Commons Sitting of 18 June 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time Tomorrow.

    OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

NORTH AND SOUTH SHIELDS ELECTRIC RAILWAY RILL [LORDS],
  TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS BILL [LORDS],

    NORTHUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS],
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Norland; Hunslet; Cricklewood; Leeds; Cawston; Dewsbury: and Forfarshire; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Bisbrooke and Glaston; and Leeds; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Glasgow and Govan; to lie upon the Table.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Petition from Forfarshire, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON ELECTIONS BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Crawley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT 1865.
  Paper [presented 17th June] to be printed. [No. 223.]
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Paper [presented 6th June] to be printed. [No. 224.]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (FRUIT PRESERVING).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 17th June, 1902, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Sections 41 and 58 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, prescribing conditions to be observed in Factories and Workshops in which women and young persons are employed in the process of cleaning and preparing fruit in pursuance of the special exception allowed by Section 41 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1901; Sir John Gorst]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 225.]
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented, of Minute sanctioning the Subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act, for the County of Oxford (Seventh Minute), dated 14th May, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-ninth Annual Report by the Accountant for Scotland to the Scotch Education Department [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEER CORPS).
  Copy presented, of Annual Return of the Volunteer Corps of Great Britain for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Port of London, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2824 and 2825 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Coal Duty—South Wales Exports.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House of the quantity of dutiable coal shipped from South Wales ports since the export duty was imposed, and what proportion thereof escaped the duty on the ground that it was small coal; and whether this proportion of small coal shipped is in excess of previous years.
  (Answer.) The total quantity of dutiable coal shipped from South Wales ports from the 19th April, 1901 to the 31st March, 1902 was 18,687,105 tons. Small coal, as such, is not exempt from duty, but the amount of coal not exceeding 6s. per ton in value f. o. b., and entitled to remission on that account, was 314,613 tons. This figure is included in the total given above. I have no information as to the quantity of such cnal exported in previous years. (Treasury.)

  Income Tax on Easter Offerings.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether the Inland Revenue have decided that the voluntary gifts made by parishioners to incumbents, known as Easter offerings, are assessable for income tax purposes.
  (Answer.) Yes.—(Treasury.)

  Coronation—Westminster Fridge District Railway Station.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department up to what hour the district railway will be permitted to set down passengers at their Westminster Bridge Station on 26th and 27th June.
  (Answer.) No restriction is contemplated, so far as the police are aware, of the hours during which the district railway will be permitted to set down passengers at Westminster Bridge on the 26th and 27th June. (Home Office.)

  Coronation—Bank Holiday Extension—Proclamation.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty the King, by Royal proclamation, commands the 26th and 27th of June to be observed as bank holidays and as public holidays, the proclamation refers not only to bankers and public offices, but also to tradesmen and shopkeepers, and other burliness places.
  (Answer.) The proclamation referred to was issued under the provisions of the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, the Bank Holidays Extension Act, 1875, the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and the Revenue Offices (Scotland) Holidays Act, 1880, and its mandatory force does not extend to shops and other places of business not included in the provisions of those statutes. (Home Office.)

  Zambesi—Closing by Portuguese Government of Industrial Mission Schools.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the action of the agents of the Portuguese Government in closing the schools of the

  957
  Zambesi Industrial Mission which, under the award of the Boundary Commissioners, have fallen within Portuguese territory, is in accordance with Article X. of the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1891, under which, in all territories in East and Central Africa belonging to or under the influence of either power, missionaries of both counties are guaranteed full protection and religious toleration and freedom for all forms of Divine worship and religious teaching.
  (Answer) His Majesty's Government are in communication with the Portuguese Government in regard to the action of the agents of the Portuguese Government to which reference is made.—(Foreign, Office.)

  Lyddite Shells.
  MR. FULLER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the character of a number of lyddite shells recently used by the howitzer batteries on Salisbury Plain; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the matter.
  (Answer.) The lyddite shells in question are quite correct. The fuses used with them at the practice are designed primarily for use against ships, for action on direct impact, and are very satisfactory for this purpose. Owing to doubt as to the complete safety of the fuses designed to burst on graze, which have been used in South Africa, the Ordnance Committee recommended that their use at practice should cease and that the direct impact fuses should be used at practice pending the approaching completion of their experiments with an improved graze fuse. This recommendation was acted on at Salisbury, but the fuses failed, in a large number of instances, to act on graze. (War Office)

  Allowance to Reservists remaining in South Africa.
  SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, inasmuch as the Secretary of State for War has promised to consider the proposal to allow those members of the reserve forces at present in South Africa, who are willing to remain out there, a free passage home at any time they like within three years,
  958
  but said that he could only grant the usual reservists allowance, whether the Colonial Office will make up the difference so that the reservists shall receive, at least, 10s. per week during the time they remain in South Africa, and can similar arrangements be made with regard to officers.
  (Answer.) The Colonial Office have no funds at their disposal for such a purpose, but it is believed that there will be sufficient opportunities for those who remain to earn good wages at their trades. (Colonial Office.)

  Answers to Questions.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if arrangements can be made by which the answer to an unstarred Question shall be communicated to the Member asking the Question within an hour after the sitting of the House on the day of which the Question is asked.
  (Answer.) I fear the suggestion of my hon. and learned friend, viz., than an Answer to an unstarred Question should be communicated to the Member asking it within an hour after the sitting of the House on the day on which the question is asked, would prove extremely inconvenient to the Government Departments, without giving any important advantage to the questioner. If the written reply reaches the questioner in time for the reply to be printed and published with the Votes the following day, it would seem that the new order as to questions is amply satisfied. There may be rare cases when even this degree of expedition cannot be attained, though doubtless the Minister would take care to inform the questioner of such unavoidable delay. (Treasury.)

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Transvaal Gold Mines Taxation.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, at an early date,

  959
  to lay upon the Table a copy of the Proclamation recently issued at Pretoria imposing a 10 per cent. tax on the profits of the gold mines; and, whether such tax will be increased as soon as the gold industry in the Transvaal has had time to recuperate.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have not yet received the text of the Proclamation, but will lay it after it has reached me. The question of taxation in the Transvaal involves a number of complicated problems and I am not prepared to make any statement at present.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Was not the proposal to impose fresh taxation on the mines one of the causes of the war?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Ask Kruger.

  Jameson Raid—Chartered Company's Position.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have been taken to fix the sum due to the British Government, as successor to the Government of the South African Republic, in payment of the idemnity of the Jameson Raid which he stated that he was willing to submit to arbitration; and, if he will state what steps he proposes to take with regard to his statement in his despatch to Lord Rosmead, dated 10th April, 1897, that the British South Africa Company would have to make compensation for the Jameson Raid.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I returned to a similar question on the 1st of April last year.†
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And a very foolish answer it was.
  MR SPEAKER: Order, order!
  †See (4) Debates, xcii., 329.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh! the right hon. Gentleman laid emphasis on the 1st April!

  Rhodesia—Threatened Native Rising in 1900—Chartered Company and Imperial Government.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, on 28th February, 1900, he received from the Chartered Company a copy of a letter sent by this Company on the same day to the War Office, in which an appeal was made to His Majesty's Government to send an armed force to the aid of the Company owing to an expected rising of the natives in Rhodesia; whether he will state the date in 1900 when His Majesty's Government first sent troops to Rhodesia; and whether he has any information of the causes which compelled this Company to again appeal in 1900 for armed assistance from His Majesty's Government to enable them to prevent the native population from rising.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the affirmative. The first troops reached Beira in April, 1900. The original and main object of sending the troops was to defend Rhodesia in the event of the Boers trekking to the north and invading the country, and not for internal defence.
  MR. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the reason why, when I last asked this Question, he gave me an answer in the negative?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the least objection to replying to the hon. Member. The Question last week was quite a different Question.‡ He then asked me for the particulars of a recent appeal by the Company for assistance from the Government. I had no conception that in talking of a recent appeal he had any intention of alluding to a thing that was disposed of two and a half years ago.
  MR. MARKHAM: My Question contained no word relating to a recent-rising. ‡ Refer to page 502 of this volume.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is contrary to the Rules of the House, when a Question has been asked and answered, to proceed to ask another Question referring to a previous answer.

  Government Payments to the Chartered Company.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the total sum of money paid by His Majesty's Government to the Chartered Company during the war; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House all accounts which have been incurred by this Company and discharged by His Majesty's Government, in particular the payments made for the purchase of horses in Hungary and Texas, as also a statement of the rates paid by this Company to Messrs. Houlder Brothers for the transport of horses from Hungary to South Africa; and whether he will state the reason why His Majesty's Government allowed this Company to compete in the same market with themselves, when they had, by the Agreement made with this Company on 11th January, 1900, undertaken to pay all accounts incurred by the said Company.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I could not undertake at present to prepare the very elaborate return of figures which the hon. Member requires. As the Government were not at the time in a position to equip the force in question, the Chartered Company had to make the purchaser for itself.
  MR. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of my Question, as to why the Government allowed this Company to compete in the same market.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is impossible to deal with this matter by way of Question and answer.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the Agreement made with the Chartered Company be laid upon the Table? The House knows nothing about this Agreement whatever.
  MR. BRODRICK: I think there is no necessity for giving these particular Papers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the chairman of the Chartered Company a brother of two Cabinet Ministers?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Irish Militia and the Coronation.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that when the Irish Militia battalions now training at Aldershot were called upon to assemble it was represented to all ranks by public notices that they would be on duty at the Coronation; that thereby an increase in recruiting was caused; and, seeing that the recent order limiting the number which is to proceed to London from each regiment to 150 has created disappointment, whether he will order the Irish Militia regiments to attend in their full available strength.
  MR. BRODRICK: I regret that these Irish Militia battalions should be disappointed, but the space available only admits of an average of 150 from each regiment of Militia. I must point out that the circular fetter referred only to the importance of regiments being available if required for the Coronation ceremonies. It was a general letter, and was not confined to Irish regiments.

  Communication between Prime Minister and Mr. Kruger during the War.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Prime Minister, during the war, received any cables from Mr. Kruger which have not yet been laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The Foreign Office have nothing to do with the Transvaal, and the question should have been addressed to the Colonial Office. I am afraid the necessary communications have not taken place between the two Departments, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to postpone the Question.

  Naval Machinery Breakdowns.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the

  963
  Admiralty whether he will state the nature of the breakdown of the machinery of His Majesty's first-class cruiser "Drake" when on trial on the 14th instant, and if the repairing of these breakdowns is borne by the contractors or the Government; also, what is the nature of the repairs now being done to H.M.S. "Russell," and when will she be ready for her full-speed trials; and what is the nature of the repairs now being carried out on His Majesty's first-class cruisers "Sutlej" and "Spartiate."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): During the thirty hours trial of the "Drake" a crack was discovered in the wall of one of the steam ports on the port intermediate cylinder, and a second crack was found in the same cylinder on completion of the trial. Repairs are being effected by the contractors at their own cost. They will be completed at an early date, and no injury to the efficiency of the ship is anticipated. A portion of the white metal in the crank main and thrust bearings of the "Russell," on examination after the contractors' full-power trials, was found to be defective. The metal is being renewed. The "Spartiate" has been fitted with new eccentric straps, lined with white metal, and the vessel is now practically ready to resume her trials. Certain of the crank and main bearings of the "Sutlej," which became heated on her recent trial, have also been re lined with white metal. The work is completed, and the vessel will run her commissioning trials today.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Was not the cracking of the cylinders due to the priming of the boilers?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In no degree whatever.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Then why did it not happen before they went on their trials?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Boiler Committee's Report.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
  964
  what is the nature of the perusal of the Boiler Committee's Report required by the Admiralty before printing it for issue to Members of Parliament; further, if in such perusal the findings of the Committee are subject to any modification by the Admiralty officials.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave him on the 16th instant.† The insinuation contained in the last paragraph of the Question is entirely unwarranted, and requires no reply.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: May I ask whether the Report has been before the Admiralty for three weeks, and in what way will the public service be prejudiced by publication. Is the hon. Gentleman now in a position to give an undertaking to publish the Report before the next stage of Vote 8, and before Vote 12 is taken?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as soon as the Report has been examined, it will be at once circulated.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Why not now?
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is it the case that this Report is at the present moment lying at the Admiralty ready for delivery?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, it is not.

  Coronation Naval Review—Accommodation for Members.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether arrangements can be made for a restaurant car to be attached to the special train leaving Waterloo at 7.30 a.m. for the Naval Review on the 28th instant, to enable Members and their friends to obtain light refreshments, considering the very early hour at which they will be obliged to leave their homes.
  † See page 698.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid it is impracticable to make such an arrangement as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but breakfast will be provided on board the vessels on the arrival of Members at Southampton.

  Madras Workhouse.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Government workhouse at Madras is located within the precincts of the Presidency gaol; will he state how many inmates of the said workhouse have absconded during each of the last three years; in what other places in India the workhouse is within the gaol precincts; and whether the Government will take steps clearly to separate the unfortunate from the criminal class of the population in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Government workhouse at Madras, which is intended for the reception of persons of European extraction; judicially declared to be vagrants under the European Vagrancy Act, 1874, was removed to the Penitentiary in December, 1900. I have no information as to the number of vagrants who have absconded from the workhouse during the past three years. I believe that at Bombay also the workhouse is located within the Government Penitentiary; at other provincial capitals, so far as I am aware, the workhouse is separate from the gaol. I propose to address the Government of India on the subject.

  Duty on Offals.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what amount he estimates will be received from the 1½d. duty upon offals which are feeding stuffs; and what does he estimate will be the cost of the collection of this duty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The quantity of offals imported
  966
  during the year ended 31st March last has been estimated at 3,050,000 cwts. Practically the whole of this may be taken to have been feeding stuffs, which, at the rate of 1½d. per cwt. would have produced a revenue of £19,062. I do not expect that the cost of collecting the whole Corn Duty will exceed 1 per cent. but I do not think there would be any practical saving by omitting offals.

  Metropolitan Police—Rent-aid Allowances.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the cost of granting the rent-aid allowance to the married constables of the Metro politan police residing outside the Metropolitan boroughs would entail a charge of only £10,000 a year, or about one-tenth of a farthing on the rates, he will reconsider his decision with reference to this matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): No, Sir.

  North Eastern Railway—Station Accommodation at Westwood.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the in convenience arising from there being no station at or near West-wood on the Consett Branch of the North-Eastern Railway, and whether he will make representations to the railway company with the view of inducing them to provide for the requirements of the district by erecting a station at West-wood.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): This matter has been before the Board of Trade upon a proposal by the railway company concerned to provide uncovered platforms at Westwood, and to make it a stopping-place; and I have heard further from the company in consequence of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question. The Board, on the advice of their inspecting officers, intimated to the railway company that if such a station were to be for the use of the general public, the ordinary requirements, which are not onerous, must be

  967
  complied with. For instance, some shelter from the weather, and some conveniences for the comfort of passengers should be supplied. The railway company appear to have been unwilling to incur the additional expense so involved, and did not further proceed with their proposal. The Board have no power to compel a railway company to increase their station accommodation.

  Transfers in the London Postal Service.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether officers in the Post Office, transferring from one district in London to another, lose their seniority in the same way as when transferring from one town to another.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): A large portion of the officers of the London postal service are on combined establishments and do not lose their seniority on transfer from one district to another. In the case, however, of officers who are borne on separate seniority lists and have not been placed on amalgamated establishments, they are required, when transferred for their own convenience from one district to another, to take their place below the officers on the class to which transferred who were appointed before the amalgamation. Officers attached to the eastern central district are on classes distinct from those in the other Metropolitan districts for promotion purposes, except as regards the counter and telegraph officers appointed since 1889, and would lose seniority if transferred to a Metropolitan district.

  Coronation Holidays for Postal Officials.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if officers on annual leave at the time of the Coronation will be entitled to two days extra leave at some future time, in lieu of the Coronation holidays; and will officers who perform six or more hours duty on these days be allowed the usual privilege of two days off at a subsequent period in consideration of payment for time worked.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the inconvenience which would arise from any alteration of the annual leave arrangements, the Postmaster General has thought it better to give two days pay to telegraphists, sorters, sorting clerks and telegraphists, etc., who are on annual leave on the 26th and 27th instant, in lieu of any further leave and the officers of those classes who are required to be on duty will also receive extra pay in lieu of time off.

  Coronation Processions—Members Stands.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in order to provide against the inconvenience caused by a downpour of rain on the 26th and 27th inst., he will have the stands to be occupied by Members of Parliament and their friends roofed and made waterproof.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I am afraid it is impossible to carry out the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. May I take this opportunity of stating that the condition hitherto applied that Members' personal tickets for the stands are not transferable has been withdrawn. Such tickets are now-transferable without further payment.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Is it not the fact that at the Jubilee in 1887 the stands were covered, and Members had to pay nothing for their seats?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No, Sir, the hon. Member is entirely misinformed. The stands were not roofed, not so many tickets were issued, and hon. Members had to pay 12s. 6d. each.
  MR ALFRED DAVIES: If the Members and their friends suffer any inconvenience, I shall move to reduce the salary of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I have before pointed out it is no part of my official duty to make these arrangements.

  Rating of Machinery in Scotland.
  MR. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether

  969
  the decision, given on the 15th March, 1902, of the Valuation Appeal Court, in the ease of the Assessor for Dundee v. Carmichael and Company, Limited, altered the practice which has prevailed in Scotland since 1854 in regard to the valuation of machinery fixed or attached to any lands or heritages; and whether, in order to prevent the establishment of a new practice of rating consequent on this decision, the Government will introduce a short measure for the purpose of making the law in Scotland, in respect of the valuation of machinery, what it has been in actual practice up to the date of the decision referred to.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Secretary for Scotland regrets that there should be a disturbance of the practical view which has been acted on in Scotland for many years. He cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the subject, but in the event of a Bill which had the effect of restoring the old practice being introduced and com-mending itself to the Scottish Members, it would have the sympathy of the Government.

  Irish Land Bill.
  The following Question was on the Paper, but the hon. Member was not in his place to put it.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would consider the advisability of referring the Land Purchase Acts (Ireland) Amendment Bill to a Select Committee of eighty Members, two-thirds of whom shall be selected from amongst the Irish Members of the House of Commons.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In common fairness to the right hon. Gentleman and to my colleagues, I ought to state that the Question docs not represent the views of the Irish Party. Our opinion is that if this Bill comes up for discussion ample and adequate time should be given for debating it in the House itself.

  Liscannor Harbour.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Government propose to do anything to improve the condition of Liscannor Harbour, County Clare.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The hon. Member was not in his place when I stated on the 24th April, and again on the 8th May, that I was preparing legislation which, if passed, will enable the Government to consider the claims of Liscannor and other fishery harbours.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When are we likely to have the Government proposals?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I hope one day next week.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: And I suppose adequate time will be given for discussing them?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is a question in which I take great interest, and I will do my best to persuade my right hon. friend to afford facilities for debate.

