respect of the coal on which the duty is charged.'"—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not understand how the hon. Member reconciles this Amendment with any justice to the owners of royalties. The owner of a royalty is a person who, at any rate, is by law the owner of the coal under his land. He has leased his rights to the coalowner on certain fixed terms, these terms being that the coalowner should pay a certain royalty without any deductions, work the

1467
mine, and make what profit he can out of it. The State chooses to impose a tax on the coal taken out of the mine for export, and the hon. Member himself has admitted that, in some cases at least, the tax will be paid by the foreigner. He differs from me in his view as to the extent to which the foreigner or the producer will pay the tax, but everybody feels that it will to some extent be paid by the consumer abroad. The hon. Member's argument in this matter goes very much further than he imagines. I do not admit his argument, but, assuming that the tax will fall upon the foreigner, what equitable right has the coalowner, on whom not a penny of the tax has fallen, to deduct a portion of it from the royalty which he has agreed to pay? The hon. Member cannot contend that that is doing justice to the owner of the royalty; it is, of course, contrary to the agreement between them, by which the royalty has to be paid free from taxation or any deductions of that kind. Then the hon. Member said there is a considerable portion of the coal exported on which the consumer abroad will not pay any tax, and that the tax will fall on the exporter in this country, I think the hon. Member will admit that we have done something to diminish that portion; but is it equitable, even in regard to that portion, that a part of a tax should be imposed on the royalty owner while the coal owner pockets all the gains? The royalty owner let his property on fixed terms, and whatever the increase in the price of coal may be he could not win by it. I think that this proposal would be most inequitable.
SIR EDWAED GREYsaid he recognised the force of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that there would be certain cases in which the colliery owner would recoup the tax entirely from the foreigner; but the royalty owner would not have a chance to recover from the foreigner. His position all through had been that, do what they would, with this tax there would be cases of hardship and injustice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid great stress on the fact of the foreigner paying the tax, but it had not been defended solely on that ground, and that was not the reason why it was popular. The real force behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer
1468
was the belief that there were certain very wealthy people who would be able to pay this tax. If that was so, then why was the royalty owner omitted? The Colonial Secretary said the other day, "they would not discuss the question whether the tax would fall on the coal-owner or the foreigner," and added that "he did not care whether it fell on the coal owner or the foreigner." If it came to that, certainly some part of it ought to fall upon the royalty owner. The royalty owner was in a very peculiar position, and he thought he escaped very lightly just now. The Colonial Secretary had stated that part of the reason for this tax was that coal sent out of the country was a consumption of the national wealth, and that the country ought to take some toll on it. The owner of land had this to say, that, by using his land, although he got an increased profit he added to the national wealth, whereas the owner of the royalty was drawing a large income not only without adding to the national wealth, but he was contributing to the waste of the national wealth. The position of the royalty owner was therefore really akin to the position of the owner of land which had exceptional value, but which value had accrued without any exertion or any expenditure on his part. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be a certain amount of injustice if part of the tax were imposed on royalty owners; but injustice there must be in some cases. But now that the question had been raised, it was important that the case of the royalty owner should be proved, and he thought his hon. friend had done well in bringing forward the Amendment.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he would support the Amendment, because he believed that, under the circumstances, this was a subject for careful consideration. He had never been able to see how the foreigner would pay the tax at all. He could show that not only the men but the women in the north of England discussed this question of the tax. He would like to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a discussion he overheard between the wives of two miners. One argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very

1469
wise man, who knew all about the circumstances and ramifications of this tax, and as to who should pay, and that he must have made himself perfectly acquainted with the facts and the truth of the assertion that the foreigner would pay the 1s. The other one said, "We are going down Silver Street. If you saw an article cheaper in one shop than another you would buy it where it was cheapest, if you wanted it. The foreigner is just like ourselves, he buys in the cheapest market." The foreigner would not pay the 1s., there was no doubt about that. It would fall on the coal trade in one form or another. Let them put the question of the wage-earner alongside of the royalty receiver. The royalty owner would never have done anything to develop the national wealth, but the capitalist came along, he sank his pit and then employed the miners—the men who risked their lives for not over high pay. The miners of the country, he felt confident, would be called upon to bear a very large share of the brunt of the tax. It was clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put on the tax because he found himself short of money—to put the matter in blunt English—and he turned to the men who were making what he considered large profits—making money by the million, in fact. They admitted that the coalowners were making money, but there were other gentlemen who were making money out of the coal trade, and if it was to be a matter of justice, why should they not pay a share? About 1889 there sat a Commission which found that the output of the coal of the country was roundly 177,000,000 tons a year, and that the royalty rents paid were slightly over £4,000,000. But the increase in the output of coal since that time, taking last year as their comparison, was 225,000,000 tons, and they found that the average royalty rent of the country was sixpence per ton. On that calculation the royalty rents would yield nearly £6,000,000. If the coal trade, on account of its prosperity and great profits, was to pay a large share of this taxation—not because they were politically Liberal or Radical—why should the men who "toil not neither do they spin" be left out? That phrase was formulated or applied at Birmingham.
1470
In his younger days he used to sit at the feet of the Birmingham Gamaliel; he received a large part of his Radical training from the Colonial Secretary. Yes, but he had not followed him into Egypt. He had more regard for consistency and truth. He did not profess one thing and do another. He had considered the right hon. Gentleman the guide, counsellor, and friend of all reformers, but he would withdraw all that now that the right hon. Gentleman had become the friend and counsellor of those "that toil not, neither do they spin." The royalty owners had no risks to run, and they had no financial responsibility. They received their royalty rents without employing their brains, and without in any way adding to the wealth of the country year after year, in bad times and good, and when men were out of work and starving. They knew that mines had been stopped for the sake of a reduction in the price of coal of 2d. or 3d. per ton; and yet the royalty owners had not to bear any share in contributing to the necessities of the country in one of the darkest times and national emergencies that had ever fallen upon us. In the county of Durham they had had old age pensions since 1875, and his hon. friends the Members for Morpeth and the Wansbeck Division with himself formulated that scheme. They had paid old men 4s. 6d. a week, and they had arranged a scheme whereby every old man should have a free house and coal after sixty years of age. They did that out of the generosity of the miners; but the royalty owners, for whose benefit the miners worked, and who made money while they slept, never contributed the smallest iota to the relief of aged miners. Yet they were told that it was not equity or justice when they asked that these men should be called upon to pay their share of the burden. He submitted that if the royalty owners were called upon to pay a penny per ton it would not be unjust. It might be unjust tested by the laws of man, but it would not be unjust tested by the laws of God. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could modify his position, and call on the royalty owners to pay a penny a ton, the result would be that he would receive a million of money. He was not going to get a million sterling out of the

1471
coal tax during the present year. He recognised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appreciated the position they had tried to put before him, and that he had tried to meet them, but in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman was not going to get anything like a million out of the coal tax, and therefore he would suggest a tax on royalty owners until the reign of peace and prosperity enabled the coal tax to be removed. The President of the Board of Trade had stated that the average wages of the miners, who worked as hard as any men could work, in a state of half nudity and in semi-darkness, was on the average 35s. a week. He denied that from his own knowledge. Men were often absent through sickness, and were lying idle for months together on account of injuries. The Amendment raised one of the questions that would come to the front and have to be settled. The schoolmaster was abroad, the minds of men were being touched, and he believed sincerely that eventually the royalty owners of the country would have to pay their just share. He cordially supported the Amendment.
COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid that when the mines were first opened the royalty owner had a share of the profits. He afterwards became a debenture holder, and received the same amount whether times were good or bad. The proper way to deal with the problem was to combine the royalty owner with the coal owner—to regard their interests as identical. The feeling expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite was, no doubt, to a certain extent, entertained by many people in the country, but it was an opinion which cannot bear the test of careful examination.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he intended to support the Amendment, because in his opinion it laid down a principle of taxation which was based on pure justice, and which before long would have to be introduced into the taxation of the country. It seemed to him that all natural monopolies—and coal royalties were surely one—ought to be, not the last, but the very first, subject of taxation, if real justice were done. He understood that the State claimed a right
1472
over precious metals found in the country. When gold was discovered in Wales an emissary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately appeared on the scene to claim a share of it, and in Edinburgh a short time ago, when there was a peculiar find of precious metals, the agent of the State also claimed a right to it. He held that coal was not different from gold in that respect. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might follow to a small degree what had been done in Rhodesia, where not 1 percent., nor 5 per cent., but 50 per cent., was put on the mineral resources of the country. He could quite understand that the Amendment would not be accepted; but nevertheless it was based on essential justice. It would introduce the greatest amount of benefit to the country, because it was the only kind of taxation which would not interfere with the furtherance of trade. In that respect it was very different from the tax on sugar or the tax on coal, and for these reasons he would cordially support the. Amendment.
MR. COLVILLEsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he attempted to answer the arguments of his hon. friend, made an appeal to justice and equity. On those grounds he thought they had a very sub stantial reason for supporting the Amendment. The common sense of a very large proportion of the people realised that in equity there was a substantial right on the part of the nation to have some share of the mineral wealth of the country, which was being extracted, and could not possibly be replaced. The taxation of mining royalties had been advocated on many platforms, and he thought many hon. Members opposite had given certain promises, more or less, that, should an opportunity arise in Parliament for the consideration of a proposal to tax mining royalties, they would not themselves oppose it. He could not imagine any proposal on the part of Parliament which would be more just or equitable than that the enormous income received by royalty owners should bear their just share of the national burden. A large proportion of the minerals of the country were held either by hereditary landowners, who never bought them, or else

1473
by owners who obtained possession of the land without any regard to the value of the minerals. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the courage to propose, when money was needed to meet increasing national burthens, that the tax on coal should be levied, not on the colliery owners, and thereby indirectly on the wages of the miner, but on mining royalties, he would have done an act of justice, and would have clothed himself with such honour as became a man occupying his high position. He would support the proposal of his hon. friend, and he trusted every Radical who had expressed himself favourably on the matter before his constituents would also vote for the Amendment.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that the matter under discussion raised a very important point, and there was one fact which would, perhaps, not be within the knowledge of the House, and which had a direct bearing on the question under discussion. The mining laws of Scotland, passed more than 200 years ago, specially reserved the right to tax minerals, not only for the benefit of the State, but for the well-being of the aged workers in the mines, and to insure a proper inspection of the mines. These laws had never been repealed. The discussion to-night was only assimilating the law of England to what had been the law of the Continent for over 100 years. Under the mining law of Scotland 10 per cent. of the net value of the output belonged to the King, and 10 per cent. was set aside to provide for the aged workers, and a smaller percentage for the proper inspection of mines. On the Continent the State claimed a portion of the profit of the mines for the relief of the burden of taxation. In 1880 a Return was made showing what was the practice in various countries in regard to the payment of mineral royalties, and from that document it would be seen that in France, since 1789, the minerals in that country belonged to the State. At the beginning of last century, however, coal owners in that country were, under the Napoleonic Code, entitled to a certain rent, and also to certain royalties, but the State claimed 5 per cent. of the net income from the mines; in the north of France the whole
1474
of the royalties were paid into the Exchequer. In Prussia the same law obtained, the owners there being obliged to obtain the permission of the Government before they could sink a shaft, and when minerals were discovered the State claimed 2 per cent. on the gross profits. It was the same in Austro-Hungary, where the State claimed 5 per cent. of the net income on the sale of coal or other minerals, in addition to which a very heavy municipal tax was levied on royalties. In Belgium 5 per cent. was charged on net profits; in Portugal, 1½ per cent.; and so on. In every country in Europe the State claimed as its own a part of the wealth derived from the exhaustion of its minerals, and as a result mining in those countries and the production of iron ore could be carried on much more profitably, and at much less cost, than in this country. He submitted that there was one point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had overlooked. Last year was an abnormal year for the coal trade, but this tax was not intended to deal with an abnormal period, but was intended to be a permanent tax. It was the fact that the royalty owners, taking one year with another, received a much higher profit from minerals extracted than the capitalist, but these people were not taxed in any way. Ironstone in Scotland was practically unworked, because of the heavy penalties imposed in the form of royalties. The figures worked out with regard to iron ore in this way. On the Continent the average royalty paid on one ton of pig-iron was 2s., in this country it was 6s. 6d., and if the small royalties of the Continent could afford to pay a percentage to the State and still receive a profit for landload and mineowner, much more surely could the royalty owners of this country afford to pay their share. The argument of sacredness of contract was worn out; it might be that the land owner had a sacred right to the minerals, in his land, but the right of the nation to free itself from the intolerable burden of taxation was greater and more sacred, and if it was true that the right of the whole was greater than the right of the few, the contract right of the few must give way. It was a scandal and a shame that the colliers should be called upon to pay their part of the increased