  Age Regulations in the Irish Civil Service.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Stubbs, recently employed by the Board of Works as an overseer at the vice regal lodge, Phoenix Park, has been retired on pension; will he state on what grounds Stubbs was retired; whether his retirement was compulsory, and, if so, on what grounds; what was his salary; how long was he in the service of the Irish Board of Works; and how much has he received as pension or retiring allowance.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this. Yes, Sir. Stubbs was compulsorily retired in the interests of the public service on 30th April last,

  971
  when he was nearly sixty-five years of age. His salary had been £130 per annum (besides emoluments equivalent to £28 17s. 2d. per annum) and his length of service forty-two-and-a-half years. He has been awarded a retiring allowance of £105 18s. 1d. the maximum for which he is qualified under the Superannuation Acts.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Was Stubbs retired solely because he was sixty-five years of age?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I speak subject to correction, but I think he would have retired under any circumstances at sixty-five years of age. It was thought to be in the interest of the public service that he should be retired.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: But was he compulsorily retired because of any fault in the discharge of his duty?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is a kind of question rather difficult to answer. I do not wish to cast any reflection on this man as to the discharge of his duties, but the hon. Member will see that at his age he was probably unable to continue to discharge them efficiently.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I will put another Question down.

  Technical Instruction in Ireland—Equivalent Grant.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in December, 1900, a memorandum was issued by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction informing the County Councils of Ireland that wherever a rate was raised for technical instruction an equivalent grant under the Acts of 1889 and 1891 would be available, in addition to the share coming to the county under the Act of 1899; whether he is aware that rates were struck on the faith of that undertaking, and that the Department now refuses to give the equivalent grant under the Acts of 1889 and 1891 except
  972
  to a limited number of districts; whether he will state why the Department have departed from the terms of their memorandum in this respect, and will he publish any correspondence which has passed between the Department and the Treasury on this subject.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are generally as stated in the Question. When the circular of December, 1900, was issued, the Department believed that the grants formerly paid under the Acts of 1889 and 1891 (the administration of which had been transferred to it) would continue to be available on the same conditions as previously. The Department has since been advised, however, that there is some doubt whether this is so, and the point is now engaging consideration. It is not proposed to publish the correspondence that has passed, and is still proceeding, between the Treasury and the Department on the subject.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some pledge that this correspondence shall be made public? May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the ratepayers have been induced by an unconditional promise to levy a rate, and that that promise has now been broken, the right hon. Gentleman will give the Irish public the reasons for breaking the promise?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The point is one which deserves attention, and I hope shortly to make an exhaustive answer.

  Labourers' Cottages in Nenagh Union.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at the Local Government inquiry held at Nenagh, North Tipperary, on the 15th April, with regard to the guardians' proposed scheme for additional labourers' cottages in Nenagh Union, the application for four labourers, namely J. Duff, J. Creamer, J. Starr, and J. McCarthy, from the districts of Portroe and Castletown, were refused on the ground that they were working at the slate quarries; and seeing that the evidence of the district councillors for the divisions showed that

  973
  these men were bonâ fide labourers, inasmuch as they worked for the neighbouring farmers during the harvest season, being obliged to work in the quarries during other slack times, and that they were at present living in hovels, whether he will take steps to have these men and their families provided with proper houses and the plots of land under the Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The result of the inquiry in connection with this scheme is about to be communicated by the Local Government Board to the District Council. The applications of the four men named are disallowed on grounds other than that alleged in the Question. These grounds will be set out in the Board's communication to the Council, and I would ask the hon. Member to defer any further question until the communication has been made.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: This inquiry was held more than two months ago.

  Labourers' (Ireland) Acts Amendment.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution unanimously passed by the Cork County Council, demanding that the Labourers' Acts should be amended so as to include all classes of labourers and artisans living in rural districts as well as agricultural labourers; and whether he proposes to give effect to this resolution in the Bill which he is about to introduce on the subject.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The extent to which the Government is prepared to go is disclosed by an Amendment which I have put on the Paper to the Bill of the hon. Member for South Louth. If this Bill becomes law, with the Amendments which I have put down, I do not think further legislation on the subject will be required.
  MR. SHEEHAN: The right hon. Gentleman promised to introduce a Bill shortly after Whitsuntide. When does he propose to do so?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Our views are embodied in my Amendment. If it is
  974
  accepted, it would not be necessary to bring in another Bill. Still, if hon. Gentlemen desire me to originate legislation, I will see if I can.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment in the direction of limiting the existing law rather than extending it?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the matter now.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: What classes of labour would be included?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think my Amendment includes all members of the agricultural community in receipt of a daily wage.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill and give us an opportunity of discussing it?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot promise any opportunity of discussing it.

  Committee on Irish Valuation.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the reason of the delay in the appointment of the Committee on Irish Valuation, promised last year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In pursuance of a reply which I made to the hon. and learned Member on the 7th April, I awaited the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. I subsequently understood that the widest possible terms of reference were considered desirable, and this entailed the postponement of the inquiry until the Commissioner of Valuation was at liberty to attend. That period has been reached, and, having conferred with my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, I am now in a position to suggest terms of reference.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will it be a Committee of this House?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, I understand it is to be a Select Committee of this House.

  Crimes Act Prisoners in Clonmel Gaol.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether Mr. Corr, now a prisoner in Clonmel Gaol, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, applied on 16th May to the medical officer of the gaol for an hour's additional exercise on the ground of ill-health caused by continued confinement in his cell; (2) whether the doctor replied that he was a bail prisoner and could leave when he liked, and that if he were in another class it would be a different matter; (3) whether the governor told the doctor Mr. Corr could not leave as he was undergoing another sentence running concurrently with the bail sentence; (4) whether the doctor refused the application; (5) whether Mr. Corr is still in solitary confinement; and (6) whether medical officers of prisons are entitled, under the prison rules, to differentiate in their treatment of prisoners, whether bail or otherwise.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The application made by the prisoner on the 17th (not 16th) May was not made on the ground of ill-health. He complained of the confinement, but stated he was in good health, a statement with which the medical officer concurred. The doctor observed it would be desirable to give bail if he required greater freedom, as, unless on medical grounds, he could not interfere with prison rules. The doctor has no recollection of making a reference to his being in another class. The reply to the third query is in the affirmative. In reply to the fourth query, the doctor did not recommend an extension of exercise, inasmuch as he was unable to do so on medical grounds. The prisoner is in solitary confinement only in the sense that he occupies, like all other prisoners, a separate cell. He is exercised in association with other prisoners of his class in the open air for two hours daily. In reply to the concluding inquiry, medical officers are not so authorised, except on medical grounds. Bail prisoners are subject to the same rules as prisoners awaiting trial.
  MR. CONDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the governor of the prison
  976
  in whose presence Corr alleges that the doctor made the statement complained of, viz., that "if he were in another class it would be a different matter."
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have given the hon. Member the doctor's recollection of what occurred. I do not think it would serve any public advantage to push the matter further.
  MR. CONDON: But that is the kernel of my Question. I will ask it again.

  Irish Elementary School Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the results of all applications by school managers under Rule 43 have been intimated to the applicants; and, if not, when will they be so intimated.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The applications by managers under Rule 43 have been considered, and in nearly all cases in which an increase has been awarded, the result has been notified to the managers. Teachers who have not heard the result of the correspondence in which they are concerned should apply through their managers.

  Live Stock Traffic on Irish Railways.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that specific complaints respecting the delay of live stock in transit on Irish railways have been, forwarded by the Committee of the Irish Cattle Traders and Stock Owners Association to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, without much improvement being effected; whether he is aware that last week cattle were delayed sixteen hours in being conveyed less than thirty miles from Charleville; whether he will cause inquiries to be made into this matter, and request the Department of Agriculture to exercise the powers given them in regard to carrying companies in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: All such complaints have been investigated. The Department does not accept the statement that, as a result of its correspondence with the railway companies,

  977
  little improvement has been effected. A complaint was received from the owner in respect to the delay in conveying cattle from Charleville, and is now being investigated.

  Queen's College, Belfast.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if, in acknowledging the receipt of the resolution of the Council of the Queen's College, Belfast, in reference to the proposed development by the Department of Agriculture of the Royal College of Science, he has called the attention of the Council to the fact that in publicly commenting on a Government Department they had as civil servants acted irregularly; and, if not, will he state what notice, if any, he proposes to take of their action.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I received copies of the resolutions in question. They are evidence of the very great and laudable interest manifested in the north of Ireland in respect to the provision of technical instruction and in favour of the establishment of a separate College of Science in Belfast. There is nothing in the language of the resolutions to which exception can properly be taken.

  Dublin Postmen and Mail Trucks.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the practice in the Dublin Post Office whereby young lads who hold Civil Service certificates are compelled to wheel trucks laden with mail bags; and whether, seeing that this work should be performed by labourers, he will undertake to have this system abolished.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the "lads" referred to are postmen, the duty mentioned is one proper to postmen; and the Postmaster General has no ground for supposing that the men now employed upon it at Dublin are not of suitable age for the work. But inquiry shall be made in the matter.

  Coronation Service.
  MR. CHANNING: On behalf of the hon. Member for
  978
  the Wisbech Division of Cambridge, I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a letter issued by certain incumbents, in which the writers express their refusal to use the Service recommended for use in churches on the occasion of His Majesty's Coronation as the said service now stands, on the ground of the instruction therein contained to inform the congregation of the King's Oath to maintain the Protestant religion as established by law; and whether he is prepared to make any statement as to the views and intentions of the Government in connection with this matter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have not seen the form of service to which the hon. Member refers. I gather there is no legal obligation to use it. In these circumstances each person must form his own judgment of the value of the reasons rendered for not using it. If they are accurately represented in the Question, in my opinion they are very bad reasons.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Oath to be taken by the King at his Coronation pledges His Majesty to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion as established by law.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware whether the hon. Member's gloss on the question is right or wrong. I have not seen it.

  School Coronation Holidays.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that His Majesty has expressed a wish that all schools should give a week's holiday during the Coronation, whether, in consequence, the minimum annual number of attendances required by the Code will be reduced from 400 to 390 this year.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper—
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the wish of His Majesty the King that all

  979
  schools should give a week's longer holiday this year, the Education Department would permit the elementary schools to be open a less number of times than 400.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government has decided that a reduction of the minimum up to the limit of one week should be allowed under exception A to Article 85 of the English Code and exception A to Article 17 of the Scotch Code in respect of any closing of the schools on the occasion of the Coronation.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make this decision known to teachers and managers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine that a statement made in this House on a matter of such general interest will certainly reach the parties interested.

  Coronation Expenses Vote.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state on what day he proposes to take the Vote on the Estimate for £100,000 for the expenses of the Coronation: And, what provision?, if any, have been taken to secure that the sum of £100,000 in the Estimate laid before the House shall not be exceeded, having regard to the fact that the excess of expenditure for the Coronation of George IV. amounted to £138,238 above the £100,000 which the expenses were not to exceed according to the Estimate laid before them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot state what date the Vote will be taken. Of course, I shall as usual consult the convenience of the House. I cannot go into details as to the Estimate; we must make it correspond to the expenditure.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will it be taken before the Coronation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is clearly impossible.

  Navy Estimates—Boiler Committee's Report.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will keep back further proceedings on Votes 8 and 12 of the Navy
  980
  Estimates until the Report of the Boiler Committee is issued. We have been unable to obtain any assurance from the Secretary to the Admiralty as to when it will be circulated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that with regard to Vote 8 the Report age remains open; and we certainly shall not take it at the present period of the session. I do not know when the Report of the Boiler Committee will be published, and therefore I cannot promise to keep the Report of Vote 8 back for it; but there will be no desire to take the Vote early. Vote 12 will be taken on Friday, for reasons I have already given to the House.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is it not the fact that the Report of the Boiler Committee has been in the hands of the Admiralty since the end of May, and it is not yet delivered to hon. Members?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Reduction of the Maize Duty.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in pursuance of the promise he gave the other night to reconsider the question of the tax on maize, he is now in a position to make a statement to the House.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It maybe convenient if I make the statement now. The matter is one of very considerable difficulty, because, in the first place, alteration in the tax on maize must detract from the uniformity of the tax; and, secondly, the proposal to reduce the duty on maize by one-half involves a loss of £300,000 to the Revenue. But, on the other hand, I have been much impressed with the views expressed in the course of debate with regard to the expected effect of the tax in Ireland; and also with regard to its effect generally as a tax on the raw material of the dairying industry throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. No doubt, as the tax at present stands, the percentage rate is higher, though not very much for maize than for other articles. Therefore, I think it will be right and just to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member below the gangway the other day,

  981
  and to reduce the tax by one-half. I shall move an Amendment for that purpose in the Bill this evening; and the Amendment will be one similar to the proviso inserted in the Finance Bill of last year with regard to the reduction of duty on molasses and glucose, by which, although generally the excess tax will he returned to those who have paid it, it will not be returned to those who have passed the tax on to their customers.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I be allowed to express our acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession which he has made? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we in Ireland regard even the reduced tax on maize as a very serious grievance; and in no circumstances can we alter our attitude in reference to the Budget. But at the same time we acknowledge the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the claim put forward by us. It is one of the rare instances in which an alteration of this kind has been brought about as the direct result of argument across the floor of the House. For the concession the right hon. Gentleman has made—although it does not go so far as we could wish—I desire to express our thanks.

NEW BILLS.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BILL.
  "For transferring the administration of Queen Anne's Bounty to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Hanbury, under Standing Order 31; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 240.]
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to Education in England and Wales," presented by Mr. Lough, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. Osmond Williams, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Atherley-Jones, and Mr. Broadhurst; to be read a second time upon Friday, 11th July, and to be printed. [Bill 241].

FINANCE BILL.
As amended, in Committee and on re-committal, considered.
New Clause (Issue of stock certificates to holders of scrip certificates) (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer), brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW (Renfrewshire, W.) moved a new Clause providing for a rebate on articles used in the manufacture of starch. He wished to obtain an assurance that starch would continue in the schedule at 5d., this being necessary in order to keep starch manufactures in a position to contend successfully with starch coming from America and foreign countries.
New Clause (Rebate on articles used in manufacture of starch)—(Mr. Renshaw)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR M. HICKS BEACH,): I have no intention whatever of altering the schedule.
MR. RENSHAW: Then I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.) moved a new Clause providing for a rebate on offals made from imported grain. He suggested that the rebate should be 2d. as against the 1½d. allowed on other offals, and contended that the English miller was entitled to this slight advantage considering the trouble he would be put to in obtaining the rebat.
New Clause (Rebate on offals made from imported grain)—Sir Edward Strachey)—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid be could not agree to this proposal. The English miller who imported foreign corn to grind into flour was able to sell at a profit.
Question put and negatived.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: Gentlemen opposite will believe that I have no particular Party object in bringing forward the Motion I now rise to make, because last year, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember, I supported him in the coal tax and in the sugar duty through all their stages. I adhere now to the preposition of which the right hon. Gentleman approved last year, and of which he has been good enough to remind the House this year—and I can consider no empire or kingdom in a more dangerous position than one in which a certain army of electors has the power of dictating the policy without at the same time paying their full share of the sacrifice—in all respects, fiscal as well as otherwise—which may be involved in carrying out that policy. I may say further that I am not a hardened and convicted political economist. An economist of my acquaintance, Mr. Bagehot, used to say that he did not believe that any one was really sorry when a political economist died. I will not go as far as that, or as far as the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who said the other night that political economy was a parcel of platitudes and paradoxes.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No; the phrase, I think, was "A conglomeration of pretentious platitudes."
MR. JOHN MORLEY: When I think of the eminent men who founded political economy, I do not agree with the hon. Member in calling it "a conglomeration of pretentious platitudes." But I should have myself been sorry to lay down any proposition which would apply to all communities at all times and stages in their history and to all the variations in the course of their development. In everything with which I shall trouble the House I am thinking of my own country as it now stands—its social, political, and fiscal needs in respect of the present situation.
984
Now, Sir, what do we see? I have attended the whole of the discussion on the Budget in all its stages. We see a remarkable spectacle. First of all a war tax expanded into a permanent source of revenue. We see what was first brought forward as an emergency duty blossoming into the first stage of widening the basis of taxation; and finally, we see what was a fiscal expedient for a twelvemonth swelling into a reversal of national fiscal policy for ever. The Secretary to the Treasury, who made a most interesting speech on the Second Reading, said—
"If you are not to tax the very poor you ought to take the duty off sugar and tea."
In that proposition there was an implication of reproach of those who, like myself, supported the Government last year, and this year feel bound to oppose it. The fact that the Government have increased the duty on sugar is the very reason why you should not have now a further stage of pressure and crush them by imposing a duty on bread. Let us see what the Government have done as to food—not by way of an emergency tax, but by way of permanent taxation. They have put £6,500,000 on sugar and £2,000,000 on tea. You must add £2,000,000 more for the incidence of the coal tax, now understood to be a permanent source of revenue. That makes £10,500,000 of taxation weighing on trade and labour. Then you have £2,600,000 for the bread tax making a total of £13,000,000 on trade and labour. The only increase of direct taxation is the income tax, and the House is given to understand that the present height of the income tax is only to be temporary. That is the situation, and I see no inconsistency whatever in supporting the Government last year, and this year resisting the corn tax in every shape.
It is true that it is desirable to "instruct" the electors. I am strongly of that view. Instruct the electors as much as you can; but recollect that the electors are only 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 out of a population of 40,000,000 or more in the United Kingdom, and, therefore, in taxing the electors you are taxing only one-fifth or one-sixth of the population, while you are punishing or "instructing" those who had no direct share in the decision instead of leaving the whole burden, if that were desirable, on the 6,000,000 or 7,000,000

985
of electors. The hon. Member for North Islington said the other day—
"It is necessary to make people understand that they are subscribing to the great purposes for which this Empire exists."
I wonder it did not occur to the hon. Member that surely one of the first purposes for which this or any other Empire exists is to keep its people as far as its Governors can from misery and starvation. The right hon. Gentleman has just informed the House, to its universal satisfaction, that the duty on maize is to be reduced by a half, and he deserves our thanks for that concession. We cannot forget the state of things that was described to the House in the course of the discussion the other afternoon, a description which, I am sure, affected the right hon. Gentleman's mind, impelling him to the action he intends to take. What is the use, in the spirit of the hon. Member for North Islington, going to these wretched people on the west coast of Ireland and telling them that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is "widening the basis of taxation," or in telling them that they must he willing to pay more for their wretched yellow meal in order to serve the purposes of Empire? I cannot help remarking to what a very extraordinary line of observation the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed himself on that occasion. He, like myself, has been twice Chief Secretary for Ireland, and others have been heroic enough to undertake that office on two occasions, but I do not think that he has ever been to the west coast of Ireland. If he has, how can he dream of saying to the wretched people who pick out a hard subsistence front land covered with heavy stones, "You really must improve the land and cultivate oats." That anyone who thinks of parts of Donegal, Galway, and Mayo should talk about cultivating oats there, strikes me as an extraordinary and stupendous illustration of ignorance which men of great competence sometimes show.
But apart from the Irish aspect of the matter, do not let us forget what has been called the submerged tenth in our own island, the large body of suffering, patient, uncomplaining poor, many of whom have never enough to eat. When we talk of England being a country of boundless wealth, in a sense it is true, if you look at the prices paid for trifles at Christie's; but it is not to be supposed that because there are enormous pockets
986
of wealth of that kind there is not an immense fringe of our poor population who will be affected by this tax, and who are constantly fighting a life and death battle with hunger and starvation. I cannot but notice how rapidly the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew the cheque tax. For my part, I thought when I first heard his proposal—and I still think—that the cheque tax was a very good tax ["Oh, oh!"] but it was withdrawn because the opinion of a very powerful class in the City and elsewhere opposed it.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, no!
MR. JOHN MORLEY: Then I do not know why it was withdrawn.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It was withdrawn because I had reason to believe that it would seriously affect small traders throughout the country, and, further, that there would be a serious diminution in the number of cheques used in consequence, largely affecting the revenue from it.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I thoroughly accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. At all events there was the fact that a tax which would have affected well-to-do people of different degrees of prosperity was withdrawn in consequence of a very powerful, if not organised opposition, whereas the arguments as to the corn tax seemed to have no weight at all with the right hon. Gentleman, except his decision to halve the duty on maize. The Government have made what I cannot but think in the course of these debates is a rather ludicrous shifting of their position. The First Lord of the Treasury at an early stage said—
"I do not believe that the working men will object to pay a tax which will probably have no effect upon them at all."
That is the language of the First Lord of the Treasury. As if any one would object to pay a tax which did not affect them at all! But then the ground was changed, and I have not heard, although I have listened attentively to the language of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, even now what is their theory as to who they are who will pay this tax. They have never told us. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the price is affected