1475
cost, and that the landlord, who risked neither life nor money, should escape scot free. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would do not only a just act, but a wise one, if he insisted upon the royalty owners paying their share. The day had come when the bulk of the taxation should be paid by unearned incomes, whether from royalties or otherwise, and this would have been a good beginning, and he trusted therefore that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way in going still further towards meeting the demands of that side of the House, which he was sure would prove to be the demand of the country as well.
MR. MONRO FERGUSONregretted that the tax did not extend to the mining royalties, which came to their owners with as little trouble as their ground rents on building areas. He did not know whether the effect of the Amendment, as moved, would throw the entire burden on the royalty owners, and so he could only regret that some part of the burden did not fall upon them. The right hon. Gentleman had made some concessions in the course of the evening which would be of very great value in his part of the country, but he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should go further and add to them a tax which would throw some portion of the burden on royalty owners. He did not think that if that were done the tax would be less popular than it was now.
MR. WILLIAM ALLANheartily supported the Amendment. There was nothing which appealed to the business side of his nature more than the mere fact that what was in the bowels of the earth for the benefit of humanity should be taken out of the earth and taxed by the men who claimed to own the land. As a business man he objected to that proposition. These men did nothing for the benefit of their estate, but taxed those by whose labour the minerals were taken out of the earth. That was not just or equitable, and was entirely opposed to the advancement of the age. These men, moreover, ran no risk whatever. Yet, when a lease expired, what did they do? They confiscated everything, and re-leased that
1476
portion of their estate at an increased rental. He hoped the day would soon come when the House and the country would look at the incidence of taxation from an honest, from a just, and from an equitable point of view.
*MR. FENWICKsaid he did not think that the argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in refusing to accept the Amendment was very conclusive, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. He was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there were some parts of the country where the contract between the mine owner and the coal producer contained a provision that a certain level of production should be kept up from year to year, and if that production, from any cause whatever, was not maintained the coal owner was compelled to pay under his contract up to the level agreed to between him and the landowner, even when he has been unable to produce by many thousands of tons, from causes over which he had no control, the amount which he ought to have produced under his contract. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware that in 1887 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into this question of wayleaves and royalty rents. That Commission, which sat for two years, came to an almost, if not absolutely, unanimous conclusion, but its recommendations had never been carried out. It was found that the charges upon the industry at that time amounted in the shape of royalties to over £4,000,000, and the wayleaves were about another £500,000. Taking the average rent per ton then charged, and applying it to the production of the present day, it gave a total of nearly £6,000,000, not one sixpence of which was getatable so far as local purposes wereconcerned. The colliery owners and the workmen themselves were taxed for the sanitation of the colliery villages and the lighting and paving of the streets, but the only way in which the profits of the royalty owners were touched was by the income tax and the death duties. He submitted that if a portion of the coal industry was to be taxed, the burden should be extended to the landlord or royalty owner, whose wealth accumulated

1477
without any effort or risk on his part, and even in his absence from the country altogether. A great deal had been said about the grievances of the Uitlanders. One of their grievances was that they worked the gold mines under a concession from the Transvaal Government, and that royalties, which in their opinion were excessive, were levied on the industry. But in their case the complaint against the royalties was not for the purpose of relieving the industry, but to increase the dividends of the company. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this case is simply asked to put a tax on royalties in order to reduce the general taxation of the country, or, at all events, to provide for the general expenditure of the nation. Because he believed this to be a reasonable and honest Amendment he should have the greatest pleasure in supporting his hon. friend in the division lobby.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he should support the Amendment because he believed that the true principle upon which taxation ought to proceed was that of every man being taxed according to his ability to pay. If the colliery-owners, by reason of the large profits they had made from the working of the collieries during the last two or three years, could reasonably be called upon to bear a special and extra tax, it was only equitable that the royalty owners also should have a fair share of the additional burden. Royalty owners derived a large revenue from the working of the coal, even in years of depression, when the colliery-owners were working the pits at an actual loss. Moreover, many royalties were on a sliding scale, so that during the recent years of inflation many royalty owners had been receiving largely increased revenues. Therefore, if the colliery-owners, in consequence of their increased profits, were to be called upon to pay an extra tax, surely the royalty-owners ought to bear a portion of the additional burdens of the country. The hon. Member for Gateshead had suggested that the minerals under the surface ought really to be the property of the State rather than the property of the surface owners. That was a very vexed and difficult question, but very few persons would deny that in a large number of cases those who acquired the
1478
surface did not pay a single farthing in respect of the minerals under the surface. There was not the slightest doubt that if we could go backfar enough, and start again, the State would claim, as was done in many other countries, that the minerals should belong to the State, and be leased by the State for the national benefit. There was, however, no utility in raising that question at the present moment, except for the purpose of recalling the fact that many royalty-owners were receiving enormous revenues from the working of the minerals in their land in respect of which neither they nor their forefathers paid a single penny. That fact constituted a strong argument in favour of their being called upon to bear a fair share of the burden which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now imposing upon the coal trade, especially as the tax was to be a permanent one. The right hon. Gentleman was advised that the coal trade could bear this extra burden permanently. It was perfectly true that colliery-owners had made large profits during the last two years, but cycles of prosperity were invariably followed by cycles of depression, and it was practically certain that the country to-day was face to face with a cycle of commercial depression in which, in all human probability, many collieries, if they continued to be worked at all, would be worked at an actual loss to the colliery-owner. When that condition of affairs was reached, the injustice of the tax would be intensified if the royalty-owner was allowed to go scot-free, because he would still be receiving large revenues. He should therefore support the Amendment, and he earnestly hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his serious consideration to the matter.
MR. THOMAS SHAWdesired to point out the extreme simplicity of the problem before the Committee. A tax was being imposed upon an industry, to the great surprise of that industry. They were not endeavouring to reduce existing taxation; they were working upon an absolutely clean slate. He submitted, therefore, that all, and not some only, of the parties to that industry should have been convened. In this, as in all other industries, there were three parties. The first was the royalty

1479
owner, who was indeed the true owner. The second was the coal-owner, who was really not an owner at all, but simply a long lessee. The third was the labouring man. No one could have listened to the debates on this question without coming to the conclusion that the two interests hardly hit by the tax would be the working-man and the coal lessee. Why had the Government adopted a process of selection and exclusion? The owner, whose position was fortified by every ingenuity of the law, had a three-fold claim, which he usually presented, whether north or south of the Tweed. He had a claim to a fixed rent, be the colliery successful or unsuccessful; he had a claim in the event of assure success of a royalty on the output; and, in the third place, which was better than all, he not uncommonly had a claim to a minimum royalty rising by a sliding scale according to the prosperity of the industry. His security for this claim was of the most absolute kind known to the law. He had the security of the stuff, the plant, and the whole of the buildings connected with the work. In the name of equity, therefore, why should he not render some help in the matter of this tax? But that did not end the case. What was the position of the miner and the coal lessee? If adversity overtook the industry the miner was at the point of starvation and the capital of the coal lessee was imperilled, his returns dwindled away, or perhaps were converted into a loss. These three parties being interested, why should the bee be taxed while the drone was excluded? When the Agricultural Rates Act was under discussion it was pointed out that it would raise more questions than it settled, namely, the large question of land values. Similarly this tax upon coal would raise more questions than it settled, namely, the question of a tax upon mining royalties. In the matter of agricultural rates there was much discussion as to the exact person upon whom the burden fell, but in this case there was no such difficulty, because the mines of the country were mostly let on long leases of from thirty to sixty years. It might be taken that the un-expired mining rights of the lessees in this country averaged a quarter of a century. The situation, therefore, was quite clear. There could be no adjustment
1480
by the coalowner to throw the tax upon the shoulders of some other person. He was disappointed that, notwithstanding the fact that many speeches had been delivered, raising, as it appeared to him, a large point of social economics, trenching almost upon national ethics, there had been no reply but one, and that was the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he stated that the royalty owner would have no chance of recouping himself from the foreigner. All he would say in regard to that was that the foreigner was guided in trade by pretty much the same principles as other people—he bought in the cheapest market; while the coal lessee, like other people, sold in the dearest market. The coal lessee had hitherto obtained his price irrespective of the royalty. That price was fixed by the economic law of supply and demand, and it was a phantom to expect that the foreigner would ever contribute to the taxation of this country in that form. He ventured to suggest that the Amendment ought to be accepted, at any rate in principle, but apparently the attitude of the Government was to tax labour and capital, and not to tax the owners of these royalties whom the law so amply protected.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have already addressed the Committee upon this Amendment, but I must venture to trouble them for another two or three minutes, after the speeches to which we have listened. I think it is a little hard that in the course of a debate upon an Amendment to this Finance Bill we should be asked to discuss what the hon. Member who has just sat down has very fairly described as a large point of social economics, trenching on national ethics. In fact, the matter involves large issues affecting the whole social fabric of the nation—
AN HON. MEMBER: It is a question of taxation.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No; it is far beyond a question of taxation. There is really involved the question of whether the land of the country should be owned by private persons or by the State. That really is the point of the speeches of two of the hon. Members who have just spoken. ["No."] Oh, yes, it is. I do not intend

1481
to attempt to address the Committee upon that subject. I take the law as it stands. At the present moment it is the law of this country that private property in land is to be respected, and private property in land has for centuries carried with it the right to the minerals under the surface. What happens? The owner of the land and the minerals it contains leases the minerals to a third party—a capitalist, or an association of capitalists—in order that the minerals may be worked. Both sides make that bargain with their eyes open; they are perfectly free to make it or to reject it. If the persons taking the mines from the owners of the land choose to agree that in return for the profit they expect to make from the coal they should sink a shaft, erect buildings, put up machinery, build cottages, and so on, and at the end of the lease when the mines are worked out all these things should revert to the landlord, is that a thing with which you need interfere? Is not each side free to make its own bargain? ["No."] At any rate, that is the law and the practice, and, as I have said, the arguments used in favour of this proposal go far beyond the question of whether you should or should not impose a part of this duty on coal upon the owners of royalties. I would only venture to add that nothing could be more unfair than the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite that we are taxing labour and the capital of the coal-owner, while we refrain from taxing the royalty owner. I have never proposed this duty as a tax upon a special industry, as the hon. Member contended throughout his speech. I absolutely deny that that is the fact. I have asserted all through, and I have proved, that this tax will fall largely, and in good years entirely, on the foreigner. That is the basis upon which we have proposed it, and I trust the Committee will not pursue the discussion of the larger subject of the rights of property, but that they will, after reasonable discussion of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Monmouthshire has brought forward, in a perfectly fair way, come to a decision on the matter.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise mainly to correct what I believe to be a misapprehension of the right hon.
1482
Gentleman as to the real argument of my hon. and learned friend the Member for the Border Burghs. The right hon. Gentleman described almost with pathos the fate of the owner of the soil who entered into a contract with the capitalists, either singly or in company, and who authorised them to sink shafts and erect the necessary buildings for the purpose of working the coal. And, he asked, did they mean to interfere with that, or to prevent that from being done? My hon. and learned friend had no such intention in what he said. What he said was—"Let the owner who has done nothing except assent to this arrangement with the capitalists bear his share of this tax when it is put on a commodity with which they are all dealing." And then the right hon. Gentleman fell back on his argument that the tax is to be paid by the foreigner. But we dispute his argument. We believe that to a very great extent, if not to the greatest extent, it would be paid by those at home who were engaged in the trade—from the shipowner and the merchant and the colliery proprietor, down to the workman who got the coal out of the soil. And we say it is almost a scandal, certainly I think it is an economic scandal, that the one sole person who has not to contribute to a tax of this sort is the man who does the least in producing the coal, and who therefore, I think, may very well pay at least a share of the burden that is put upon it.
MR. MANSFIELDsaid he had heard a very strong case made out for the taxation of mining royalties, and he had heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer nothing in favour of leaving that source of revenue alone. It had been argued that the taxation of mining royalties was the introduction of a system of land nationalisation, but he might just as well argue that the income tax was the beginning of a system under which the whole of the incomes would eventually be taken. According to this method of arguing, by imposing an income tax of 1s. 2d., a tax of ½d. per pound on sugar and 1s. per ton on coal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go down to history as the greatest confiscator which the nation had ever known. There were three classes of persons affected by this tax,

1483
namely, the miner, the colliery proprietor, and the mineral owner. He did not want to go into the question of the ownership of minerals, although that might be a very interesting discussion. It would no doubt open up a very wide field of research. It was a fact that the law had given to the mine owner what was known as the minerals, which meant everything that was underneath the soil. He wished to know why the miner, who was hit by the sugar and other taxes, and the capitalist, who was hit by this shilling a ton and the income tax, should pay income to the country, while the mineral owner, who belonged to the extensive class which toiled not, neither did they spin, was let off absolutely. His own impression was that the mineral owners had expected a tax for many years past. It might be used as an argument against the Amendment
that the burden would fall upon the person who found the capital to work the coal. He believed that the House could arrange to cancel such a clause, and make the burden fall where it ought to fall, upon the people who were not paying anything except the income tax, and who ought to be brought in and compelled to pay their fair share of taxation. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would modify his views on this subject, or, if he did not, some other Government at an early date would take the question in hand and see that the burden and incidence of taxation was put on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, but who had up to the present largely escaped.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 276.)

AYES.

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

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

Mooney, John J.

Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

Farrell, James Patrick

Murphy, John

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

Fenwick, Charles

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ambrose, Robert

Ferguson, R.C. Munro (Leith)

Newnes, Sir George

Austin, Sir John

Ffrench, Peter

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

Barry, E (Cork, S.)

Field, William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Norman, Henry

Bell, Richard

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Boland, John

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Boyle, James

Gilhooly, James

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

Brigg, John

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Broadhurst, Henry

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Doherty, William

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hammond, John

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Dowd, John

Burt, Thomas

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Buxton, Sydney Chas.