987
by the general and natural fluctuations in the circumstances of the production or the importation of the article used; but he leaves out of account the effect of this ramrod, constant tax upon the free play of the variant circumstances which he called the general and natural play of production and importation. That is an argument which the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire pressed upon him and to which I have not heard an answer. I must quote one dictum of Mr. Mill which entirely supports the position taken up in a very powerful speech by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. It is this—
"A tax on any commodity will, as a general rule, raise the price of that commodity by at least the amount of the tax; there are few cases in which it does not raise it by more than that amount."
You have given no answer, or at least I have not heard any answer given, either to the question who in your judgment really pays the tax, and whether you do or do not believe that there will be any effect from this corn tax on prices. There is one point to which I beg the attention of the House. When the duty of 1s. a quarter was left in 1846–49 the price of wheat ranged from 50s. to 60s., or even higher. Therefore the 1s. was about 2 per cent. of the proportion of wheat imported, or a quarter of the total consumption. But now that we import considerably more than three quarters of our total consumption the price ranges, I think, from 25s. to 28s. a quarter, and, therefore, your new duty of 1s. is nearly twice as high on the value of the article as it was in 1846. I do not know how he proposes to meet it. Another contention which is urged is this. It has been constantly argued by the Government that this is not in any aspect a protective tax; but the night before last, I think, we had a very extraordinary development of that allegation. It was pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that with a corn tax at 3d. a hundredweight, offal at 1½d., and flour at 5d., the tax on flour was too high in proportion to that on corn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he wanted whole grain, and that flour was taxed so much higher than corn because it was a manufactured article. He said, if he was rightly reported, that it was desirable to get whole grain and then this country itself made
988
the flour and retained the offal. I have given the fairest consideration possible to that position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I ask, Can it be contended that that means anything but Protection? Is it not Protection, and nothing else? If that is not Protection, I do not know what is.
Now, Sir, I will sum up what I have got to say upon the corn tax. I say it is bad in its principle and deplorable in some of its consequences, to which I will refer in a moment. A registration duty of £200,000 has been transformed into a source of revenue amounting now to £2,600,000, capable of infinite elasticity and expansion, and sure, in a certain number of years, if the policy of some members of the Government prevails, to be expanded still further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is himself a free trader, has made a change in our fiscal system which leaves the door open to those who are not free traders but thorough-going protectionists. That is one point. Then the second point is this. Mr. Lowe said—and everybody is aware that he was not in the least sentimental—"this tax is a kind of poll tax"—and that is as true today as it was when Mr. Lowe said it—"but graduated in a peculiar fashion because it tells heaviest on the very poorest of the people." The tax affects two-thirds of the consumption, but it raises the price of the other third to the same level, and this rise does not go to the Exchequer.
The next point is one to which I am rather surprised that in this House, which contains so many important representatives of trade and commerce and banking, more attention has not been paid. My hon. friend the Member for Exeter said, and nothing can be more true or more relevant—
"I believe that the great commercial prosperity of this country is due, not only to freedom from certain taxation, but to freedom from those harassing formalities which are inseparable from an extended Customs tariff."
I was glad to hear my hon. friend the Member for Devonport the other night warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when this tax comes to be understood and its possible expansion comes to be realized, the commercial classes of this country will certainly let him hear from them; and that the effect upon their proceedings

989
and the effect upon their commerce, upon which the prosperity of the country depends, will he, and must be, of the gravest kind because of the harassing formalities which Customs arrangements will undoubtedly entail.
Now, having dealt with these aspects of the corn tax, I want to come to what I may call the indirect consequences of it; and they are to me more important in many ways than the direct consequences, because, as everybody knows, you can more easily efface the traces of war than you can undo the mischief of a serious blunder in your fiscal policy. I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal opens the sluices to mischief of every kind in an indirect but closely connected form. But what I have, to my regret, to charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with, is that he used vague and shadowy language upon a subject upon which shadowy and vague language is more dangerous than it can be on any other. He says—
"I have proposed this duty as a Revenue duty and nothing else. I disclaim altogether the interpretation put by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the corn duty."
Then in some very remarkable observations two or three nights ago he rather turned round, and he said—and I must Bay, with all respect to him, with some confusion of thought and some bewilderment of language—
"An Imperial Zollverein would be a better arrangement for binding together the colonies and the mother country than anything else that could be devised."
Of course, by an Imperial Zollverein he meant, not preferential tariffs, but a true Zollverein, a tariff union similar to that of the United States of America and the old condition of things in Germany. Then the right hon. Gentle man went on to say that it was hot possible—
"As every one who looks into the matter knows, that there should be free trade at the present time—that is, a free trade tariff union—between England and her colonies."
Then, I wonder, if we cannot have a Zollverein, why talk about it?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I was directly challenged by the previous speaker.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: Then I go on to say, if you are challenged to talk about
990
a Zollverein, why do you not think the thing out before you do so. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
"It is not possible that there should be free trade at the present time between the mother country and the colonies."
But he went on in words which in my judgment display some perilous confusion of thought—
"But cannot we try to consider the commercial relations between us that we may make trade freer than it is now, and that without necessarily injuring any foreign country at all? I am bound to say,"
he went on—
"that my idea of dealing with this great and important question is on the basis of free trade and not on the basis of Protection."
And, finally, the right hon. Gentleman made a most satisfactory declaration. He said—
"That we should impose new duties as against foreign nations in order to give advantage to our colonies, that is not the policy of His Majesty's Govornment."
I call that a most satisfactory declaration,-and if he had left the matter there, I for one, should have had no criticism to offer. But he is unable to leave this fascinating notion of a Zollverein and preferential rates and the like, and he says—
"It is our duty while adhering to our own principles to do what we can to make trade between ourselves and the colonies more free in order to promote the best relations in the Empire."
Now, Sir, I should like to ask for a plain answer to a plain question. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us this afternoon, or at some other time, how he proposes to make trade between us and the colonies more free? He admits, and this is very significant, that some sacrifice will be involved by a movement in that direction.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That was in a previous part of my statement.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: These observations I thought, and still think, were all organically connected. Otherwise there was some incoherency. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman said at some other stage in his speech that some sacrifices would be involved in a movement in that direction. It is true it was not quite clear what was meant by "that direction." I am somewhat at a loss to know

991
accurately what it meant, but I take it to mean in the direction of making our commercial relations with the colonies more free.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If the right hon. Gentleman will read what I said he will see the meaning.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: The words were these—
"If we could have free trade with our colonies, I do not see why that should necessarily involve increased duties on our part as against foreign nations; but if we could have free trade with our colonies, even some sacrifices in that direction might he made."
I fail to see how I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman has, I am sure quite unintentionally, transferred from one part of my remarks to another a sentence which had reference solely to the establishment of complete free trade between the mother country and the colonies.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not wish to labour or prolong the matter, but I submit that the sentence stands on its own four feet distinctly. It does not matter where it comes—
"If we are to have Free Trade with our colonies, even some sacrifices in that direction might he made."
It comes to this, if we are to have Free Trade with our colonies, some sacrifices even might be made; that is to say, at all events, that in the right hon. Gentleman's view Free Trade with the colonies, if it were possible, which he denied in another part of his speech, would involve sacrifices.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: And it would be worth it.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: Then, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how it is to be done and in what direction we must look for compensation—in the sense, I presume, of wider markets for our manufactures. Who is the Minister who talks in this way of sacrifice? Are we in a position according to him to make that sacrifice? Is not this the Minister who for two or three or four years has been telling us that our fiscal system has brought us
992
almost to the brink of financial ruin? I say, without irony, that I am a disciple of the right hon. Gentleman, and that I believe as fully as he does that our fiscal position is of the most dangerous character. But that is the very reason why I want the House to think twice or thrice before embarking on any policy, or countenancing any scheme or project, which will involve further sacrifice. After the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, let us consider the confusion, into which vague, shadowy talk of this kind throws the colonial merchant and the colonial producer, the British merchant and the British producer. I consider that on a subject where clear thinking and firm language is far more indispensable than on any subject engaging the attention of the House, the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is most unfortunate. One may see any clay the unfortunate effects of this vague and shadowy language. Even today we may read that proposals are in the air, and even much more than in the air—they are upon the earth—proposals of a kind which I declare I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's language encourages or discourages, but at all events they are proposals of a kind which such language as his brings into existence and fosters. I want to look for a moment at the kind of language which the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman produces. I am not going to examine the projects of the Zollverein, a commercial and customs' union and preferential duties. But there are suggestions in connection with them which it seems to me are of the first importance, and which the House should, at the earliest opportunity, test, measure, and gauge. I am in order, I hope, because this is the real basis of my objection to the corn tax.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not the basis of the corn tax.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: Not the basis? I do not know that. What happened the moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer said we are going to have a corn tax? Why, as my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the Canadian Prime Minister instantly said: "England is now for Protection." Therefore, those proposals, I

993
do not say arise out of, but are connected with, the duty on corn which breaks down the ramparts of the fiscal policy which has made us what we are. This is the kind of language, as we read today, which is used: "Did any one say that we are not losing ground in respect to manufactures and trade?" Now I hear that constantly in conversation. I read it in articles—the assumption that we are losing ground in commerce and trade. Is it true? [Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches: No.] What is true—as, of course, we must all admit—is that the increase in our manufactures and trade is now at a slower rate. But everybody, from Adam Smith downwards, has told us that a larger volume of manufactures and trade means a slower rate of increase. As for saying that our Free Trade policy is suicidal, that we are losing ground and so forth, I will only remind the House of this single fact, that the total tonnage of ships belonging to Great Britain doubled between 1860 and 1900—from 4½ millions to 9¼ millions. What is the use, in face of a fact like that, to remark, as the right hon. Gentleman does in the speech I am quoting, that our policy has been suicidal, and that we are at the end of the growth of our wealth and prosperity? I am the last man to say that I would ascribe to Free Trade all the advance in prosperity we have made. That is due to various causes. But all the other causes would have been nothing if they had been handicapped by Protection. In face of that fact, what is the use of people writing, as I see they do, that Free Trade is a mummy and a fetish? Even in an important morning journal, The Times, as I read to-day, those who do not accept this view that our manufactures and trade are declining and going to the dogs, are described as "people who bring up some mouldy pieces of theory deduced by logic-chopping methods from some circumstances which no longer exist, and from principles which were never at any time of absolute authority." I cannot imagine anything more, futile than language of that kind. We are not logic-chopping. These are not mouldy pieces of theory, but facts which are to be found in your Statistical
994
Abstracts, and Board of Trade Returns. I have heard it read from some journal that the twentieth century is going to paddle its own canoe. If proposals like those we read of this morning, which involve, mind you, preferential duties against foreign countries, and the restoration of the Navigation Laws, are to be adopted—if the twentieth century is going to paddle its canoe in the waters, I am happy to think that most of my life has been spent in the nineteenth century. Are we to be frightened, forsooth, in the City of London—where they know about these things, if they know anywhere on this earth—by pictures of 160,000,000 of glittering golden sovereigns? I find no trace of these 160,000,000 going. What I do find is that 5,000,000 gold and silver export of bullion and specie, no doubt, takes place. But what is the meaning of that? It only means that we are the greatest creditor nation in the world. I am quarrelling with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he has, by his talk, and by his one or two vague phrases, helped to let loose projects of this kind; and I gather he is looking upon them with, at all events, not an unkindly eye.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have said the contrary.
MR JOHN MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has also said the contrary of that. [Hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches: No.] I am sorry to appear to wrangle with the right hon. Gentleman, but when he has said that Free Trade with the colonies, even if it involved some sacrifice, might be desirable, I submit that he has rather warmed into life these sorts of projects. Say what you like, the basis of all these projects is the substitution in this country of colonial products for foreign products. In itself that is desirable enough. But if that is your, object the effects will be these—and if anyone can overthrow these propositions, I hope he will do so—first, that the substitution must mean a rise in the price of most of your raw material; secondly, that the rise in the price of raw material must mean a rise in the cost of manufacture; thirdly, that a rise in the cost of manufactures must,

995
of course, handicap you, and make you less able to hold your own in the neutral markets of the world; fourthly, that it is absurd, unreasonable, and disastrous, to play ducks and drakes with your great trade with foreign countries for the sake of a relatively small trade with the colonies; and fifthly and lastly, that in order to carry out this policy you would have to set up a machinery, in the colonies and elsewhere, of a kind which used to be well known, and which threw a most deadly impediment in the way of trade and commerce. That machinery was the abomination of those days. Moreover, that machinery would not be under your own control, but would be under the control of the colonies themselves, and these colonies would have a large number of men interested in making that machinery ineffective, because it would be their interest to allow foreign produce to slip round through their own borders, and so find its way into this country on colonial terms—that is to say, without duty. The more that is considered, the more will the House and the people outside perceive that these projects have not been clearly thought out.
Then the right hon. Gentleman used the expression that these commercial relations ought to be made freer in order to promote good feelings between the mother country and the colonies. First of all, I would ask how the present relations between the mother country and the colonies—which at this hour are at a pitch of enthusiasm and exaltation that was never reached in our history before—have been brought about. By the very policy of free imports which you are now prepared to trifle with. Are you certain that it is a sure way of promoting better commercial relations between ourselves and the colonies to have a great series of bargains constantly going on, putting the mother country on one side and the colonies on the other as antagonistic parties to a bargain? There are many other points in that issue, but these must needs be handled with the utmost delicacy, kindliness, and, I should add, firmness. I entirely agree with what fell the other day, in a speech out of-doors, from my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary. He said there are circumstances now visible to us that make all men who consider the economic and commercial as well as the social conditions of their country full of anxiety. Very often those who are watching the flow of
996
the tide of economic circumstances do not realise what the process is. I see a great many things in our present commercial position which must cause us the liveliest anxiety and must set us all thinking day and night how this new course of things, new distributions of capital and other economic circumstances, is likely to end. But from them I draw this moral—not to plunge into such reversals of policy as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now inviting us to take.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, I am not.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg pardon, I withdraw that. I mean such a reversal of policy as his policy involves, and such a reversal of policy as undoubtedly is in the minds of many gentlemen around him. In the face of the circumstances I have just mentioned, the right course is not to perform such achievements as that, but to keep your head cool and not to make changes in a policy which has made this country so powerful, so strong, so overmastering in its credit as it is at this time.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—"In page 1, line 16, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. John Morley.)
Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 1 to the word 'mentioned,' in line 18, stand part of the Bill."
MR. EMMOTTsaid in the long debates on the Budget and Finance Bill he had not before troubled the House. That must be his excuse now, as well as the fact that the voice of Old. ham, as hitherto expressed by his hon. friend and colleague, had not been in accordance with his own views, nor, as he believed, with the views of the preponderating majority of the people of Oldham. His hon. friend's position was a somewhat peculiar one. He seemed to approve strongly of the policy of the Government but he disapproved of the expenditure to which that policy gave rise; and, on the other hand, he seemed to welcome with open arms a tax of any sort which the Government proposed. He hoped the efforts of his hon. colleague to cut down the expenditure of this country, might lead to some useful result. Of course he knew that the point was a

997
very difficult one, but there was a point at which expenditure became unproductive. We all desired to ensure the safety of this country, but experts differed so much as to the expenditure that was necessary to secure the safety of this country that it seemed to him that we had to decide for ourselves what expenditure was necessary for our safety, and determine at what point that expenditure became a pressing burden upon the industries of this country. He had said that his hon. colleague did not represent the opinion of the people of Oldham upon this question. Abundant evidence of that had reached him from many quarters of a non-party character, and he believed every great industrial constituency would, at the present time, go strongly against this tax which the Government had proposed if they had the opportunity. He thought the political instinct of their great industrial constituences was sufficiently alert to know the difference between the old shilling duty of 1869, the remnant of a tax which was a grievous burden, and the new duty which was now proposed and put on as a permanent tax, was capable of indefinite expansion, and which might therefore in time become a very grievous burden upon the poorest classes in the land. He thought the political instinct of the great mass of the people of this country was also quite clear as to the people upon whom the burden of this tax would ultimately fall. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken so powerfully to the House said that he did not pose as a political economist.
They had heard a good deal of rather extraordinary political economy in the House during the course of these debates. They had heard it proved that the whole burden of this tax must be ultimately borne by the consumer. On the other hand they had heard it proved to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite that none of the burden of this tax would be borne by the consumers. He had begun to doubt whether political economy in these modern days was of much use to them in the comparatively rough-and-tumble debates in this House. Political economy used to be called a dismal science. It was dismal, because it was, in those days, founded upon the
998
doctrine of pure selfishness. But since the earlier days of political economy they had discovered that other motives than pure selfishness affected man in his economic outlook. Modern political economy was rather an affair of a main stream of tendency met by certain obstructions which caused eddies and crosscurrents which might be very difficult to follow. He often thought that is debating economic questions in this House they were apt to lose the main stream of tendency by watching the course of some of the cross-currents. One of the hon. Members for Glasgow made a very interesting, speech last week which met with and deserved the interest and attention of the House. In the course of that speech he mentioned as a disproof of the statement made that the whole burden of this tax would fall upon the consumer that one railway in America had reduced its charges 2½ cents on flour in order that it might be able "to carry as much flour as before." He did not know the railway, or the circumstances under which this reduction was made, but after all the price of coal was lower and there were other circumstances which tended towards a fall of railway rates at the present time; but unless freights and railway rates generally were reduced he did not think that it would have any important effect upon the cost of corn or flour in this country. It did not appear that any less corn or flour would be consumed, and he believed that the whole of this tax, and probably rather more than its total, would be borne by the consumers of this country. If that were so then this tax was a Protectionist tax; it was a wasteful tax because the consumer would have to pay more than went into the Exchequer; it was a tax which was a dole to one set of farmers and a burden to another set; and a tax which would materially affect the very poorest people of this land.
The whole of this discussion had been complicated, in the first place, by what was said about a Zollverein, and in the second place by what was not said about the tax being merely temporary. We were bound, therefore, to treat this tax as a permanent tax. If any good could be done in the direction of a Zollverein,

999
and if it would produce a powerful effect by drawing the bonds of friendship between this country and the colonies closer together, there might be something to be said for it. But was there any reasonable chance of this tax, as it was now put on, being used for striking one of those bargains between the colonies and, this country which would be likely to draw closer those bonds of friendship which tied them together? Supposing that we did not impose this shilling tax upon wheat from Canada. That might be some advantage to Canada, but it would not be an advantage to Australia, and unless there were some other concession, Australia would be unfairly treated. He thought that infinitely more importance was to be attached to the strong feeling of sentiment which bound the mother country and the colonies together at the present time, and also to the fact that the colonies must see that they made practically no contribution to the Imperial forces, and that this country practically bore the whole burden of the Navy upon its shoulders. If, as he believed, this new tax would be no help as a means of bargaining with the colonies and inducing them to lower their tariffs upon our goods, then he would ask what other means were there which this country could hold out by which they would be able to make an Imperial Zollverein. The House had listened with great interest to, and must acknowledge the great force of, the arguments used by his right hon. friend the Member for Montrose. Our commercial position was one of enormous importance. We were by far the largest exporting country of manufactured goods in the world. In 1901 this country imported £100,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, but we exported in the same year £230,000,000. A great deal of our foreign trade was so very nicely balanced that a fraction might get and keep business and a fraction might lose business. Our greatest export trade was in textile cotton goods. We were still upreme as an exporting country in manufactured cotton goods. Would any statesman, unfit for Bedlam, dare to suggest a tax upon the raw material of cotton? We imported annually £42,000,000 worth of cotton,
1000
and over £41,000,000 worth of that came from foreign countries and less than £1,000,000 from our own possessions. With regard to our trade in manufactured cotton goods, four-fifths of it was export trade, and only about one-fifth of those goods was sold in this country. Who would dream, under those circumstances, of putting an import duty on the raw materials used in this country? That would be a most suicidal and dangerous policy for us to adopt. Was there any inducement for this country to foster colonial trade? Had the colonial trade, during the last twenty or thirty years, grown more quickly than our trade with foreign countries, and would it soon overtop our foreign trade? Our colonial Empire, during that time, had grown enormously, and he did not think colonial tariffs had been raised against the Mother Country, but they had been raised in other countries. During the last thirty years the proportion of trade with the colonies and with foreign countries had practically remained stationary. If they took the figures for periods of five years, they would find that we had imported from the colonies some 21 to 23 per cent. of our total imports, while we had exported to the colonies some 33 to 35 per cent. These figures, during the whole of this time, had remained stationary. There was not, therefore, any large increase of trade with our colonies. We were doing no larger trade with our colonies now than was done by us thirty years ago. Our trade, under the policy of Free Trade, had prospered; and, in his opinion, it would be folly to interfere with a system under which we had benefited so largely, and which he, for one, would be sorry to see done away with.
MR. ELLIOTsaid the debate upon this question had been of a most interesting character, though the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he thought, had had very little to do with the subject before the House. When he considered the figures given by the right hon. Member for Montrose, he felt that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to a great degree was no better. The right hon. Gentleman

1001
had not met the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any way. He had spoken of those who adopted the old-fashioned idea of Protection, and in almost all he had said the right hon. Gentleman had carried him (Mr. Elliot) with him. For his part he would have supposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself might have said "Hear hear" to three-fourths of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He was not ashamed to say that he himself was a Free Trader; but let the House be practical—he was not only a Free Trader, but a Free Trader in want of money, and it was absurd to keep out of sight all the necessities of the occasion for which this Bill was brought in. If they were proposing to take up a loan, it would be easy enough to advance sound arguments against the proposal, but the House had to look at the proposed tax as a whole. They had heard far too little of the other side of the account. Last year we had an expenditure of £212,000,000. That expenditure, being a war expenditure, was no doubt abnormal. But it had been shown that the normal expenditure of the country was greatly growing; and the question was—Were they going to raise the revenue required by the old system of taxation? It was obvious that they could not go on, as they did in the old days, putting a little more on beer and spirits and another penny on the income tax. That had been done in the past, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown that beer and spirits had been taxed up to the very highest limit, and that if we put everything on to the income tax we should have nowhere to look for that reserve fund which we were always told we should have to look for in case of war or difficulty. We dealt with the colonies for the same reason that we dealt with the whole world—because they supplied us with what we wanted; but to suppose it was good business or good patriotism to say we should put difficulties in the way of trade with other countries because the men of those countries could not speak the English tongue, was absurd. In these days of Imperialism there was a good deal of sentiment that was hardly entitled to that name, and when he heard these suggestions—that our trade and commerce were not to be regulated by business
1002
principles, but with an idea of favouring everything that came from our colonies, he could only say that that was not true imperialism. That was not, however, the question which they had to deal with on this occasion. The question with which they had to deal now was how this gigantic sum was to be raised. To put a duty on corn and other matters was not necessarily Protection. He challenged the House to say whether, from the time of Sir Robert Peel down to the present day, it had ever been suggested that to put an import duty on any article for the purposes of revenue only was Protection. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe abolished the registration duty on corn, as everybody knew; but hon. Gentlemen opposite shut their eyes to the fact that when Mr. Gladstone abolished the registration duty he had a surplus of £900,000 which he did not want, and so he gave up the registration duty on corn. But the present duty on corn would bring in £2,500,000, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did want. There had been no suggestions from right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to an alternative way of raising this money. They, apparently, were perfectly contented with a surplus of borrowed money. That was the case which had to be met. His right hon. friend had been accused of imposing a Protective duty, but against that they had the distinct statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the Government, that he did not intend to embark in the policy of Protection, but would always carry out the policy of Free Trade. He had never known the Protectionists in that House lie so low as they had been doing for the past few months, and he thought he could say that when he spoke of Protection the right hon. Member opposite conjured a phantom of a thing that could not exist.
SIR CHARLES DILKEexpressed the belief that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's vague words were responsible for the prolongation of these debates. It was the duty of Members—a duty which they owed to the House, the country, and the Empire—to insist either upon having a clear statement

1003
from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matters with regard to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had asked some questions but received no reply, or upon the Government—and this would be the preferable course—giving the House an opportunity of debating the subjects to be brought before the conferences shortly to be held. The House were in a great difficulty in attempting to discuss those proposals upon the clause under consideration. That clause had been named by Sir Wilfrid Laurier as having an essential bearing upon those proposals; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to speeches, had discussed that bearing at considerable length; and yet it would be clearly out of order to follow into all their ramifications, or even their more obvious difficulties, the considerations to which those speeches naturally gave rise. Therefore, hampered as the House was, and impossible as it was to deny the momentous character of the decisions shortly to be arrived at, he appealed in the strongest terms to the Government to give the House an opportunity, as the colonial Legislatures had already had, of considering these questions. It was little short of monstrous that the country should be committed, as he believed it would be in the course of the next few weeks, to an entire change of fiscal policy, which would extend throughout the Empire—affecting in a marked degree our Indian Empire, the interests of which could not be discussed in the present debate—without Parliament being given an opportunity, such as the colonial Legislatures had had, of discussing the question. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was on the same lines as the speech of Mr. Seddon reported in that day's papers, and he read them as meaning the same thing.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I entirely disagree.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the words of the right hon. Gentleman were—
"In a few weeks we hope there will be a conference of the representatives of the colonies upon this question of colonial preference."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think I said "commercial relations."
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the words as they appeared in The Times were—
"In a few weeks we hope there will be a conference of the representatives of the colonies upon this question of colonial preference, as well as upon other questions affecting the interests of the Empire. … It is our policy to do what we can to make trade between ourselves and our colonies freer. … Cannot we try so to treat the commercial relations between ns that we may make trade freer than it is now, and that without necessarily injuring any foreign country at all? … I do not see why that should necessarily involve increased duties on our part against foreign nations."
Those words pointed exactly to the policy to which Mr. Seddon's speech pointed. The proposals to which Mr. Seddon alluded had apparently been put before the other colonies; the House did not know whether in full they had been accepted by them, but they were proposals which came within the terms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. They were proposals, not for increasing this duty against foreign countries, but for reducing it or taking it off in the case of the colonies. That was consistent with the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he was bound to say that, knowing, as he did, that these proposals of the Australian colonies and New Zealand must have been before the light hon. Gentleman—he must have known of them—
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
SIR CHARLES DILKEwas glad the right hon. Gentleman was not acquainted with the proposals, but the extraordinary coincidence between his words and the proposals made by Mr. Seddon had certainly made him (the speaker) think he was so acquainted. The point he desired to put to the Government was this: The bearing of the grain tax on the interests of India could be considered in the present debate, but the proposed preference within the Empire could not be considered all round. They could not debate, for instance, the effect of a preferential duty on wines. They might point out, but they could not adequately argue the question, that, as regarded this tax, any preference would lead to the American trade coming to this country by way of Canada, and it was impossible to prevent it. In attempting to discuss, on the present occasion, this enormously important question, they would be simply dancing in fetters, and he earnestly

1005
appealed to the Government, on behalf of a large number of Members, that, before they committed the country to the system of preferences foreshadowed in the speeches to which he had referred, they would give the House of Commons an opportunity of considering a subject than which one more worthy of the attention of the House could not be conceived.
MR. SEELYwas in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, in that he had supported the imposition of the duties on sugar and coal, and now objected strongly to the imposition of the corn duty. The hon. Member for Durham, in supporting the tax, had given one of the strongest possible arguments against it. In quoting what happened in the early forties, when a commencement was made in the reduction of taxation, which ended in a complete Free Trade, he said that it was not the amount of the taxes reduced, but the general policy on which the reduction was based, that gave it its great importance. Just so with the present tax. The amount in itself was not serious, but it was the general policy implied by it, and which, if followed, might have serious results, that made its opponents object to the tax. The proposal had been defended on various grounds, but these grounds had varied from time to time, as one after another had been proved to be fallacious or unsound. On the assumption that the tax raised the price of wheat 1s. a quarter, it affected the price of bread by one-eight of a penny on the 4lb. loaf. One-eighth of a penny could not be collected from anyone, so the practical result would be to increase the price of the 4lb. loaf by a halfpenny. If the price of wheat was rising by 1s. a quarter per month, the price of bread would be increased by a halfpenny one month sooner; while, if wheat was going down by 1s. a quarter per month, bread would go down a halfpenny one month later than if there were no tax. To a man with a large family the tax would mean as much as 2d. in the £. on his income. Such a tax, which fell heaviest on those who were least able to bear it, was one which obviously required defending. The first defence was that it would have no effect at all on the price of bread. That defence had been practically abandoned. But the serious objection was not the amount of the burden imposed, but the fact that the
1006
tax was Protective, and that, in addition to the amount actually received by the Exchequer, there was a further amount which went to other people in the country. That had been denied, but let the House consider the effect of the tax in its working. The price of wheat in the local markets was regulated by the price of foreign wheat, and that was made up of two parts—the price of the wheat in harbour, and the cost of the carriage from the harbour to the local markets. The price of the wheat in harbour was the price that had to be paid to obtain in the English harbours the quantity required by the people. The tax had not altered that price one jot or tittle; it had not altered the cost of growing wheat abroad, or the cost of bringing it to England, and, according to those who said it was not protective, it would not affect the production of wheat in this country. The tax, therefore, would not affect any of the circumstances which regulated the supply of corn or the demand for corn in the ports, so that the price in harbour would remain the same as before. But 1s. was added to the cost of bringing that corn to the local markets, so that 1s. was added to the price of corn in those markets, and the price of grain throughout the country was raised. In the eyes of some people that rise of 1s. was not an absolutely fatal objection to the tax, but it was a very grave objection, and, in his opinion, it made it the worst possible way of raising the money required.
What was the second defence? That this was a war tax and that the Government wished to make every person in the country feel the pressure, and that everyone would be willing to pay. He did not deny the desirability of that element in taxation, but he did say that this was the worst tax they could have from that point of view. The war was over, and therefore this was no longer a war tax, but it was a tax which was necessary, to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for permanently broadening our basis of taxation. He was one of those who sat at the feet of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire when they preached the necessity for economy in the finances of this country. He did say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was it wise in the

1007
interests of economy to begin a series of taxes which would put them, in the position of having large numbers of people in the country who were in favour of maintaining taxation at its present level. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware at the present moment of the truth of what he was saying. He had received resolutions from gentlemen actually thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for imposing this duty. Who ever thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for putting another 1d. on the income, tax, or who ever thanked him for imposing such taxes as they had had of late years? When they got people thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for imposing taxation, it meant that they had a number of people who were interested in the tax. There were many hon. Members who had supported this tax with the idea that it would be felt by the people of this country, and because they thought it was desirable that the people should feel the pressure of taxation. He appealed to them, however, to remember this fact, that the very poor would feel it, and the people who would feel it the most would be those whose influence upon political questions was the very least. They had a large number of persons who were personally interested in the maintenance of taxation. In other countries it had been found that great trouble in reducing expenditure was caused by the existence of large numbers of people who, being interested in a portion of the taxation, found that it was to their interest to increase and maintain expenditure lest that portion of the taxation should be reduced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that one of the most serious things he had experienced at the end of the war, was that the feeling of the country had been not how he should reduce expenditure, or how he should retrench, but how he should spend the money. That was to his mind a grave situation. It was a situation on the gravity of which this tax had seriously increased, and the maintenance of this tax as a permanent one—and still more if it was followed by the imposition of other taxes of a similar character—must make that situation
1008
still worse. He did not wish to exaggerate or to imply that in any way he doubted the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that he was a free trader, and when he said that, nothing was farther from his mind than to allow this country to be dragged into the old bad system of taxation. He did say, however, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had been unfortunate in the policy he had adopted, and he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had been misled by the inquiries he had made as to the effect of taking off the tax, because it had no effect upon the price. The effect upon the price was produced at the time when the Budget was introduced, and that had something to do with the right hon. Gentleman yielding to the pressure which had been brought to bear in the country, in favour of the re-imposition of this tax. He hoped that if it were impossible for this tax to be removed this year, that when they came to discuss the finances of the country next year, and in the future, they would not be hampered in the most serious duty which this House had to perform, that of diminishing and supervising the enormous expenditure of the country in face of the opposition of a large number of people who were interested in maintaining that expenditure. He should support the Resolution which had been moved.
MR. HOLLANDsaid he was glad to have the opportunity of supporting the proposition made by the right hon Gentleman the Member for Montrose. He demurred some what to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Durham, who said that this particular tax which they were now considering was one of very great importance and necessity to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He submitted that if this tax were necessary a few weeks ago, the improved political conditions in which the country now happily found itself had taken away the urgency which prevailed before. He held that the yield of this tax, substantial as it was, was nevertheless infinitesimal in comparison with the vast and far-reaching consequences which it would

1009
be likely to bring in its train in the shape of the upheaval and reversal of our whole fiscal system. He felt grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose for having dealt with this subject in an important speech that afternoon. He hoped that one effect of that speech would be to steady the public opinion of the country in regard to its fiscal policy and make it still more resolved not to let go that sheet anchor of Free Trade which had done so much to build up the commercial prosperity of this nation.
He confessed that he had a very strong feeling of sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expressed his desire to promote the closer commercial relations of the mother country with the Colonies on the basis of Free Trade, but he thought that was much more of a theoretical than a practical question. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would stick firmly to this theory, he felt sure that he would receive a large measure of support from the Opposition side of the House. There was something they might do to improve their commercial relations with the Colonies, and that was to do all they could to study their requirements and their respective markets, and the Colonies in return should do all they could to study the requirements of the home market. He thought a study of that nature would promote good feeling and increase the volume of commercial transactions passing to and fro between the mother country and the Colonies. They should see to it that if they had more Free Trade within the Empire it should not be at the expense of a diminution of the Free Trade which they enjoyed without the Empire. He agreed with some speakers who had preceded him as to the great importance of keeping their minds open with regard to some of the proposals which would be considered by the Colonial Premiers during the next few weeks, but in return for that he thought they might reason ably ask that a full opportunity should be given to them later on of discussing whatever proposals were the outcome of the conference with the Colonial Premiers, when they had reached a definite and concrete form.
1010
He therefore, most strongly supported the appeal made by the right hon. baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and he trusted the House would have a full and adequate opportunity of dealing with this question in detail. The views of their Colonies were entitled to their deepest respect, but the colonial representatives, he thought, would cordially concede that the views of the United Kingdom were similarly entitled to every consideration. There was another class on whose behalf he wished to put in a pica. He thought that the traders of this country should have an opportunity of expressing their views on any such proposals. That was done in 1896 when there was an Imperial Congress of Chambers of Commerce assembled in this city, and he recollected that this question of an Imperial Zollverein was very fully debated. At that time the proposal had the powerful advocacy of the Colonial Secretary, but when it came to be carefully examined at the hands of practical traders the result was that it was seen that it bristled with so many fatal and insuperable objections that the original proposal which seemed so plausible at the outset was in the end entirely dropped, and quite an innocuous one was passed in its stead. What was one of the considerations which convinced those business men of the impracticable character of this proposal? One of the considerations was that if we began to differentiate in favour of one part of the world we should have to differentiate against another part of the world, and if we differentiated against foreign nations from whom we got raw materials, it would handicap our own industries and prevent them being carried on in a satisfactory manner, and make it quite impossible for us in the future to hold that commanding position in the great neutral markets of the world which this country had up to the present held. This would be a fatal objection, particularly in regard to the cotton trade, but other trades would be similarly affected. If they began to impose a duty on iron ore, coming from Spain or elsewhere outside the Empire, the iron trade would be hopelessly handicapped, and it would become impossible for the iron and steel trades to be carried on. In another

1011
respect also we should at once find ourselves face to face with a serious position if we began to discriminate against foreign nations, for we should lose the advantage of the "most favoured nation" condition which hitherto we had enjoyed. If we discriminated in favour of tea from India and Ceylon, we should be ipso facto discriminating against tea from China. A commission had been sent to China to try to negotiate a new commercial treaty with that great empire from which we expected so much, and it was clear that an insuperable difficulty would be imposed in the way of Sir James McKay, who had charge of that commission, and he would undoubtedly not have so good a chance of concluding a satisfactory arrangement if we were to discriminate against China in this matter. It was clear to the House, he thought, that if a war of tariffs were to result many of our producers must be seriously penalised, and if they were to penalise production then employment in this country would be proportionately diminished. He did not think a movement in that direction would tend to consolidate the Empire or increase the good feeling between the colonies and the mother country which they were all anxious to promote.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he did not quite understand the apprehensions which hon. Gentlemen opposite, or some of them, seemed to feel on the point on which they had laid so much stress this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean made an earnest appeal to the Government, and he was supported by other speakers, that no great change in the fiscal policy of this country should be allowed to take place without opportunities of discussion being afforded in Parliament. Surely such an appeal was altogether unnecessary and beside the mark. Was it conceivable for a moment that a great change of that kind could ever take place without Parliament being heard with regard to it? The right hon. Gentlemen opposite could command an opportunity whenever they pleased, and assuming that there was such a change contemplated by His Majesty's Government he was quite certain
1012
they would be ready to afford opportunity for discussion. He was glad to hear from his speech that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs was actuated by no party motives whatever. Hitherto this corn tax had been known and described in the House of Commons and the country as the registration duty on corn, but owing to the publicity given to it in these debates it would be known in future as the Peel shilling duty on corn. When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen denounced it in the relentless, and almost savage, manner they had done during these debates he thought they did injustice to the memory and the traditions of the great man who was first responsible for the tax, who introduced it into Parliament, and who maintained it during the rest of his career.
The hon. Member for Lincoln had denounced the tax as the worst tax introduced at the worst possible time. With great respect to his hon. friend, he thought it was exactly the opposite. It was one of the best taxes that could be introduced, for this reason. It raised a large revenue, which could not be obtained by any other means with less disturbance to trade and less injury to any single class of the community than by this tax. The hon. Member said, what on this side of the House they, had always denied, that it would have a permanent effect in increasing the price of the food of the very poorest people in the country. They heard a great deal on that subject on the last occasion when this question was discussed, and he should like to say one parting word on that point before this debate closed, as to the cardinal fallacy which, in his opinion, underlay the whole of the argument, when it was said that the rise in the price of grain was due to the imposition of this duty. Really, one would think that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, were of opinion that taxation was the only factor which affected the question of the rise of price. Member after Member had got up and drawn pictures of the bitter suffering—the word starvation had frequently been used—which would be brought on the very poorest of the poor by the imposition of this tax. He