Harwood, George

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

Caldwell, James

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Cameron, Robt.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Mara, James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Horniman, Frederick John

Paulton, James Mellor

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Price, Robt. John

Cogan, Denis J.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Priestley, Arthur

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Russell

Colville, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

Reddy, M.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Craig, Robt. Hunter

Lambert, George

Redmond, Wm. (Clare)

Crean, Eugene

Langley, Batty

Rickett, J. Compton

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rigg, Richard

Cullinan, J.

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Daly, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lough, Thomas

Roche, John

Delany, William

Lundon, W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dillon, John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Donelan, Capt. A.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Doogan, P. C.

M'Fadden, Edward

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Govern, T.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dunn, Sir William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Soares, Ernest J.

Edwards, Frank

M'Laren, Chas. Benjamin

Sullivan, Donal

Ellis, John Edward

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Mather, William

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Thomas, JA (Gl'morgan, Gower

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Thompson, Dr E C (M'nagh'n, N.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Warner, Thomas C. T.

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Weir, James Galloway

Wilson, F.W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Mr. Causton and Captain Sinclair.

White, George (Norfolk)

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

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Aird, Sir John

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Myers, Wm. Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flower, Ernest

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Forster, Henry William

Orr-Ewing, Chas. Lindsay

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Garfit, William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Bain, Col. James Robt.

Goschen, Hon. George J.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Baldwin, Alfred

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

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

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Banbury, Frederick George

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Purvis, Robert

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Hain, Edward

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Renwick, George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Richards, Henry Charles

Bignold, Arthur

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Bigwood, James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

Blundell, Col. Henry

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Bond, Edward

Heaton John Henniker

Ropner, Col. Robert

Boulnois, Edmund

Helder, Augustus

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Seton Karr, Henry

Bull, Wm. James

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hoult, Joseph

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Butcher, John George

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Spear, John Ward

Cavendish, V C W. (Derbyshire)

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Stroyan, John

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Keswick, William

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

Law, Andrew Bonar

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lowe, Francis Wm.

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Webb, Col. William George

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Whiteley, H. (Aston-un. Lyne)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Denny, Col.

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Wills, Sir Frederick

Dickson, Charles Scott

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Maconochie, A. W.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

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

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

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

Doughty, George

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

Wylie, Alexander

Doxford, Sir William T.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Younger, William

Fardell, Sir T. George

Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Morrell, George Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fielden, Edward B.

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Finch, George H.

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

Finlay, Sir Robert B.

Mount, Wm. Arthur

MR. D. A. THOMASsaid the object of the Amendment he rose to move was to exempt contracts from the operation of the coal duty made prior to the introduction
1486
of the Budget on April 19. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what difference would it make in the amount of the revenue

1487
if he remitted the duty on all contracts made up to December 31 or longer, prior to 19th April. At all events, it was not a question of principle, it was a question of degree. These contracts had to be made by middlemen and they often had to be made for more than one year. He knew of a case where a contract was made for two years and it only came into operation in May, though it was made last November. That contract had to be carried out; it could not be broken, though the right hon. Gentleman suggested that contracts might be broken. So far from the contract being unusual, it was practically the continuation of a contract made previously for three years. He had received a telegram from one firm stating that upon the contracts they had entered into this tax meant to them about £7,000. The right hon. Gentleman took a different view of commercial ethics, and he argued that it was a very easy thing to break contracts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the law should be so framed as to enable a person to break his contract unless the person abroad was willing to pay the duty. He confessed that he was very much surprised at that statement, for it was a suggestion which no honest business man would ever dream of adopting. Perhaps he knew more about contracts than the right hon. Gentleman; and when business men in Cardiff made contracts they would not dream of breaking them. They carried them out.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 32, to leave out the words 'may if they think fit in any,' in order to insert the words 'shall in every.'"—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think I need hardly notice the latter part of the remarks of the hon. Member. I have never suggested that anybody should break contracts. What I suggested had reference to the application to the coal duty of the existing law which permits persons who have contracted, for example, to sell sugar at a
1488
certain price before the sugar duty was imposed, to add the amount of that duty to the price agreed on in their contracts, and not that contracts should be broken. As to the Amendment, it is a perfectly impossible one, for there must be a judge of what a contract is—whether a contract is a real contract. Under the proposal of the hon. Member there can be no discretion as to what is a contract or what is not; and I know, if the hon. Member does not know, the great variety and difference of detail in contracts which are made by the exporters of coal. I have gone as far as I think I ought to go in the interest of fairness to all concerned. It is not fair for the hon. Member to read a telegram from Cardiff sent under the impression that the exemption would cease on September 30th. I have received a telegram from the same place in which the 31st of December, which I have adopted, is suggested. With regard to the question whether contracts made with foreigners only or with British subjects abroad as well as foreigners are to receive exemptions from the duty, I at first proposed that these should extend to foreigners only, for the reason that it would be impossible for a coal owner who had a contract with a foreigner to make the foreigner pay the duty. But I found on inquiry that in the foreign or colonial ports where these contracts had been made with foreigners there were also British firms who had made similar contracts, and it was perfectly clear it would not be fair to give foreigners an exemption from a duty which British firms at the same port had to pay, and therefore I decided that it was necessary the exemption should be extended to all persons abroad, whether foreign or British. The hon. Member asked what this exemption was likely to amount to. I think it will be seen when I state the amount that practically the case is covered by what I have stated. I am convinced that the sum which will be lost by it this year will be more than £650,000. That is a large sum, and I am sure it will be admitted that I have acted liberally. In the circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he regretted extremely to hear the statement of the