1013
had hoped that the condition of the poorest classes in those days was considerably better than it undoubtedly was in years gone by. Whether he was right or wrong on that point, he maintained, and he was ready to demonstrate, that it was due not to the 1s. duty but to other causes altogether. At the very commencement of these debates he reminded the House of the fluctuations which were for ever occurring in the price of wheat. There had been a very striking proof of this since the duty was imposed, and the mere statement of the fact was a conclusive answer to all the lucubrations of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the effect of the 1s. duty. He should like to know how many hon. Gentlemen in the House were aware of what had occurred as to the course of the prices of wheat since the Budget was introduced. He had taken the trouble to obtain figures on the subject from a very authoritative source—the Board of Agriculture—up to a short time ago, and he thought it would be extremely interesting for the House, as they had not been quoted before, to know what they were. On March 1—a fortnight before the introduction of the Budget—the price of wheat was 27s. 1d. per quarter; on March 8, 27s.; on March 15, 27s. 1d.; on March 22, 27s. 1d.; on March 29, 27s. 2d.; on April 5, 27s. 3d.; on April 12, 27s. 5d., and on April 19, 27s. 7d. That was to say that in the five or six weeks after the Budget statement was made wheat varied in price exactly to the extent of 6d. On April 26 it rose to 28s. 9d.; on May 3 to 29s. 9d,; on May 10 to 30s. 9d.; on May 17 to 31s. 1d.; and on May 24 to 31s. 6d. What did that mean? That was a rise of nearly 5s. per quarter since a fortnight before the time that the Budget was introduced. That in itself, quite irrespective of the shilling duty, was more than sufficient to account for all the rise that had occurred in the price of bread. He should like to say to the Committee that all this was foreseen by the authorities in the corn trade. He had received the following letter, dated April 21, from one of the highest authorities engaged in the corn trade in London. He did not give his name—
1014
only for this reason, that he had not asked his permission to do so—but it was as follows—
"It is most unfortunate that at the same time as the Ministry issued the Budget with the taxation on grain and flour the Americans found that the red winter wheat crop, which is the largest in the United States, was considerably damaged, and a rise in price consequently followed; this will undoubtedly be taken advantage of by the opponents of the Ministry to say that dearer bread is caused by the new taxation, whereas it is the outcome of higher foreign markets on poor crop reports."
He quoted that to show what was the opinion among business men with regard to the effect of the shilling duty. His correspondent turned out to be a true prophet in two respects—first of all the attitude which would be taken by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House and, secondly, in regard to the course of the price of wheat. There was something else equally true which he wished to press on the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He found that there, were innumerable markets in the country where wheat was quoted at from 32s. to 35s. per quarter. But 35s. per quarter was a price for wheat which in these days was entirely abnormal. He should say that taking one year with another 25s. or 26s. was more like the average figure. It was as certain as anything could be that the price would very shortly change, and that there would be a very considerable fall before many months were over—a larger fall, indeed, than the rise of 5s., which, he supposed, even the most determined opponents of this tax would not attribute to the shilling duty. He was very confident that that would show once for all the value of the statements urged from the other side of the House as to the misery and starvation which was going to fall on the poorer classes of this country entirely in consequence of the imposition of this shilling duty.
A single illustration would show the absurdity of the whole charge. It so happened that the day after the clause imposing the duty passed through Committee he came across two passages in two London papers. One was from a leading article in the Daily News and the other was from an article in The Times, on the price of wheat. The article in the Daily News was headed, "The

1015
Wolf at the Door," and it ran in this fashion—
"The bread tax has been closured through the Committee stage, and the country is a step nearer the dark days of dear bread and protection which we had hoped had gone for ever."
He then turned to The Times, and the first thing he came across in that journal was the quotation of the price of wheat in Salisbury market—
"English wheat is another shilling per quarter down."
And
"English wheat has lost another shilling per quarter."
At all events, wheat had fallen in price 2s. per quarter, or double the amount of the tax. He did not think that anything could show more completely the absurdity of the denunciations, which had been levelled against this tax in and out of Parliament than these two quotations from two different papers on the same day. Unless the whole position changed in regard to the price of wheat in this country, he believed that in a very few months there would be a considerable fall in the price of that grain. What a commentary that would be on the statements of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the misery that was to befal the poor through the imposition of this shilling corn tax. He supported the tax, not because it was a question of Protection, but because he believed it to be the best, the simplest and easiest mode of raising what was stated to be a necessary revenue, and which would, at the same time, inflict the least possible harm on any class of the community. He did not often indulge in prophecy, but he ventured to predict that the day was not far distant when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House would be only too anxious to forget what they had said from the very beginning in regard to this question.
MR. CAINEsaid that it was not expected that the debate that afternoon would turn on the question of Free Trade or a Zollverein embracing the Colonies. There was a good old proverb which stated that coming events cast their shadows before, and he thought there was some reason
1016
to believe that the shadow of a Zollverein, accompanied by Protection, was approaching. There was an imposing structure of timber and straw in the street leading to the House with the motto upon it, "Canada, the Granary of the Empire." That was clearly an indication of the belief in Canada that America was in the future to be cut off from supplying us with food stuffs in favour of Canada. Now, we got, comparatively speaking, no manufactures from the Colonies, and if we were to have any reciprocity at all between them and ourselves, we must put on duties on the raw materials and food imported from foreign countries. But cheap food and cheap raw materials had been the basis of the prosperity of this country during the last century, and why should we seek to check that by imposing import duties on raw materials and food from foreign countries, such as the United States, which were developing their great natural resources with enterprise and spirit, and give a preference to the imports from the Colonies? If we had reciprocity with the Colonies we should have to put a duty on wool imported from Morocco, from South Africa, from Cashmere and from the Argentine. If import duties were to be paid on the wool from all those countries, he believed that the great woollen manufacturing industry of Yorkshire would wither, for it was necessary that the spinners and weavers of Yorkshire should be able to buy their raw material—their wool of every different quality—from all parts of the world. Then take the steel industry, in which he was interested—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is going too far in following that line of argument in connection with the Motion before the House.
MR. CAINEacknowledged that according to the forms of the House he might be considered out of order, and therefore he would obey Mr. Speaker's ruling and would not pursue this matter further. He expressed the hope, however, that the House might have an opportunity of discussing this question at some length on a future occasion. It was idle to doubt that this particular

1017
Clause was encouraging the distinguished representatives of the Colonies who were coming to England for the Coronation, in the belief that some sort of Zollverein, some sort of arrangement with the Colonies for differential duties was in the air. It was most unfair that the House should have to depend on casual debates of this kind in order to get some information. He trusted that the Government would seriously consider the appeal made to them from that side of the House for an opportunity to have a proper discussion on this question. The Speaker might even allow the adjournment of the House to be moved in order to debate it.
SIR MARK STEWART, said that he had had no communications, no private letters, no insinuations of any sort from his constituents against this corn tax which the Government were imposing. He believed that the tax was based on justice, and he looked upon the long, dreary, and shallow debates upon it as mere waste of time. Since the debate had been inaugurated there had been a very small and listless attendance. Nobody had been present except the professional politicians, who looked upon the tax as a change in the fiscal system of the country. It was nothing of the kind. They had already heard ad nauseam that when the Liberal Party were in power and had a surplus of £900,000, and therefore had a chance of abolishing the duty, which was then regarded as only a registration duty, they did not do so. Now, on the present occasion, there was no surplus. Borrowed money was not a surplus, although it might be so in the eyes of the professional politicians opposite. [Loud cries from the Opposition Benches of "Who are they?" "Name, name."] He did not require to name them; they were too well known. He thought it was somewhat hard that so much had been said about the Zollverein before the proposition had been considered by the colonial representatives; but he had no objection if the Government would give a future day to discuss the matter. He should be delighted to have a freer trade with the Colonies than with the rest of the world; but he did not sec how that could be brought about
1018
quite as easily as some hon. Gentlemen imagined. The Government did not look upon this corn tax as a return to Protection: it was only a revenue duty. He, with the Government, was perfectly convinced that it would not raise the price of bread. In Glasgow, the second city in the Empire, there had been no rise in the price of bread, although there had been a slight rise in the price of feeding stuffs, which was due to a temporary panic.
MR. McKENNAcommented on the fact that the hon. Member who had just sat down had commenced his speech with the statement that he had had no representations from his constituents. The hon. Member having said that had proceeded to inform the House that his constituents thought this tax was not protective; that it did not affect the price of bread; and that the shallow debates on this subject in this House were a waste of time. Having regard to the admission made in the opening of his speech, he (Mr. McKenna) was inclined to think the views expressed were not the views of his constituents, but of the hon. Member himself. With regard to this tax, he desired to draw attention to what took place in October 1900. The month of October 1900, was an important date, because at that time a General Election was in progress, and the speeches made at that time laid down the policy of the Government during their tenure of office. There was one speech to which he would like to refer. In a speech made in the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"We must remember that our great imports from our Colonies were raw material and food, and to suppose that after fifty years experience of what the freedom from taxation of raw material and food mean, this country will deliberately resort to a system of taxing raw material and foods from foreign countries is to my mind an absolute impossibility."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I know where the hon. Gentleman has got that from. It is from one of those veracious pamphlets circulated by the Financial Reform Association; and the obvious meaning of that speech from which he has read that short quotation is this. What I was alluding to was the old system of Protection which existed fifty

1019
years ago. This tax fifty years ago was imposed by Sir Robert Peel when he abolished Protection, and it was maintained for twenty years, and was only abolished thirty years ago. Therefore it is perfectly obvious that, when I spoke of fifty years of experience of what freedom from taxation of imports of raw material and food meant, I could not possibly have alluded to this tax.
MR. McKENNAsaid it was, of course, perfectly obvious that this proposal of 1s. a quarter on wheat, was very much less than the imposition on food at the time when the principle of Free Trade was adopted, but it was never-the-less true that not only those who sat on the Liberal side of the House, but he believed the country as well, understood that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office in 1900, his policy was the policy of Free Trade; that he would maintain Free Trade; and that he would resist any taxation on the staple food of the country. The defence made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this particular tax, that thirty years ago that tax was taken off by another Chancellor of the Exchequer, was no ground for his reimposing it. There were a few figures which he wished to lay before the House. The House had been told so often that we had been losing ground owing to the competition of our rivals; that we must widen the bases of taxation and that we must protect our manufacturers, that he made no apology for the figures he was about to give to show how disastrous would be Protection on our foreign trade. The figures he proposed to quote were the figures of the foreign trade of the United States of America and of this country. He proposed to compare the year 1840, which was before Free Trade was introduced into this country, with the figures of 1900, which was almost the last year before, as he was afraid, we were going back to the policy of Protection. The House would bear in mind that in comparing the figures of the trade of two countries, the amount of trade per head was the only true comparison that could be made, and the House would also remember that the population of the United States of America is nearly
1020
twice that of the United Kingdom. In 1840 the foreign trade of the United States of America per head was £2 8s., and that of the United Kingdom £4 5s.; in 1900 the trade of the United States of America per head was £6 5s. 8d., and that of the United Kingdom £19 5s. 10d. In sixty years, therefore, the trade of the United States of America per head had increased by £3 17s. 8d., whilst that of the United Kingdom had increased by £15. Those were remarkable figures to illustrate how we had prospered when we had left our manufacturers free, and when we did not indulge in a system of protection. The figures of the shipping trade were even more remarkable. In 1860 the United States of America's estimated tonnage of sea-going shipping was 2,380,000; in 1901 it was 880,000, so that it had been reduced to a little more than one-third. The figures for the United Kingdom were 4,660,000 in 1860, and 9,300,000 in 1900, so that that part of our trade which gave us our great invisible exports had doubled. That was another example of the benefit of Free Trade.
Now, the House had been told that this tax was not Protection, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury put forward an interesting argument in support of that view on the Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman argued that this was not Protection, because the essential of a protective tax was that it should protect, and he asked, did anyone suggest that this tax would result in keeping out of the country one quarter of foreign corn, or that it would result in putting one acre under corn that was not already under it? But that definition of protection was not the right definition. A Protective tax was one that protected the seller of goods in this country against the consumer; a tax which enabled the seller to get a higher price, from the consumer. That the seller should be able to get a higher price it was usually necessary to keep foreign goods out of the country, but that was not essential. If by this tax the producer of corn in this country was protected against the consumer then it was a protective tax. There could be no doubt that the effect of this tax would, and must be, to raise the price of corn in this country. The

1021
right hon. Member for Sleaford had given some interesting figures to show that the price of corn fluctuated from other causes besides taxation; nobody disputed that. But if a tax of 1s. were put upon corn, it would not fall so low by 1s. as it would if the tax were not put on; and if a tax of 1s. were put on, it would go higher by a 1s. than it otherwise would if there were no tax.
The hon. Baronet who had spoken last had talked of the House having voted Supply, and having committed itself to raising the taxation, and of its now being unwilling to meet the expenditure except out of borrowed money. That attack was hardly a fair one to make against the Liberal side of the House. For his own part, he would have preferred to have seen an extra penny on the income tax rather than this 1s. on corn. The income tax was now 1s. 3d. in the pound, and that was looked upon as a very large amount; but only on Monday last an award was given in the case of the arbitration of the North Country miners, which reduced their wages by 10 per cent. That amounted, so far as they were concerned, to an income tax of 1s. 3d., but they did not grumble. We had been rightly described as the richest country in the world, and he submitted that the richest people in the country could better afford to pay an extra penny on the income tax than the poorest of the poor could afford to pay this 1s. corn tax.
This was not a case of getting a necessary contribution from the masses of the people in order to meet the expenditure of the war, and the people who were asked to pay it were people who had to pay, not out of their comforts, not out of a reduction of their luxuries, but out of their food supply, which they could not spare. We were imposing on these people—one quarter of the population of Great Britain—a tax which they could only pay by having insufficient food.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the figures given by the right hon. Member for Sleaford but he had omitted to point out one thing which he should have
1022
pointed out, which was that all the fluctuations dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman were rising and not falling fluctuations.
MR. CHAPLINsaid that was exactly the opposite of what he had pointed out with regard to the fluctuations referred to. In support of this argument he had given two specific cases of falling fluctuations.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had then proceeded to prophesy, and had ended his prophecy by saying that in a few months there would be a considerable reduction in the price of corn. But the right hon. Gentleman gave no figures upon which to base that prophecy.
MR. CHAPLINpointed out that he had said the 35s. in these days was an abnormally high price for wheat.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had also forgotten that this tax not only involved the 1s. which would go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but other charges from which he would derive no benefit, but which the people would have to pay. If the omission of this clause had reference only to a technical matter, he should not have ventured to have intervened in the debate; but there were two questions involved upon which he would like to say a few words. First of all, was this taxation necessary? Having regard to the statement made that the surplus at this time was due to borrowed money, he thought there was some necessity for further taxation, but, in his opinion, though there should be some taxation to pay off the cost of the war, it ought not to be taxation on the food of the people of this country. What he objected to in this proposal was that the tax which was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a tax on the food-stuffs of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the pamphlet issued by the Financial Reform Association, but there were other words also in that pamphlet which were àpropos to the debate and to this question. The right hon. Gentleman said at that

1023
meeting it had not been his fate to inaugurate some great fiscal change. The power which had been granted to the Government was given for a very different purpose, and if any such fiscal change as this were going to be introduced, if this reform was going to be made at the conference of Colonial Premiers soon to take place, he ventured to say before this change was made it was the duty of the Government, before the convention or the treaty was ratified by the Government, to refer it to the House. And in strict justice it ought to be referred to the country. He did not suppose for a moment that the Government would appeal to the country on any fiscal arrangement agreed to by the Government with the Colonial Premiers, but no such change ought to take place before the House had tested the arguments. He objected to the payment by the working classes of this new duty on corn. It had been said that laying a tax upon corn would bring home to the people their responsibility for their share in the war. But there was no difference between this and a tax on tea or tobacco with regard to bringing home the responsibility. The difference was that the one article was a necessary, and the others were only luxuries. The real argument that must be used in support of the tax was that, inasmuch as the population increased automatically every year, the increase of the consumption of corn must keep up with the increase of the nation, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, whoever he might be, slowly but surely got an increased amount into the Treasury from the tax, because it was impossible for anyone not to evade it by not consuming the particular article taxed. A great number of people in this country were teetotalers, and the taxation on wine, beer, and spirits was evaded by them; many did not smoke, and consequently did not pay the tax on tobacco; but that was not so in this odious tax, for odious he considered it—everybody must pay this. When this registration tax was in operation before, it only cost the people 9d. a head, now it was going to cost 1s. 7d., and when that was added to the cost of the sugar duty, it would be
1024
found that the two together were equivalent to a poll tax of 5s. And all this was done, as was stated by the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington, in order that the people might feel their responsibility by a personal sacrifice. But the personal sacrifice demanded from the people was ten or twenty times as much as the noble Lord wished to pay himself. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that this was partly a war tax and partly a permanent tax. The right hon. Gentleman had gone down to Bristol, and had told the people that he proposed to charge a large portion of the cost of this war to the Transvaal, but only a few days ago he had told the House that a large part of the borrowed surplus was to be devoted to the temporary advantage of the Transvaal.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: What I say is, some of it may be temporarily used for the purpose of rebuilding and restocking farms in the Transvaal and purposes of that kind, until a Transvaal guaranteed loan can be raised.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid it appeared that this war tax was to be found by the people of this country. He ventured to say it would have been more honest on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had told the people of Bristol, and, through them, the people of the country, that he was prepared to tax their food in order to leave the resources of the Transvaal untouched until some distant day. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of putting this war tax on the people, should have laid some greater burden on the great accumulations of capital in this country, which amounted to no less than £15,000,000 of income a year, and accumulated annually nearly £200,000,000 of capital. What we wanted in this country to break up the congested districts was cheap and wholesome food, but this tax would to some extent make it more difficult to obtain that food. In this respect the Government were making taxation synonymous with privation, and that was a course of political and financial conduct against which he entered his most earnest protest.
MR. ASQUITH: This tax has now been debated on several occasions, but, speaking for myself as to the impression made in my own mind, I must confess that the longer it is debated the more dense is the cloud of obscurity which hangs around it, and the more difficult it is to understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues to press it. The case of necessity, such as it was, which was presented on the introduction of the Budget—not, as many of us thought at the time, a very convincing or even plausible case—has entirely disappeared, and the House is at this moment, I venture to say, absolutely in the dark as to the destination of the proceeds of this tax. We may hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able, as he indicated a few nights ago, by means of this tax to reinstate the Sinking Fund, and to begin again the process of repaying the debt. We may hope that; but we may also fear—and to my mind the fear is just as well founded as the hope—that the proceeds of this tax will be intercepted from any such innocuous purpose, and that, in view of the dilatory and ambiguous statements of the Government as to the final form which the Education Bill is to take, they may be diverted in the direction of relieving the rates and financing the denominational schools. I venture to say that the House of Commons in a matter of this kind ought not to be left a prey cither to hopes or to fears. It ought to have certain knowledge; but at this moment, when we are at the Report stage of the Bill, all that we actually know is that the proceeds of this tax are going to be collected and thrown without label or ear mark into the National Exchequer, to be applied to some unspecified and indefinable purpose; and the only safeguard we have is the good intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Quite apart from the merits of the tax, that state of ignorance as to its ultimate appropriation is amply sufficient to justify our opposition to this clause.
But what are the merits of the case? I do not want to go over again the ground so frequently traversed, and necessarily traversed, in the course of the debates; but many things which at the beginning of the discussion were
1026
matters of controversy, are now common ground of general agreement. I say that this tax—and I do not think I shall state in the two or three propositions I am about to lay down anything which is fairly disputable as regards some of the articles enumerated in the schedule, and to which it is to be applied, is obviously and undeniably a tax on the first necessaries of life, and as regards other articles enumerated in the schedule, it is a tax on the raw material of important manufactures. I say again that, as regards some of the articles, not all, it is true,—not maize, not rice—but certainly as regards wheat and flour, it is either admittedly or demonstratively a Protective tax. As regards flour, we had an admission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in the debate the other night on the proposition of my hon. friend the Member for Devonport to reduce the duty on flour from 5d. to 4d., that the foreign manufacturer as Compared with the home manufacturer would be at a disadvantage—that, in fact, this duty on flour, in the form and at the figure in the schedule, is a Protective duty to the extent of 20 per cent. in favour of the home producer as against the foreign producer. I say these are propositions which cannot be disputed.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do dispute them.
MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman may have changed his mind.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No; I deny that it is a Protective tax to the extent of 20 per cent.
MR. ASQUITH: Of course, I do not mean to commit the right hon. Gentleman to the 20 per cent.; that is my own inference; but he did admit that the foreign manufacturer, as compared with the home manufacturer, would be at a disadvantage, and that is quite sufficient for the purposes of my argument.
Then, Sir, this tax, which possesses the characteristics I have described, is a tax which, upon the highest estimate, is going to produce a relatively insignificant sum for the purposes of the Exchequer, and which, owing to the reductions which

1027
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, and very properly made, in the figures of the schedule, will yield a still more unimportant sum than appeared when the Budget was originally introduced. So that you have got, to sum up, a tax partly on raw material, partly on food, as to some of its features Protective in its incidence, producing a relatively small amount, proposed for no ostensible reason, and put forward in circumstances not of necessity or even of urgency. In these circumstances is it not natural and legitimate that we should suspect that there is over and above the actual exigencies of the hour, some ulterior fiscal purpose?
Two reasons have been suggested in the course of these discussions to account for what, otherwise, I must again say, is to me the absolutely inexplicable conduct of the Government. The first is, and this is the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is desirable to broaden the basis of taxation, and that the imposition—or, as he calls it, the revival—of this duty on corn, is one of the means of carrying out that object. I will go any length with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he cannot state it too strongly or too clearly for me—I will go any length with him in acknowledging the doctrine that all classes of the community, who are ultimately responsible for the policy of the country—and policy as we know governs expenditure—ought to contribute their share to the general cost of that for which they are responsible. I will not go into an inquiry, because it would not be relevant to this clause, as to whether, in point of fact, the balance as between direct and indirect taxation, is at this moment evenly adjusted. A great deal might be said on that point, and it must not be assumed from what I am about to say, that I admit for a moment that the adjustment is unduly in favour of the payer of indirect taxation. But let me assume that it is necessary, as a matter of fiscal equity, and in order to support this doctrine of popular responsibility, to increase the proceeds of indrect taxation. I say, even on that assumption, that the tax now proposed, and which the House is, in this clause, asked to sanction, is an absolutely indefensible tax. And why? It offends against the elementary
1028
canons of indirect taxation, and in two distinct ways. In the first place, because it is a tax on an indispensable and primary article of universal consumption; and in the second place, because, whether you intend it or not, it gives protection to the home as distinguished from the foreign producer, with the necessary consequence that more money is taken out of the pocket of the consumer than ultimately reaches the Exchequer. We have a great many indirect taxes; the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has added to their number both last year and the year before by placing duties on sugar and coal, but there is not one of them which is exposed to these two objections which, in my judgment, are fatal to the tax which is now under consideration, I do not pretend that the analogy is an exact one, but it is an analogy which is sufficiently relevant to be used for the purpose of argument. Take the case of the income tax. You exempt, and rightly exempt, from liability to income tax, incomes which are below a certain amount. And on what principle? On the principle, I think, that it is the irreducible minimum of expenditure for persons in that class of life, and, therefore, not a fit subject for taxation, by the State. Apply the same principle to the consumer, the person who pays indirect taxation. I say that there again there is an irreducible minimum which you ought not to tax, and that minimum is represented by the bread which no family can do without, which is the staple food of the people. Therefore, even if I agreed with the assumption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I have assented to for argumentative purposes, that it was necessary in order to do fiscal justice to broaden the basis of indirect taxation I should say you are here offending against the principles you have hitherto recognised and flying in the face of the practice which you yourselves adopt in dealing with direct taxation.
But, Sir, I pass from that, and I will come to what I may call the second ulterior reason suggested for this tax which, as I have said, cannot be justified by the necessities of the time, and that reason is that it is or may be the first step towards the introduction within the Empire of some form of preferential or discriminating tariff. I do not intend to travel into any

1029
part of this large and very controversial area which is not distinctly relevant to the proposal now before us. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, I know, denies that he had any such intention when he proposed the tax, and I think the other night, in sufficiently unambiguous language, he disclaimed that he had any such purpose in the retention of the tax, but in making that disclaimer he professed a great desire for the establishment of what is called free trade within the Empire. I suppose we should all like to see free trade within the Empire. The best example of that that I know of, and it is a most encouraging one for those who are disposed to make such an experiment, is to be found in a country which is often, but very wrongly, cited as a country whose commercial prosperity is due to Protection—I mean the United States. The prescience of the founders of the American constitution enabled them to see that the best possible chance of industrial and commercial prosperity for the new federation was absolutely to prohibit internal import duties as between State and State. It is in the fact that you have there a vast area of territory, containing almost every variety of climate and natural resource and over which there is absolutely unrestricted free trade, that you find the cause to which is due more than to any other the commercial prosperity and industrial supremacy, as it is rapidly becoming, of the United States. If we were in that happy position, and our Empire consisted of one contiguous area, enclosed within a geographical ring-fence, we might adopt the same plan and have free trade within its boundaries. But our Empire is not of that character. When we gave responsible government to our colonies—responsible government which many of our statesmen fifty years ago thought to be synonymous with separation—we gave them at the same time fiscal freedom. I think we were perfectly right to do so. We lost our colonies in the eighteenth century because we wished to tax them according to our own ideas; and we should very likely have lost our colonies in the nineteenth century if we had not allowed them freedom to tax themselves in their own way. Having regard to the facts, free trade within the Empire appears to me to be an ideal most
1030
desirable in itself, which it would be very difficult, if not impossible, I to attain. But free trade is one thing and the proposition of preferential or discriminating duties is a totally different thing. I accept gladly the right hon. Gentleman's disclaimer on this subject. But the proposition of this tax which the House is invited in this clause to sanction will take away from the Colonial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or whoever is going to meet the colonial delegates in friendly conference, the argument which otherwise they might have used with unanswerable effect. It is now impossible to say, in answer to any proposal which may be made. "We are wedded to a free trade policy in this country. There is not a tax which is not levied for revenue purposes alone; and we cannot upset our fiscal system for any contingent benefits." You cannot say that now.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Why not?
MR. ASQUITH: What have you to say to the Canadian exporter of wheat or flour? This tax discriminates against him and in favour of the home producer. The only answer you could make is to deny my premisses and to say that the tax is not Protective at all. But given my premisses, I say that you have no answer to the Canadian who says, "Yours is not a free trade system. It has ceased to be a free trade system, and you are actually discriminating, not against the foreigner only, but against your colonists and fellow subjects."
That, to my mind, is a very serious state of things, The fact that you have deprived yourself of an unanswerable argument, and have handed over to the advocate of Colonial Protection an argument which he never had before, is enough of itself to condemn the Clause, and induce the House to refuse to sanction it. It would not be in order for me to go at length into this question, but I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be a bad bargain for the colonies themselves, a bad bargain for the mother country and for the Empire, if you were to purchase a diversion of trade from one channel to another at the cost—and that is the cost

1031
you will have to pay—of endangering the position of this United Kingdom as to a large extent the workshop, and as the market and clearing-house, of the industrial world. I was very much struck by a passage which I read yesterday in a suggestive volume called "The American Invasion," by my hon. friend the Member for Hartlepool. He is not a doctrinaire, but one of the captains of our enterprise and industry. With regard to shipbuilding, which my hon. friend understands, he writes—
"What is shipbuilding? It is the bringing together and working together in Great Britain of raw material obtained at the lowest price from different parts of the world. The steel in steamers is made from ore produced in Spain, Algiers, and Sweden; the brass from Spanish and American copper; spelter is produced in Germany, and tin obtained from Asia; the woodwork is made from lumber imported from Sweden, Russia, Canada, America, and our Colonies; the paint from Spanish, Australian, and American lead; the rope from Russian and Manilla hemp."
That is where you get the raw material for a British ship, and shipbuilding is one of the industries in which we hold our own. But the moment you begin to discriminate, between these different sources of supply, or as between two different articles from the same source, that moment you strike a blow at this the most prosperous of your trades and also at the carrying trade of Great Britain. That is the way, directly you interfere with the natural course of trade, in which it works out. I have only one other observation to make. There is a passage in a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Liverpool which has been cited before. It is an admirable passage, containing the very gospel of Free Trade, and I will cite it again—
"We must remember that our great imports from our colonies are raw materials and food; and to suppose that, after fifty years experience of what freedom from taxation on our imports of raw material and food means, this country would deliberately resort to a system of taxing raw material and food is, to my mind, an absolute impossibility."
It is all very well to say that fifty years ago this particular tax was in existence—
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I was not referring to this tax at all.
MR. ASQUITH: But this is a tax on raw material and food, and how is the right hon. Gentleman to exclude it from the general doctrine which he has laid down as his own canon, because it is a tax both upon raw material and food. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apply his principle to this case. Never mind what Mr. Gladstone or Sir Robert Peel said. This is a question of principle. I suppose it is thought that that was a disrespectful allusion of mine to those great authorities. But let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Gladstone, not once, but twice and thrice, declared that this was an in-defensible tax; and let us have no more invocations of his authority in support of this relic and survival of a Protective system. This tax, whatever the intentions of the Government may be, is a tax upon food and raw material, and must be of a Protective character, and therefore its effect must be to increase the burden of taxation where it is least easily borne, and to afford a precedent, if not a starting-point, for fiscal changes of the utmost peril to the Imperial and industrial supremacy of the country.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We have had many long debates on the matter before the House; but I think we may congratulate ourselves that today, at any rate, our discussions have been re-animated by the speeches which we have heard from the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can appreciate those speeches, if I do not agree with them; and I will first turn to the main argument of the right hon. and learned Member for East Fife. He absolutely begged the question throughout the whole of his speech. He assumed, without the slightest proof, that this was a Protective tax, and then he accused me of departing from the principles which I laid down in a speech two years ago, and which applied entirely to the old Protective system of fifty years ago, and not to a tax of this kind, which is not practically Protective at all. It is a tax which, in my judgment, can have no material influence on the price of the commodities on which it is levied. The right hon. Gentleman said that this tax could not be justified by the necessities of the time.

1033
I say that it is a necessity of any time to pay our debts. We have incurred an enormous expenditure this year for the purposes of the war and the termination of the war. We have borrowed for that expenditure beyond the amount which we require; and it is calmly argued over and over again by hon. Members opposite that we should be justified in dropping taxation which has been proposed for the purposes of the year, and which has been in force for two mouths, and using money which we have borrowed beyond our necessities in order to relieve the people from that taxation. I entirely demur, as I have often done, to that assumption, and it is for that reason, in the first place, that I have pressed this tax upon the attention of Parliament, But the right hon. Gentleman says that I have no business to ask Parliament to entrust me with a tax without telling the House of Commons what I am going to do with it. He suggests that every tax should be labelled or ear-marked for a particular purpose. Such a thing never has been done in the financial history of this country. The right hon. Gentleman insinuates that I am maintaining this tax in order that I may devote it to the relief of the ratepayers under the Education Bill. Every one who has looked at that Bill—and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman himself is aware of it—knows very well that not a penny could be expended under the Bill in the course of the present financial year. Therefore, so far as this year is concerned, such a suggestion is simply absurd. As regards the future, whatever expenditure may fall on the Exchequer under that Bill will be a part of the whole general expenditure of the country, for which the Exchequer has to provide, and you can no more earmark a particular tax to a particular part of that expenditure, than you can limit a particular head of expenditure by the proceeds of a particular tax. There was an attempt to do something of the kind by my predecessor, Viscount Goschen, in the matter of the payments from the Death Duties to local taxation, and no one has more persistently denounced that attempt than the financial authorities I see before me on the Front Opposition Bench.
1034
What is the argument we have to deal with today? We have hoard but little today about the terrible effect of this tax on the poor. The hon. Member for Lincoln told us that it would impose what would be equal to an income tax of 2d in the pound upon the earnings of a poor man with a huge family. I happen to have consulted a well-known publication, the Labour Gazette, published a few days ago. I find in it figures based on 367 returns from co-operative societies in Great Britain. I find that the mean price in Great Britain of the 4lb. loaf is practically the same as on June 3rd, 1901, in spite of the imposition of the tax, and that it is only ·08—the smallest possible fraction—above the price on March 3rd of the present year. I do not say that that proves that the tax has no influence on the price of corn, but I do say that it is absurd to talk of the tax as a great burden on the poor of the country. The right hon. Member for Montrose has never dwelt in his arguments on the hardship of this tax. He has, in fact, oven suggested that if the tax were a hardship it would be all the better, because it would call the attention of the people to the expenditure of the country; and he has more than once expressed his strong conviction, in which I entirely agree with him, that it is absolutely necessary in a country like this, that the whole population, and not merely a class of the population, should realise what the extent of that expenditure is. The right hon. Gentleman has objected to this proposal mainly on two grounds. He says that it is a reversal of the fiscal policy of this country for ever.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: It tends to it.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Oh! Then it is not a reversal of policy, but only tends to it! But be said it was an abandonment of Tree Trade, I confess that I have never been able to appreciate that argument, although it has often been urged in the House. How can this, be practically Protection? No one has suggested that it will diminish our imports of food. It has been admitted in the course of the debate today, and in fact one hon. Member said that it was an objection to the tax, that the imports of food would increase with the increase

1035
of population in spite of the tax, and therefore it would produce more in future than was anticipated. Another hon. Member raised as an objection to the tax what I should have thought was, after all, a main element of value in a tax—namely, that no one could evade it. No one has said that it will increase the production of corn in this country. The hon. Member for North Monmouthshire argued that it would raise the price of corn, but even he did not venture to say that the rise would be sufficient to increase the production of corn here. If not, where is the Protection? There is absolutely no proof, although I have challenged hon. Members to produce it, that this tax, which existed for twenty years, had any practical Protective effect such as is credited to it today. It is impossible to suppose, whatever the right hon. Member for East Fife may say as to Mr. Gladstone's opinions two years before this tax was repealed, that if in his belief for all the years before that time during which he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it had such a Protective effect, he would have repealed the tax on luxuries, on wines, on artificial flowers, which we imported from Prance, and matters of that kind sooner than deal with this tax, which now, in the opinion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, amounts to nothing less than the abandonment of Free Trade.
After all, the real point of the debate today, in default of any proof as to the Protective character of this tax, has been the excursions made by one speaker after another into the possibility or probability—I will put it as high as that—that through imposing it we intend to change the principles upon which the fiscal system of this country is based. I do not know what more I can say to lay this extraordinary delusion than I have already said. I have told the House plainly that, on behalf of my colleagues, I entirely disavow any idea of that kind through this tax. I have said that it is not our policy to endeavour to encourage trade with our colonies by initiating a tariff war with all those foreign countries who are our largest and greatest customers. That idea is the most perfect delusion
1036
that can be conceived, and let me suggest to right hon. Gentleman opposite that I think there is some proof of it, if they do not believe my words, in the nature of the tax itself. Why! What is the only kind of colonial preference we know? A preference given to us by Canada in her tariff. What is the tariff of Canada? It is a purely Protective tariff. It is a very high rate of duty on all kinds of imported goods. Canada has given to us—and we are grateful to her for it—a preference with regard to that tariff to the extent of one-third over foreign countries. But she has not put us on a level with her own producers; we are still heavily taxed as compared with her own producers. And that is my answer to the right hon. Member for East Fife, when he tells me that our position is compromised with regard to Canada by the proposal of this tax. Supposing—I do not for a moment suggest that the thing can be done—that the suspicions of hon. Members opposite were fulfilled, and that we proposed to Canada, reciprocity with regard to this tax. What would that mean? Our two great imports from Canada are wheat and maize. We are about to reduce the duty on maize to three halfpence a hundredweight. One-third of this amount is a halfpenny. The duty on wheat is threepence, and one-third of that would be a penny. Can it be conceived that such a preference as that would be worth anything to Canada in comparison with the difficulties that unquestionably she would have to face in the Customs arrangements which would be necessary to prevent United States corn from availing itself of the same advantage, which might seriously hamper trade on her railways, and perhaps even necessitate some change in the ports from which her products are exported? Why, Sir, it is obvious that any system of preference requires to be based on high duties. If hon. Members had suggested that our wine or tobacco duties, for example, afforded material for a system of colonial preference, and had asked whether we are disposed, because the representatives of the colonies desire, to introduce this matter as a subject for discussion at the forthcoming Conference, I could to some extent have

1037
understood the suggestion. But I would venture to remind hon. Members that suggestions have been made in the House within the last three or four years for colonial preference with regard to wine and sugar. I think the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to recollect that I told the House frankly and plainly my opinion on that proposal with regard to wine; and the opinion of the Government with regard to sugar was expressed only the other day at the conference at Brussels at which the sugar convention was agreed to. One important enactment in the sugar convention is that we agree during the continuance of the convention, in view of the abolition of bounties by all foreign bounty-giving countries, not to impose preferential duties in favour of our colonies in the matter of sugar.
I have to appeal to these facts in the possession of the House in confirmation of the views I expressed the other day as to our intentions in proposing this tax, and in maintaining it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose has not done me justice, because he has got this question somewhat on the brain. He confessed to an audience in the North of England the other day that he had been reading magazines on this subject, and from these magazines he had gathered that there were most extraordinary theories afloat with regard to the future policy of this country on economic questions, which appear to have terribly alarmed him. Well, if I may be allowed to offer advice to the right hon. Gentleman, I would suggest that if you want to read something sensational you may go to a magazine; if you desire to find something new you may occasionally find it there, but you should be very doubtful whether you will find much that is true or anything that is practical. I would ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite if they can do so, even now to lay this phantom of their imagination, and to consider the proposal now before the House entirely apart from this question of colonial preference. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean made an appeal to the Government in this matter, and said—
1038
"If you mean to abolish all the more important fiscal principles of this country, if you mean to lake the first step in introducing an entirely new fiscal system, you ought at least to give an opportunity to the House for expressing an opinion upon it." But does not the right hon. Gentleman know that when there is any real danger of that kind it will be easy enough for him to press Government of the day to initiate a debate on such a subject? But for the present, in my humble belief, this is nothing more than the drawing of a red herring across the scent of this tax. I propose the tax and press it on Parliament because, in my belief, it is required for dealing honestly with the financial affairs of the nation in the present year, and for paying our way in the future with fair regard to the allocation of taxation among all classes in the country. In my belief it will be a tax largely productive, easily levied, and inflicting no hardship on the people or difficulty upon the commerce of the country.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not desire to stand between the House and the division for more than a minute; but when he endeavoured to speak in Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the Closure, and did not give him an opportunity to do so. He was, therefore, entitled to take the first opportunity of expressing, on behalf of his constituents, their opinion with reference to the proposal of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At Question time the right hon. Gentleman made the welcome announcement to the Irish Members that he intended to meet their views and reduce the tax on maize by one half. That statement was received with satisfaction by the Irish Members, and would be received with satisfaction in Ireland; but it would not at all effect the opposition which would be given to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because oven after the concession the right hon. Gentleman had made, the food of the very poorest portion of the people of Ireland would be, as they thought, unjustly taxed for the purposes of the late war. His constituents would feel it a great hardship to have the price of Indian meal, which was one of the

1039
principle articles of their food, increased. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite who really reflected seriously on what they were doing could not escape the consciousness that they were doing an extremely mean thing. What could be more mean than that the Government and Parliament of this great and wealthy Empire should impose taxation on the poorest article of food used by the poorest part of the population of Ireland? England had done many mean things in pursuance of her settled policy to all those who were governed by her in every part of the world, but this was absolutely the meanest. He thought that the Government should have been ashamed to attempt to raise taxation out of the poor food of the poorest section of the population of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had been impressed by the tone of the speeches of hon. Members from Ireland in the debate, but his sympathy was
so impressive that he got up and moved the Closure! Next week His Majesty the King would be crowned, and representatives of the Empire from the farthest ends of the earth would come here to take part in that ceremony. He supposed that in time to come the people of the Empire would refer with pride to this year, 1902, as being the year marked in the history of the world by the witness of the Coronation of King Edward VII; but in Ireland in time to come this year of grace, 1902, would be associated in the minds of the Irish people only as the era in which an English Parliament had put a tax on Indian meal, which was the food of the poorest of the poor in their country.
(6.38.) Question put.
House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 178. (Division List No. 235.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Finch, George H.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Aird, Sir John

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fisher, William Hayes

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fison, Frederick William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Arrol, Sir William

Chapman, Edward

Flower, Ernest

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Charrington, Spencer

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Galloway, William Johnson

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Coddington, Sir William

Garfit, William

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gibbs, Hn. A G H (City of London

Balcarres, Lord

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH' mlets

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

Banbury, Frederick George

Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

Bartley, George C. T.