1489
right hon. gentleman. No one recognised more than he did the generosity which the right hon. Gentleman had shown in dealing with those contracts, and he would be the last to complain when he had dealt so liberally with the question raised at the present time. But after all there was something more to be said on that question, and he thought he should say a word or two in the hope that he might influence the right hon. Gentleman to some extent, for he felt sure from the course pursued that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to be just and reasonable in dealing with this matter. It seemed to him that the sub-section gave a Minister power which this House should hesitate to give. Was this House prepared to put into the hands of a Minister the power of saying that one person should pay the tax and that another should not? It was an unwise discretion to give to any Minister, whatever his position might be. He had no reason to complain of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Treasury at the present time, but it was proposed to set up a dangerous precedent, which hereafter might be used by a Minister with serious disadvantage to the country. The right hon. Gentleman said there would be £650,000 lost by the exemption.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I ought not to have named a figure. I stated earlier in the evening that I used the figure quite roughly.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that all who knew anything about this question knew that the right hon. Gentleman had given a very large exemption, but still he fancied it would be found that the exemption represented roughly about two-thirds of the tax which would be due on these contracts. Was it wise for the sake of the other third to debar it from the principle which, he thought, was a very proper one? If it was just to exempt contracts up to the end of December, it was certainly equally just to exempt for the same reasons all contracts entered into prior to 19th April last. After the Spanish-American War Spain put an export duty on iron ore. What was the action of Spain in the matter? He was informed on good authority that she respected not only the contracts of
1490
Spanish merchants but those of English shippers in some cases for three years. Surely what was possible and just for the Spanish Government ought not to be impossible or unjust for the English Government. There were many gas companies abroad which had to make arrangements with their municipalities in fixing the price of gas, and these companies had to arrange for a supply of coal. The Paris Gas Company bought for three years. Some of the contracts applied to coal intended for the Paris Gas Company. When they considered that an exporter entered into these contracts in a bona fide way, simply in the ordinary course of business, he thought it was scarcely just that they were not to be exempted. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman really understood those questions as people did who were brought into contact with the transactions, he would not hesitate for a moment to exempt those contracts. He represented one of the largest firms of coal exporters in this country, and whatever might be the action of the Government in this matter—and he felt that his partners would agree with him when he put it before them—he could not conscientiously ask anyone who had contracts with them to pay the tax. He thought it would be unjust to do so. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point again before he came to a final conclusion.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am surprised at the speech of the hon. Baronet. I have done my best to be fair and even generous to the great interest which he with many others in this House represents. I have given a very large concession, according to my promise, in this matter of contracts. Sir Robert Peel on a similar occasion gave four months for a similar object. I have given nine months. What I have done has been acknowledged by those who represent the coal industry in this House. That this great concession should be made an excuse for asking more is not fair. I have made my statement and I cannot depart from it.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that so far as the trade was concerned there ought to be no uncertainty at all with

1491
respect to the exemption the right hon. Gentleman was going to make. The proposal now made allowed the Treasury absolute discretion to give exemption in the case of one contract and not in another. The question was whether the word "shall" should be inserted. If the conditions were fulfilled, why should the Treasury be allowed discretion to say whether the exemption would be given? If the conditions were not fulfilled, the sub-section would not operate at all.
MR. MCLARENsaid it was rather hard that in the case of contracts entitled to exemption the trade should have to apply to the Commissioners of Customs for relief from the duty. If a contract was made by telegram it was exceedingly awkward that the exporter should have to go to the Government officials in order to have the price adjusted. It seemed to him that the Amendment now before the Committee was the logical corollary of the concession which had already been given.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid if no explanation was forthcoming it might
not be unreasonable to suppose that there was some object, unknown to the Committee, in inserting the discretionary words, "may if they think fit in any case."
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In this case there must be some authority to interpret what is or what is not a contract coming under the exemption. I think the hon. and learned Member has a natural predilection for the law courts, and if the word "shall" were adopted, and it were left to the courts to interpret what is such a contract, I believe it would be infinitely worse for the parties concerned.
MR. MCLARENsaid these were not speculative or gambling transactions. The colliery owner could not know what the coal was going to cost him for twelve or fifteen months. He did not know what would be the cost of labour, or the nature of the strata he had to pass through.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 148. (Division List No. 277.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Chapman, Edward

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Flower, Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Forster, Henry William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Galloway, William Johnson

Bagot, Capt. Joceline FitzRoy

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Garfit, William

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir john Eldon

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

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Cranborne, Viscount

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Banbury, Frederick George

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Crossley, Sir Savile

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

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

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Gunter, Sir Robert

Bignold, Arthur

Denny, Colonel

Hain, Edward

Bigwood, James

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hambro, Charles Eric

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Bond, Edward

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Brassey, Albert

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Doughty, George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bull, William James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Helder, Augustus

Butcher, John George

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hoult, Joseph

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

Finch, George H.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Rannatyne

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'

Fisher, William Hayes

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Mount, William Arthur

Stroyan, John

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

Strutt, Hn. Chas. Hedley

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Keswick, William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Myers, William Henry

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Law, Andrew Bonar

Nicholson, William Graham

Thornton, Percy M.

Lawson, John Grant

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Parkes, Ebenezer

Valentia, Viscount

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Percy, Earl

Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lowe, Francis William

Plummer, Walter R.

Webb, Colonel William George

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Purvis, Robert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison

Reid, James (Greenock)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Macdona, John Cumming

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

Renwick, George

Wills, Sir Frederick

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Richards, Henry Charles

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

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

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

Ropner, Col. Robert

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

Maxwell, WJH. (Dumfriesshire

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wylie, Alexander

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

Younger, William

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Spear, John Ward

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

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Morrison, James Archibald

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Cullinan, J.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Daly, James

Higginbottom, S. W.

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Joicey, Sir James

Ambrose, Robert

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Delany, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jordon, Jeremiah

Austin, Sir John

Dillon, John

Joyce, Michael

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Doogan, P. C.

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Bell, Richard

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lambert, George

Boland, John

Dunn, Sir William

Langley, Batty

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Elibank, Master of

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Boyle, James

Ellis, John Edward

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Brigg, John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Broadhurst, Henry

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lough, Thomas

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lundon, W.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Fenwick, Charles

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Burt, Thomas

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Caldwell, James

Ffrench, Peter

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Cameron, Robert

Field, William

M'Dermott, Patrick

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Fadden, Edward

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Forster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M'Govern, T.

Carville, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Gilhooly, James

M'Kenna, Reginald

Causton, Richard Knight

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Cawley, Frederick

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mooney, John J.

Channing, Francis Allston

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Moulton, John Fletcher

Cogan, Denis J.

Hammond, John

Murphy, John

Colville, John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harwood, George

Newnes, Sir George

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Crean, Eugene

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Norman, Henry

Priestley, Arthur

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rea, Russell

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, G'wer

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Reddy, M.

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

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

Redmond, William (Clare)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Rickett, J. Compton

Weir, James Galloway

O'Doherty, William

Rigg, Richard

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Dowd, John

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

O'Malley, William

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

O'Mara, James

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Yoxall, James Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Soares, Ernest J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants

Mr. D. A. Thomas and Mr. McLaren.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sullivan, Donal

Price, Robert John

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Question put, and agreed to.