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cranborne, Viscount

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Bignold, Arthur

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

Bill, Charles

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gretton, John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Groves, James Grimble

Bond, Edward

Denny, Colonel

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dickson, Charles Scott

Gunter, Sir Robert

Bousfield, William Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Brassey, Albert

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Doughty, George

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Bull, William James

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Heaton, John Henniker

Butcher, John George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Holder, Augustus

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg'w

Fardell, Sir T. George

Henderson, Alexander

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Higginbottom, S. W.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

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

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

Hogg, Lindsay

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Milvain, Thomas

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hoult, Joseph

Mitchell, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Houston, Robert Paterson

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

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

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

Mount, William Arthur

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Muntz, Philip A.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Stock, James Henry

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stroyan, John

Kimber, Henry

O'Neill, Hon. Robert, Torrens

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Thornton, Percy M.

Knowles, Lees

Parker, Gilbert

Tollemache, Henry James

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Valentia, Viscount

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Penn, John

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Lawson, John Grant

Percy, Earl

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Leeky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Pierpoint, Robert

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Webb, Colonel William George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Plummer, Walter R.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Purvis, Robert

Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

Pym, C. Guy

Wills, Sir Frederick

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Randles, John S.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lowe, Francis William

Rankin, Sir James

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Macdona, John Cumming

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Renwick, George

Younger, William

Maconochie, A. W.

Robinson, Brooke

M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

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

Ropner, Col Robert

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Round, James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Flynn, James Christopher

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Causton, Richard Knight

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Ambrose, Robert

Cawley, Frederick

Fuller, J. M. F.

Asher, Alexander

Channing, Francis Allston

Gilhooly, James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Craig, Robert Hunter

Grant, Corrie

Atherley-Jones, L.

Crean, Eugene

Gray, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Austin, Sir John

Cremer, William Randal

Griffith, Ellis J.

Barlow, John Emmottt

Crombie, John William

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Barry, E. (Cork, S.

Dalziel, James Henry

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Bell, Richard

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hardie, J. Keir (M'rthyr Tydvil

Boland John

Delany, William

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dillon, John

Harwood, George

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Donelan, Capt. A.

Hayden, John Patrick

Broadhurst, Henry

Doogan, P. C.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Duncan, J. Hastings

Helme, Nerval Watson

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dunn, Sir William

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Burns, John

Edwards, Frank

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

Burt, Thomas

Emmott Alfred

Holland, William Henry

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Caine, William Sproston

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Horniman, Frederick John

Caldwell, James

Fenwick, Charles

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Cameron, Robert

Ffrench, Peter

Jacoby, James Alfred

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

Field, William

Joicey, Sir James

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Jones, David, Brynm'r (Sw'nsea

1042

1043

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Kinloch, Sir George Smyth

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Labonchere Henry

O'Dowd, John

Sullivan, Donal

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

O'Kelly, James (Roscomm'n, N.

Tennant, Harold John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Malley, William

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Leamy Edmund

O'Mara, James

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Long, Sir John

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

Levy, Maurice

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Lough, Thomas

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Tomkinson, James

Lundon, W.

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

Toulmin, George

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Pirie, Duncan V.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wallace, Robert

M'Kean, John

Price, Robert John

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rea, Russell

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North

Reckitt, Harold James

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Reddy, M.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Mansfield, Horace Kendall

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Mather, William

Rigg, Richard

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Mooney, John J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Morgan, J. Lloyd Carmarthen)

Roche, John

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Morley, Charles (Breconshire

Russell, T. W.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Murnaghan, George

Schwann, Charles E.

Young, Samuel

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Yoxall, James Henry

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

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Wm. M'Arthur.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Shipman, Dr. John G.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

MR. HALDANEsaid the addition to the Clause he now proposed to move was a small technical Amendment which he understood, the right hon. Gentleman would accept. As many hon. Members knew, foreign spirits coming into this country paid a somewhat higher duty than home-produced spirits, as there was a small cost for specification. Methylated spirits hitherto under the Act of 1880 had to pay a slight duty when made out of foreign spirit imported into this country, in order to allow for that cost. The object of this Clause was to put the same cost on foreign spirits as on home-grown spirits. He begged to move—
"Clause 8, page 3, line 12, at end of sub-section (1), add—'Provided that foreign spirits may not be so received or used until the difference between the duty of customs chargeable thereon and the duty of excise chargeable on British spirit has been paid.'"
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments consequential on the reduction of the duty on maize were moved by Sir. M. HICKS BEACH, and agreed to.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he desired to make one more attempt to obtain cheap feeding-stuffs for the farmers of this country. The revenue to be derived from this duty on offals was £19,062, and it was a paltry sum in a Budget of over £140,000,000, but it was by no means a contemptible sum to the farmers. The condition of the farmers was not so prosperous or good that the increase of 2s. 6d. per ton on feeding-stuffs would make no difference at all as, the Chancellor seemed to think. The right hon. Gentleman had already reduced the duty on offals from 8s. 4d. to 2s. 6d. a ton, which showed that he admitted and appreciated the fact that the farmers would have to pay this tax. Another fact to be remembered was that the loss to the Exchequer would not be £19,062, because a part of the offals now imported were almost, if not quite, fit for human food, but the 50 per cent. starch limit now inserted in the revised Bill by the Chancellor would exclude them from the 2s. 6d. rate and place them in the 5s. rate. Germany recognised this by insisting upon charcoal or coal dust being mixed with the fine meal offals in order to prevent their use as a human food, while they could be imported free into Germany for feeding stock. He thought

1045
if the right hon. Gentleman adopted some such method with regard to the offals imported into this country, he would be very well able to forego the reduced duty he now proposed. It must be remembered that Germany, Sweden, Holland and Denmark were competing very seriously with the British farmer, and that they were doing so with the help of free feeding-stuffs, whilst the farmer here would have to pay 2s. 6d. a ton upon them. All agriculturists would agree that the complaint of the farmers at the present time was not so much that the seasons were bad as that prices were so un-remunerative, and the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to give a bonus to 2s. 6d., a ton to those countries which had a free import of offals. The duty on offals moreover was really a new duty. Up to 1869 when the registration duty on corn was in force there was no duty on offals; in fact, it was doubtful whether they were then imported. Of course, it might be that they were included, and it was suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they paid duty as flour, but that after all was only an opinion of the right hon. Gentleman who had not given the figures or facts upon which he based that opinion. He therefore submitted that offals ought not to be taxed on the same ground as locust beans had omitted because they were not before liable to registration duty. It might be said that if this tax was imposed the millers of this country would grind more offals at home and thus get them free of the duty, but he would point out that it was the practice of country millers to buy foreign offals in large quantities and sell them in their neighhood because they could not grind enough corn to supply them with offals, and if now they purchase more corn they would have to pay the duty on that of 5s. a ton and increasing the cost of offals by that amount.
Amendment proposed,
"In page 5, to leave out '1½d.' and insert "0d."—(Sir Edward Strachey)
Question proposed, "That '1½d.' stand part of the Bill."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think the Amendment would have the effect the hon. Member desires, but that
1046
is a matter I need not now discuss. I cannot consent to except offals altogether, A few days ago, when the question was raised in Committee, I assented to a reduction of the duty on offals by one-half, and that was accepted unanimously by the Committee as a very fair concession to the agricultural interest. If I might say so without offence, I think the hon. Member is rather like a celebrated character in fiction—he is always asking for more. I have given a great deal to the agriculural interest in regard to both offals and maize, and I cannot agree to give more.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he agreed with what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Committee felt that the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to meet the objections to this duty in a very fair way. He could not support the Amendment.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid when the right hon. Gentleman quoted "Oliver Twist" he should remember that the person who asked for more was a small half-starved boy who merely asked for more food. The House heard a good deal of the extraordinary efforts the Government were always making for the benefit of the British farmer, but now that the right hon. Gentleman was asked to forego a sum so trifling that it could not possibly affect his scheme of taxation, but which would be a considerable advantage to the farmer who lived not by growing corn, but by feeding stock and selling it in the markets, the right hon. Gentleman refused to assent. Although the right hon. Gentleman had helped the arable farmer, he had not helped those who lived in the great dairying districts of the country. This was a concession the right hon. Gentleman could very well make in the interests of the districts concerned, and he asked whether, for the sum of £19,000, it was worth while to continue all the friction which would be created by this tax.
(7.13.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 230; Noes; 136. (Division List No. 236.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

FitzGerald, Sir Robt, Penrose-

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Aird, Sir John

Flower, Ernest

Mitchell, William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Arrol, Sir William

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Montugu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Sal'p

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Balcarres, Lord

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Mount, William Arthur

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

Colliding, Edward Alfred

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray G

Balfour, Cant. C. B. (Hornsey)

Green, Walfor D. (Wednesb'ry

Muntz, Philip A.

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (L'ds

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

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Banbury, Frederick George

Gretton, John

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bathurst, Hon. Alien Benjamin

Groves, James Grimble

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gunter, Sir Robert

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Bignold, Arthur

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

Parker, Gilbert

Bill, Charles

Hanbury, Ht. Hon. Robert Wm.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Pond, Edward

Heath, James (Staffods, N. W.

Penn, John

Boscawen, J Arthur Griffith-

Heaton, John Henniker

Percy, Earl

Brassey, Albert

Helder, Augustus

Pierpoint, Robert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Henderson, Alexander

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Higginbottom, S. W.

Plummer, Walter R.

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bull, William James

Hogg, Lindsay

Pretyman, Ernest George

Butcher, John George

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Purvis, Robert

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hoult, Joseph

Randles, John S.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh'e

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rankin, Sir James

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Reid, James (Greenock)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Remnant, James Farquharson

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Chapman, Edward

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Renwick, George

Charrington, Spencer

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Kimber, Henry

Round, James

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Knowles, Lees

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Laurie, Lieut. General

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (I. of Wight)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawson, John Grant

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tynes'd

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Spear, John Ward

Denny, Colonel

Leng, Sir John

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stock, James Henry

Doughty, George

Lowe, Francis William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Thornton, Percy N.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Tollemache, Henry James

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Macdona, John Cumming

Valentia, Viscount

Faber, George Denison (York)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Fardell, Sir T. George

Maconochie, A. W.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Webb, Colonel William George

Fisher, William Hayes

Majendie, James A. H.

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

Fison, Frederick William

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

1048

1049

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

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

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Wills, Sir Frederick

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Younger, William

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Harwood, George

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Dowd, John

Atherley-Jones, L.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Austin, Sir John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Malley, William

Barlow, John Emmott

Holland, William Henry

O'Mara, James

Barry, E (Cork, S.)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Bell, Richard

Joicey, Sir James

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Boland, John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jones, William (Carnarvonshre

Priestley, Arthur

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Russell

Broadhurst, Henry

Kearley, Hudson E.

Reckitt, Harold James

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Reddy, M.

Burns, John

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Burt, Thomas

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, William (Clare)

Caldwell, James

Leamy, Edmund

Rigg, Richard

Cameron, Robert

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Robson, William Snowdon

Causton, Richard Knight

Levy, Maurice

Roche, John

Cawley, Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Russell, T. W.

Channing, Francis Allston

Lough, Thomas

Schwann, Charles E.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Crean, Eugene

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crombie, John William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Kean, John

Tennant, Harold John

Delany, William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Dillon, John

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

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

Doogan, P. C.

Mansfield, Horace, Rendall

Toulmin, George

Emmott, Alfred

Markham, Arthur Basil

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Mooney, John J.

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Fenwick, Charles

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ffrench, Peter

Morley, Charles (Breconshire

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Field, William

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murnaghan, George

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fuller, J. M. F.

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gilhooly, James

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J'hn

Norman, Henry

Young, Samuel

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Brien, Kendal, Tip'erary, Mid

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Edward Strachey and Mr. Corrie Grant.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

MR. CHANNING, in moving the omission of lines 22 to 36 from the Schedule, said his object was to raise the whole question of the flour duty, and to give the right hon. Gentleman a further opportunity of arriving at proper figures which would enable this duty to be placed on an equitable basis as compared with the duty on wheat.
It being half-past Seven of the clock, further proceeding on Consideration,
1050
as amended, stood adjourned till the Evening Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  FINANCE BILL.
  As amended, in Committee and on re-committal, further considered—
  MR. CHANNING, resuming his speech, said his object in moving his resolution was to challenge the poliy of the duty on flour, and to elicit

  1051
  further information as to the relative proportions of the new duty. Incidentally, he might mention that the Board of Trade Returns for the last month showed an increase in the imports of wheat under the 3d. duty, and a marked decrease under the head of flour under the 5d. duty. There surely was some force in the contention that there was no equality between these duties according to the Return moved for by his hon. friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that an import of 22,578,000 cwts. of flour and meal would give him a revenue of £470,000, but he was not clear whether that included maize meal, as to which there would now have to be a reduction made. But he desired more particularly to draw attention to the differential duties. He maintained that flour in this Budget was taxed on a distinctly fallacious standard if it was intended to be a standard of equity. If the standard was not fallacious, the tax was distinctly Protective to the millers at home. The duty on 60 lbs. of flour would be equal to the duty on 100 lbs. of wheat. That 100 lbs. of wheat when operated upon by the home miller would produce on the average 72 lbs. of flour and 28 lbs. of offal. Thus the home miller got 12 lbs. more flour for the same duty for imported grain in addition to the 28 lbs. of offal. Assuming the uniform value of wheat to be 30s. per quarter, the sack of 280 lbs. would realise 22s., while the offal would probably be sold at 90s. per ton. The relative percentage ad valorem on these duties worked out as he contended at 3¾ per cent. on wheat and not less than 4½ per cent. on flour and offal. Thus there was a great advantage to the home miller. Originally he paid 5d. per sack of 280 lbs; now he was only to pay 3½d. The miller paid 10½d. per 100 lbs., while the importer would pay 1s. 1½d. or 3½d. more than the home miller. The old duties at 3d. and 4½d. were based on the 66 per cent. extraction, but at that time the offals were not taken into consideration. One hundred cwts. of wheat at 3d. paid £1 5s., while 66 cwts. of flour at 4½d. paid £1 4s. 9d. duty, thus being practically equivalent one to the other. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon repeated his denial that the present duty
  1052
  gave a benefit of 20 per cent. to the home miller, but surely the figures absolutely proved that up to the hilt. By this Budget 100 cwts. of wheat at 5d. paid £15s. while the duty on the flour at 5d. would realise £1 10s. That was an advantage of 20 per cent. If the figures were worked out on the same basis as in 1867, 100 cwts. of wheat at 3d. produced £1 5s., while 72 cwts. of flour at 4½d. returned £1 7s. Then if they reckoned into that what Mr. Gladstone did not consider, viz., the value of the offal at the reduced duty of 1½d., that would give 3s. 6d., so altogether the home miller got the advantage of 5s. 6d.—that was the discriminating duty in his favour. The hon. Member for Devonport the other night suggested that the duty on wheat should be 3d. and on flour 4d., and it was said he was wrong in asserting that there would be a benefit to the home miller on that calculation. But, again, the right hon. Gentleman had not taken into consideration the value of the offal. One hundred cwts. of wheat at 3d. gave 25s.; 72 cwts. of flour at 4d. produced 24s., and thus there was nominally a benefit to the foreign importer of 1s. on the 100 cwts., but if they also reckoned in the offals the benefit to the home miller was 2s. 6d., another distinct advantage of 10 per cent. He hoped he had put the figures clearly. The present Budget was stated to be a Revenue Budget, and not a Protective one, but the figures thus worked out—

  £

  s.

  d.

  100 cwt. of wheat at 3d. as against

  1

  5

  0

  72 cwt. of flour at 5d. and

  1

  10

  0

  28 cwt. of offal at 1½d.