*MR. WARR: The Amendment I now move is directed to cases in which contracts are entered into in this country by owners of coaling stations abroad, and dealers for the supply and delivery of coal at thess coaling stations. In these cases the seller covers his contract by purchases made here, and exports the coal to the coaling station in order that he may fulfil his contract. But it is doubtful whether he can be said to export the coal in pursuance of any contract with his buyer, for the buyer is only concerned with the supply to him at the coaling station, and so far as he is concerned the seller may buy the coal afloat or export it at any time he pleases. Under these circumstances a question might arise as to whether the terms of the clause as it stands would enable the Treasury to remit the duty, and yet it would be fair and reasonable that it should be remitted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, dine 34, to leave out 'in pursuance of,' and insert 'for the purpose of fulfilling.'"—(Mr. Warr.)
Question proposed—"That the words 'in pursuance of' stand part of the clause."
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that this was a technical point, and he thought the words in the clause as it stood were sufficient for the hon. Gentleman's purpose. He would be very glad, however, to communicate with his hon. friend on the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSformally moved the Amendment standing in his name in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that his great object was that foreigners should pay this tax, might inform the Committee why he proposed to exempt from the duty bunker coal which was shipped on a foreign ship.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 36, after the word 'any' to insert the word 'British.'")—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'British' be there inserted."
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that if the privilege of shipping bunker coal free of duty were confined to British ships, one result would be that foreign ships would not call at British ports for bunker coal, and these ports would lose considerably in consequence. But a more important objection to the Amendment was that it would impose unequal treatment on foreign ships, and would thus be a breach of our treaties with foreign nations. The result would be retaliation on our ships in their ports, which would be very much more to our injury than to theirs.
MR. D. A. THOMASsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a great deal about the question of retaliation; but he could not see how the right hon. Gentleman could consistently carry out his policy of making the

1497
foreigners pay unless he accepted the Amendment. Without the Amendment the result would be that a foreign vessel would obtain bunker coal in this country free of duty, while a British vessel coaling at any port outside this country, even in British possessions, would have to pay the tax.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSbelieved his hon. friend was perfectly right; and it seemed an extraordinary thing that whereas a foreign ship could coal here, and have their coal free of duty, a British ship bunkering in, say, Colombo, had got to pay the duty.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that for many years past we had treated foreign ships the same as British ships in our ports, and it would be unwise in the interest of the trade of this country if another rule were adopted.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that as he was against the duty altogether he would not press his Amendment; but he had thought it necessary to point out the anomaly.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid that grievances might arise from the rule in consequence of ships taking bunker coal and trading coal at the same time. In Glasgow they had had trouble in this way in regard to coal dues.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Arrangements have been made in regard to that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSmoved to leave out Sub-section (5). He said that this Amendment really raised a question which had not yet been determined by the Committee. Sub-section 5 denned what the term "coal" included for taxation purposes. It said that for the purposes of this Act coal included culm, coke, cinders, and manufactured fuel. He was not sure what culm was, but he was perfectly certain that he did not know what cinders were. It was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with manufactured fuel—which he understood
1498
was patent fuel—said he was willing to take into consideration the price of the coal which was used in manufacturing this fuel, and that if the price was less than 6s. per ton, then the patent fuel entirely escaped taxation. But the right hon. Gentleman had not made a similar declaration in regard to coke, or culm, or cinders. He thought it was bad enough to impose this extra duty on coals, but it was worse to impose it on manufactured articles.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 1, to leave Sub-section (5)."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (5) stand part of the clause."
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he had found this definition in the original Coal Act. To some extent these articles were manufactured, but they were valuable articles, and there was no reason why they should not be taxed.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid they had had no information yet in regard to cinders, although of course he knew what cinders were in the ordinary meaning in English. Where was culm manufactured, what was the price of culm, and where was it exported to? The right hon. Gentleman had confessed that he had put this sub-section in the Bill because he had found it in some Act of Parliament passed fifty or sixty years ago. The right hon. Gentleman must have some reason for the faith that was in him, and surely he could tell what was the average price of culm, and coke, and cinders.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he could not carry in his mind all these petty details as to the prices of these articles and the countries to which they were exported. Culm was, he believed, a mixture of coal and clay, and it was exported to some extent. On the report he might amend the words, but he hoped they would now be passed as they stood. The tax to be placed on manufactured fuel would depend on the value of the coal used in making it, and he would see how far that principle could be applied to the others.
MR. D. A. THOMASasked if the right hon. Gentleman could give a rough estimate of the amount of revenue he expected to derive from these articles.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No; I have to inquire about their value.
*SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid that these Words had different meanings in different districts. In his district the large ashes that came from the engine boiler fires Were generally called cinders, and with coke breeze were often used for ballasting railways, and would not be subject to duty under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposed remission of articles under the value of 6s.
MR. DAVID MACIVERmoved in page 3, line 2, at end, to add "Nothing in this section shall apply to coal exported from Great Britain or Ireland to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man." He knew that the Isle of Man had already been exempted; but, if so, why not the Channel Islands? He thought the Channel Islands had a much stronger claim than the Isle of Man, and the chambers of commerce of Guernsey and Jersey had petitioned in favour of the exemption. The Channel Islands were the most ancient possession of Great Britain, and had always been considered as part of the United Kingdom. By a charter of Queen Elizabeth, which confirmed all the rights and privileges of the islanders, provision was made to the effect that they should be exempted from all tributes, tolls, customs, subsidies, and contributions of any kind whatsoever towards the general expenses of the realm of England, and that the liability of the islands to taxation was thereby confined to their own internal necessities. Those privileges were confirmed by Orders in Council on the 21st May and 17th December, 1679, and the islanders were given the right to import goods from any part of England or Wales free of duty, provided such goods were used on the islands, and it was worthy of remark that in the latter Order mention was specially made of coals. Those charters still remained in full force, and the islanders
1500
respectfully submitted that the privileges which had been granted to them should not be ignored in the present instance. He thought there were other grounds also on which the Channel Islands were entitled to exemption. It was the greatest mistake to treat the islands as if they were foreign countries. The people were most loyal to the Crown; they had been given a certain measure of Home Rule, but they had no one in the House of Commons to speak for them. He thought that they should not be placed at a disadvantage on that account, but that their request should receive favourable consideration. The reason why he had ventured to say a word for the Channel Islands was that for many years he had been a director of one of the great railway companies which served the Channel Islands, and naturally and properly he had taken a keen interest in them. He went frequently to the islands, and understood something of their trade. On both islands there was a fine race of people. Jersey largely supplied England with early potatoes, and both islands, but more particularly Guernsey, sent us grapes and tomatoes.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must treat the question more seriously.
MR. DAVID MACIVERsubmitted that fruit growing was relevant to the coal question, and went on to say that the grapes and tomatoes were grown under glass by artificial heat, which required coals. The islands needed revenue for the maintenance of their harbours and other local charges, and in Guernsey coals already had to pay half-a-crown a ton. The shilling export duty would bring these imposts up to three and sixpence. The coal tax would be regarded as a great hardship, and he thought it was not worth the while of the Imperial Government, for the sake of so little money as this tax would yield, to burden the trade of these islands, and to inspire a loyal people with a sense of wrong and injustice. He did not regard the coal tax as a war tax, but nevertheless, in pleading the cause of the Channel Islands, he thought he might venture to point out that in proportion to their population they had in a

1501
larger measure than any other portion of the British dominions given of their best to help the mother-country in the South African struggle. It should also be remembered that the inhabitants of Jersey and Guernsey, possessed of no great wealth, had given more than any in proportion to their means to help the various funds in support of those who had suffered owing to the war, and that each island had presented the mother-country with a battery of artillery, each costing £7,500. They had never been sufficiently thanked, and it was a poor reward for such loyalty to come down upon the Channel Islanders now and ask them to pay a shilling a ton upon coal. He thought he had shown good reasons why the islands should be exempted, and he hoped their case would not suffer before the Committee from the imperfect manner in which he had presented it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 2, at end of clause, to add, as a new sub-clause, the words,' Nothing in this section shall apply to coal exported from Great Britain or Ireland to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.'"—(Mr. David Maclver.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Gentleman has given somewhat curious reasons, such as the growing of grapes and tomatoes, why the Amendment should be accepted, but I will endeavour briefly to take a serious view of his arguments. He contended in the first place that owing to some ancient charters the Channel Islands had a claim to this exemption. I have had this matter carefully investigated, and I find that those charters and Orders in Council only promised the islanders such exemptions from Imperial taxation as were enjoyed by the self-governing colonies of the Crown, and that their existence does not constitute any obstruction to the imposition of duty on goods imported from this country. On the contrary, while our colonies in the time of William III. and Queen Anne were treated in a specially indulgent manner in regard to the duty on coal, the Channel Islands were treated as a foreign country.
1502
The hon. Member has told us that the Channel Islands have their own import system, and that they impose a duty of 2s. 6d. a ton on coal, and yet he asks us to give the Channel Islands the special favour of being exempted from this tax. What would be the consequence, supposing we did so? The Channel Islands would simply become a depot for supplying France with English coal, which, as we have no control over their Customs service, our officers could not possibly check. I think that is a sufficient answer.
*MR. D. A. THOMASsaid he listened to the right hon. Gentleman with some surprise. He thought that what had been said with regard to the Channel Islands reshipping coal would also apply to the Isle of Man.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We have a special arrangement there.
MR. D. A. THOMASsaid it had been found necessary to make a special arrangement with the Isle of Man, but surely it would be very easy also to make an arrangement with the Channel Islands, by which they would undertake not to reship coal. The right hon. Gentleman stated that when the coal tax was in operation formerly, the Channel Islands were regarded as a foreign country. That was true enough, but the right hon. Gentleman should remember that the whole position of things had changed since then. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to grapes and tomatoes, but either he was very inconsistent or his memory was very short. Only a few weeks ago, in reply to representations from the Channel Islands, he gave as a reason for not making a remission in their favour that the islands were able to produce early potatoes or green peas. If that were going to be an argument he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to exempt the Scilly Islands. The serious point was—and it showed one of the many anomalies which arose from that very absurd tax—that when coal was put on board a vessel running to Jersey at Southampton it was free of duty, whereas coal supplied at the same price and for the same firm put on board at Jersey for the return voyage was charged

1503

duty. A ship running to the Isle of Man had coal free of duty at both ends, and why should not a similar exemption he applied to a vessel running from Southampton to Jersey?
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he desired leave to withdraw his Amendment.
The leave of the Committee not having been given,
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes, 233. (Division List No. 278.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Mara, James

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

Joicey, Sir James

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ambrose, Robert

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Atherley-Jones, L.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Paulton, James Mellor

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Joyce, Michael

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

Boland, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Lambert, George

Price, Robert John

Boyle, James

Langley, Batty

Priestley, Arthur

Broadhurst, Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rea, Russell

Burke, E. Haviland-

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Reddy, M.

Burt, Thomas

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Caldwell, James

Lundon, W.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Rigg, Richard

Causton, Richard Knight

M'Dermott, Patrick

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Faddon, Edward

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Govern, T.

Robson, William Snowdon

Crean, Eugene

M'Kenna, Reginald

Schwann, Charles E.

Cullinan, J.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Daly, James

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Mooney, John J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Morton, Edward J. C. (Devonp't

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

Moulton, John Fletcher

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Dillon, John

Murphy, John

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

Doogan, P. C.

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

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Esmonds, Sir Thomas

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Norman, Henry

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Farrell, James Patrick

Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

Weir, James Galloway

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

White, George (Norfolk)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Field, William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Gilhooly, James

O'Doherty, William

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Hammond, John

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

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Mr. MacIver and Mr. D. A. Thomas.

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas. H.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Holland, William Henry

O'Malley, William

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Bullard, Sir Harry

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Burns, John

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Butcher, John George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bell, Richard

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bignold, Arthur

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bigwood, James

Cawley, Frederick

Austin, Sir John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bond, Edward

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brassey, Albert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

Brigg, John

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Channing, Francis Allston

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

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Chapman, Edward

Banbury, Frederick George

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Bull, William James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pretyman, Ernest George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Purvis, Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kenyon, James (Lancs, Bury)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Rentoul, James Alexander

Crossley, Sir Savile

Keswick, William

Renwick, George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Rickett, J. Compton

Dalkeith, Earl of

Law, Andrew Bonar

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Lawrence, Wm. P. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lawson, John Grant

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Doughty, George

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lough, Thomas

Seton-Karr, Henry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loyd, Archie Kiakman

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

Elibank, Master of

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

Spear, John Ward

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Finch, George H.

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

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

M'Crae, George

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Stroyan, John

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Majendie, James A. H.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Flower, Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Forster, Henry William

Manners, Lord Cecil

Tennant, Harold John

Fuller, J. M. F.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Thornton, Percy M.

Galloway, William Johnson

Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

Valentia, Viscount

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Gretton, John

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Groves, James Grimble

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morrison, James Archibald

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

Mount, William Arthur

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hambro, Charles Eric

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

Wills, Sir Frederick

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Myers, William Henry

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Harwood, George

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wylie, Alexander

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Helder, Augustus

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Penn, John

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Percy, Earl

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

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

Pierpoint, Robert

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Hoult, Joseph

Plummer, Walter R.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that the clause with all the changes
1506
proposed would require a certain amount of debate which could hardly begin at that time of night. He suggested that progress be now reported.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHadmitted that the clause would require a reasonable amount of discussion.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

FINANCE BILL.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Question again proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Expense incurred by the Secretary of State in any inquiry under the provisions of any Act of the present session to amend the Factory and Workshop Acts."—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expense incurred by the Secretary of State in any inquiry under the provisions of any Act of the present session to amend the Factory and Workshop Acts.
  Resolution to be reported this day.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land, near the National Gallery in London, and for other purposes connected therewith."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I object.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): This is only a matter which has already been agreed to by the House.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I am aware of that, but some time ago I asked for information which was not given.
  It being after Midnight, and objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL,
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Gas Orders Confirmation Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Copy ordered, of "Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  KING'S SCHOLARSHIP EXAMINATION.
  Return ordered, "of Statistics of the King's Scholarship Examination, Christmas, 1900, in respect of Pupil Teachers from Rural Schools."—(Mr. Llewellyn.)
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.