  0

  3

  6

  Total

  £1

  13

  6

  Thus the home miller got an advantage of 8s. 6d. on the 100 cwts. of wheat, or a discriminating duty of 30 per cent.
  These were points of the greatest importance. He attached grave importance to any infringement of the happy and beneficent rule of absolute Free Trade and absolute equality for the foreign trader and the home producer and manufacturer, and now he would revert again for a few moments to the imports of wheat and flour into this country. During the

  1053
  month of May wheat itself showed a con siderable increase probably due largely to the rise in prices. In May last year, however, the imports of flour from the United States were 1,768,000 cwts. whereas last May they were only 1,280,000 cwts. On the other hand, there had been a sudden increase in the imports of flour for Canada; they had risen from 28,000 cwt. to 95,000 cwt. in the month, or in the five months from 235,000 cwt. to 434,000 cwts. There had also been a corresponding increase in the imports of wheat for Canada. He wished to ask, did the Canadians hope to get a rebate on this Hour afterwards by means of the colonial arrangements in prospect? If we discriminated against American flour by giving rebates to colonial Hour, there would be enormous difficulty in levying the duty all along the frontier between Canada and the United States, and a large amount of American flour would be fraudulently brought to this country as Canadian flour. There would be much commercial and fiscal friction. He protested strongly against the discrimination in favour of the home miller.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, to leave out lines 23 to 26, inclusive."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the hon. Member had moved an Amendment, the effect of which would be to reject altogether the duty on flour, al though the House had already agreed to impose the duty on grain. That would be a ridiculous position, which surely the hon. Member himself could not desire, because they would be relieving the manufactured article of duty, while taxing the raw material out of which it was manufactured.
  MR. CHANNING: I made my Motion with two objects—
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We have heard that already three times.
  MR. CHANNING: But you are misrepresenting me.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that ii the hon. Member desired that there should be a duty on grain and not on Hour he was probably the only one who wished it, and he need not trouble to deal with that point. The hon. Member had made some allusions to the diminution in the imports of flour from the United States during the last month or so, as compared with the corresponding time in the previous year. The imports of grain rose quite irrespective of the duty, because they were attracted by the great increase in the price of grain, which had risen in this country far in excess of the rise in the price of flour. Then the hon. Member said the imports of flour from Canada had increased, and suggested that this was because the Canadians expected that, under some of those arrangements which the Government were suspected of being about to introduce, there would be a rebate on this flour. Yet this flour was imported long before any such arrangement could be made. If the Canadians really supposed that the duty on Canadian flour would be lowered, as compared with American flour, it was quite certain that they would endeavour to delay their imports so as to reap the advantage of such an arrangement. The real point of the hon. Member's Amendment was as to the discrimination between the duty on flour or meal and the duty on grain. But the hon. Member made a great mistake in dealing solely with the question of wheat grain and wheat flour. The duty was so fixed as to cover all the kinds of grain and all the kinds of flour. Moreover, the hon. Member had dealt with the matter as if the duty on meal were a duty on fine flour only. But his arguments were altogether wrong. The duty had always been a discriminating duty. In 1864 Mr. Gladstone established an unvarying relation of 66 per cent. between all the grain duties and all the meal duties. That was exactly the relation which was established by the Bill now before the House when the offal duty was 3d. per cwt. Now that they had reduced the duty on offal to lid., the relation was more in favour of the foreign import than it was if they took, as they must take, the whole question of the flour and the offal, and did not consider the flour only. When Mr. Gladstone revised the duty in 1864 the

  1055
  value of grain was two-thirds of the value of flour, and the duty on flour was therefore put at 4½d. Since 1869 the value of grain had been lower in comparison with the value of flour than it was in those days. Taking all grain on one side, the value in 1901 of a cwt. of grain was 5·84s. and taking all meals on the other side, the value of a cwt. of meal was 9·04s., so that the proper proportion as compared with the 3d. per cwt. on grain would have been something between 4½d. and 5d. per cwt. on flour. He had given grain the advantage of a fraction. He could not give flour the advantage of the fraction without doing what he believed to be an injury to the agricultural interest of this country. He did not believe this was Protection, but if it was Protection, that
  was all the Protection that was given in this country by the relations he had established between the duties on grain and flour. He took the old discrimination as a fair one, and he thought the relations so established were perfectly fair. The alteration since that time in the conditions of trade had justified an increase in the duty on flour, as compared with the duty on grain for the reasons which he gave in his Budget speech. He trusted the House would not disturb them on the Motion of the hon. Member.
  (9.38) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 143; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 237.)

  AYES.

  Aclaud-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Flower, Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'rick

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gretton, John

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Rt Hn A Gr'h'm (Bute)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bignold, Arthur

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bill, Charles

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Randles, John S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hoult, Joseph

  Renwick, George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Howard Jno. (Kent, Faversham

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Round, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Russell, T. W.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kimber, Henry

  Smith, H C (N'th'mb, Tyneside)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Knowles, Lees

  Spear, John Ward

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lawson, John Grant

  Stock, James Henry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Denny, Colonel

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Doughty, George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Col. Fraucis (Lowestoft)

  Warde, Colonel C E.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Finch, George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

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

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

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

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Younger, William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Mara, James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Rea, Russell

  Bell, Richard

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rigg, Richard

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Leng, Sir John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cameron, Robert

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  Roche, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Causton, Richard Knight

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kean, John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dillon, John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Sullivan, Donal

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Toulmin, George

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Norman, Henry

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Young, Samuel

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Malley, William

  SIR JOHN LENGsaid that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the duty on grain it was generally understood that he referred only to wheat, barley, and oats, and few people imagined that the duty would apply to some twenty other articles, including such things as arrowroot and starch. He had an Amendment on the Paper to omit "starch." His hon. friend the Member for Lincolnshire had a similar Amendment on the Paper, but probably he did not move it because he was interested in the manufacture of starch. He had been assured by manufacturers of starch in his own constituency that this tax would affect them to the extent of hundreds of pounds annually. It might be said that this was not much to them, but the position of this trade was a peculiar one, and he wished to bring before the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in case he had any idea of extending duties of this character, how difficult it was to foresee the curious ramifications of trade which might be affected by such taxes. The jute trade
  1058
  in Dundee was a peculiar one. The raw material came over 7,000 miles, from Calcutta, and 200,000 tons of this material were used every year in manufactures in Dundee and district. From the position of Calcutta that place had immense advantages in the manufacture of jute. Calcutta was in close proximity to the ground where the jute was grown, and labour there was exceedingly cheap, for there the natives would work for a few annas per day as compared with a few shillings per day paid for the same labour in Dundee. In Calcutta every jute mill had two shifts and sometimes three, and in this way they had a great pull over manufactures in this country who were limited to ten hours per day under the Factory Acts. The consequence was that the multiplication of factories for the manufacture of jute in Calcutta and district had gone on by leaps and bounds. This competition had taken away from Dundee and district the trade with China and Australia, and had it not been for the extension of our home trade, this branch of manufacture would have been extinguished and obliterated.

  1059
  What was the effect of this duty on starch, which was largely used in the dressing of jute? The difficulties which jute manufacturers had already experienced through competition would he greatly increased by this tax, for they were being embarrassed by legislation which would tend to the benefit of their competitors abroad. It might be said that it did not matter much whether this trade was carried on in this country or in one of our great dependencies, but the jute trade gave employment to a very large number of men and women in this country, and if manufacturers were over weighted by legislation, a serious injury would be done; because the conditions of life in Calcutta were not such as to encourage young men to go out there. Men might be tempted to accompany English capital to Calcutta in order to conduct jute works there, but the mortality of young men who went out to Calcutta was most alarming, and almost every newspaper contained an account of death of some of these young men, and therefore he had held that it was a great injury to this country that the jute industry should be subjected to difficulties of this kind. He had brought this matter before the House in order to show the necessity of the right hon. Gentleman being careful in legislation of this kind, and as a warning against extending what had been done this year. He did not wish to stand in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting his Bill passed, and as he had answered his purpose by the protest he had made he would not move his Amendment.
  MR. CHANNING MR. CHANNING moved the omission of "arrowroot" from the schedule, as a protest against the policy of putting taxation on very small articles of import. It seemed to him ridiculous to tax an import like arrowroot, which was small in quantity but high in value. He believed that the cost of collecting the tax on such articles was enormous. The value of arrowroot, according to the quality, ranged from 5d per lb. up to 1s. 10d. per lb. It was really preposterous that on lower priced arrowroot the duty ad valorem should be 1 per cent. while
  on the higher priced article the duty should be ¼ or ⅛ per cent. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 28, to leave out the word 'arrowroot'"—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'arrowroot' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR. M. HICKS BEACHsaid he had had occasion to deal in the course of the debates on the Finance Bill with statements as to the taxes proposed being such as would bear heavily on the poor man's food, having regard to the value of the articles; but it was reserved for the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire to object to one of the items in the schedule, on the ground that the tax was not high enough. He quite admitted that arrowroot was a small item, but it was necessary to retain it among the other items to safeguard the main tax.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the financial effect of adopting the hon. Member's proposal would be?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot say, but it would place the article in an unfair position.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the point raised by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire was a substantial one. It was a great pity that in the long debates which had taken place on the Bill there had not been an opportunity of speaking of the danger to which some small trades were exposed by these new taxes. It was the greatest mistake to suppose that injury would not be done to the small trades concerned in the items referred to. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be a little more yielding in regard to some of the items.
  (10.3) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 107. (Division List No. 238.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Age-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Morton, Arthur H A (Deptford

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld G (Midd'x

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hanbnry, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bill, Charles

  Harris, Frederick Loverton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Boscawen, Anthur Griffith-

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Henderson, Alexander

  Randles, John S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Butcher, John George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Renwick, George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Round, James

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chamberlain, T. (S'thampton

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Seely, Maj J E B (Isle of Wight

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Spear, John Ward

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

  Kimber, Henry

  Stock, James Henry

  Cranborne, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Knowles, Lees

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cressley, Sir Savile

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Valentia, Viscount

  Denny, Colonel

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Warde, Colonel C E.

  Doughty, George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Finch, George H.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

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

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

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Flower, Ernest

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Younger, William

  Gordon, Hon J E (Elgin & Nairn

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Gore, Hn G R C Ormsby-(Salop

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Delany, William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dillon, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Joiecy, Sir James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Bell, Richard

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Joyce, Michael

  Boland, John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Kitson, Sir James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Ffrench, Peter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Burns, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  Caine, William Sproston

  Gilhooly, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leng, Sir John

  Cameron, Robert

  Grant, Corrie

  Levy, Maurice

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harmsworth, B. Leicester

  London, W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Grean, Eugene

  Helme Norval Watson

  MacNeill, John Cordon Swift

  1062

  1063

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  M'Kean, John

  O'Mara, James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower

  Mooney, John J.

  Reddy, M.

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Toulmin, George

  Murnaghan, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rigg, Richard

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Norman, Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, M.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Young, Samuel

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

  Roche, John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Question put and agreed to.

  Other Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

POLICE RESERVISTS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. STUART WORTLEYin the Chair.
MR. CALDWELL(10.15.) MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid) moved an Amendment for the purpose of making the provisions of the Bill apply whenever reservists were called out by any Royal Proclamation, and not merely to the recent case when they were called out for service in connection with the South African war. They were dealing here with what might be said to be an Amendment of the Police Pension Act. It was perfectly right that the time during which police reservists were on active service should count as accrued service for pension purposes. There was no Treason whatever why that power should, as the Bill proposed, be limited to the recent war. The same power should apply to any future war. The reserves could not be called out except by Royal Proclamation in case of national danger. He always objected to a Bill being passed to meet a special case, and that was his reason for moving this Amendment. There was no reason in principle why the proposal in the Bill should not be made the permanent law of the land, applicable to all wars.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was not inclined to agree with his hon. friend in making general this particular form of relief.
MR. RITCHIEsaid he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Dundee, although he quite appreciated the motive of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark.
MR. CALDWELLsaid his point was that they were limiting this concession to the present war in which the nation had been particularly interested. He did not want to leave policemen who were reservists at the mercy of the local authorities to refuse to allow them to count their service with the colours for their pension in any other war.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 10, to leave out from 'proclamation,' to 'be,' in line 11, and insert 'shall.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. RITCHIEhoped that his hon. friend would not press his Amendment. There was no doubt whatever that many local authorities would be only too glad to exercise the power of counting the service of their police, who rejoined the colours as reservists for their pension; but he did not think the House would be justified in inserting the word "shall" in the Bill.
Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. STUART WORTLEYin the Chair.
Clause 1:
MR. CALDWELLsaid that when the prisons were taken over from the local authorities by the State, it was stated in the House that the warders and prison officials would not, by the Act of 1877, be put in a worse position than they were in prior to the passing of that Act. The State was to receive their services, and pay their salaries and pensions when the latter became due. This Bill gave power to the local authorities to pay a proportion of the pension for the period after 1877. On what principle of reason, justice, and common sense could it be said that any portion of the pension earned for services done to the State should be paid by the local authority?
MR. RITCHIEsaid the scope of the Bill was extremely limited. When the Government took over the prisons in 1877 there were certain prison officers taken over with them, who then came under the ordinary rule of superannuation. The local authorities had been in the habit of giving these officers rather more than was done under the Superannuation Act, and since 1877 the local authority had in many cases paid these servants the difference between Government superannuation and the pension previously given by the local authority. It had recently been held by the Local Government Board Auditor that the local authorities were exceeding their powers in so doing, and that they were liable to be surcharged. The local authorities therefore asked that the extra payment might be legalised, and the object of the Bill was to carry out that request.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY [5TH JUNE] REPORT.
Resolution reported:—
"That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to Lieutenant General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa, in recognition of his eminent services during the war in South Africa."
Resolution read a second time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he would refrain from moving the Amendment of which he had given notice to reduce the Vote to Lord Kitchener of Khartoum by £40,000, because he was quite satisfied with taking a vote against the grant as a whole in Committee. The last time this matter was before the House he was prevented from making the speech he intended to deliver by a very painful and deplorable outbreak of disorder. On that occasion, because he had expressed an opinion at variance with the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was clamorously prevented from making the speech he had intended to make, the closure was moved, and other hon. Members were prevented from speaking also. He passed from that incident, and would merely observe that, on that occasion, he was distinctly in order, and that the Chairman had ruled—
Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will not enter upon that. It would not be in order to discuss the Chairman's ruling.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not intend to discuss the Chairman's ruling, except to say that he was in order, and that the tumult which arose was not of his making, but the making of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who could not exhibit sufficient toleration to hear views which did not coincide with their own. He had only to say now what he had intended to say when the Vote was before the Committee, and if what he was about to say did not meet with the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he

1067
submitted that that was no reason why they should not listen to him; because after all one of the greatest characteristics of the House of Commons was that it was supposed to represent all shades of public opinion in the country. However hon. Gentlemen opposite might regard the matter, there were tens and hundreds of thousands of people, not merely in Ireland, but in Great Britain, who were opposed to the granting of such a large sum of money to Lord Kitchener for performing what was, after all, only his duty as an officer, for which he was paid. He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it was not in accordance with what they considered good taste that any objection should be raised on an occasion like the present. But after all, if hon. Members did not represent the opinions of those who elected them, they must occupy a very false position in the House of Commons. In opposing this Vote he undoubtedly expressed the opinions not only of the 12,000 electors in Clare that he represented, but the opinions of the vast majority of the inhabitants of Ireland; and, therefore, he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider that in expressing his opinion on the Vote he was only doing his duty. Sometimes the Irish Members were severely criticised for the strength of the language which they used from time to time in expressing their opinions; and sometimes the Irish newspapers were condemned because of the vehemence with which they expressed their views. He could only say that, having had considerable political experience, and having been nineteen years a Member of the House of Commons, he never, either in the House, or in England, or in Ireland, experienced anything at all approaching the violence of the expressions used by the Press of England against himself, and against men like him who felt it their duty to oppose the grant. The newspapers of this country published language of a character such as had not been used in the strongest days of the Irish agitation by any Irish newspaper. Several newspapers in this country and city incited people to violently attack himself and his colleagues, because they had the courage of their convictions
1068
One newspaper in London, not very important, and only noticeable, as a rule, because of the violence of its language—he referred to the Globe—expressed the opinion that he, and men like him, who opposed the grant to Lord Kitchener should be hunted through the streets of London like rats. He could imagine the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh or some other strong supporter of the Government in Ireland, quoting with gusto language of that kind if they found it in an Irish newspaper. Irish newspapers had been suppressed, and Irish editors had been sent to gaol, for publishing language not nearly as violent, and not nearly as likely to lead to a breach of the peace, as the language of the Globe. He would only say with regard to comments like that, that they would not complain as long as they were spared the humiliation and disgrace of having to undergo what the editor and manager of the Globe underwent, when they were obliged, like whipped curs, at the bar of the House to withdraw an infamous insult winch had been levelled against the representatives of Ireland.
As he had intended to observe when he was interrupted by the disorder in Committee, he objected to the grant to Lord Kitchener, principally because he held him responsible for what had occurred in the concentration camps in South Africa during the war. In those camps, 15,000 children were, as he believed, foully, wantonly, and unnecessarily done to death. He had heard it stated that those camps were really provided, in order to protect the women and children of the Boers; and that if they had not been provided, the women and children would have died on the veldt. But before those camps were provided, the homes of those women and children were burned to the ground, their crops were destroyed, and all means of livelihood were taken from them. Therefore, if they were in a position of starvation and destitution it was because of the action of the Army under Lord Kitchener in wantonly burning the homes, and destroying the property of the families of the men in arms; and it was absurd to say that any credit was due to the Government or to the Army for providing camps for people who were

1069
rendered helpless and homeless by the conduct of the Government. He was quite prepared to admit that Lord Kitchener was not the man who originated the policy of those camps. As far as he knew, that policy was initiated by Lord Roberts, but if Lord Kitchener did not originate that policy, he carried it out; and he would repeat what he said in Committee, that, as far as Lord Kitchener was responsible for those camps, he held him personally responsible for the deaths of 15,000 innocent and helpless children. He was not going to review at any length the conditions and circumstances under which the campaign was carried on by Lord Kitchener; but when he was asked to vote Lord Kitchener £50,000, he could not refrain from reflecting what had happened in those camps. It was admitted in this House that the women and children of the Boers in arms received only half rations; they were practically starved, while the women and children of the men who had surrendered received full rations. He said deliberately that a more cowardly and a more contemptible policy than that was never indulged in by any Army or any Power against an opponent. What could be more contemptible than that the news should reach men in the field that their women and children were receiving half rations because they were still fighting, and that if they only surrendered their wives and little ones would get full rations? That system was exposed and denounced by the Irish Members in the House of Commons, and a stop was put to it; but it was not stopped until a number of miserable women and children, underfed and placed in most unsanitary surroundings, were done to death. It was mainly because of those camps, organised and controlled by Lord Kitchener, that he opposed the grant.
He did not understand the idea of such grants at all. He quite admitted that in some instances junior officers in the Army were not, perhaps, paid as they ought to be paid, although they were paid quite what they were worth, but the generals in the field and the senior officers were well paid. What, therefore, was the idea in giving a general, who was already well paid for doing his duty, a special grant of £50,000? Either he was already sufficiently paid or he was not; if he was not, then let his pay be increased, but let them not, at the end of a campaign,
1070
single out one man out of an army of 250,000 and give him £50,000. He should like to ask what money grant was to be given to the men of the rank and file. Since the matter had been in Committee, he had received a large number of letters from wives of men in the Reserve, who said they were glad that notice had been taken in the House of the fact that, while money was being lavished on Lord Kitchener and other military swells, absolutely nothing had been done to compensate the men of the rank and file, especially the Reserve men, who had left their employment and their wives and children practically in destitution when they went to the war. He could understand a special grant to Lord Kitchener, if it were proposed side by side with a grant for the rank and file. It was unjust and unfair that two men should be singled out from an army of 250,000 and should receive between them £150,000 at a time when he knew, and he was prepared to prove it, that a number of men who had fought in the war had been obliged to enter work-houses in Ireland. The fact was that the system of granting large sums of money under such circumstances was a bad system, and a system which he believed was not approved by the majority of the inhabitants of the country. What did Lord Kitchener do, anyway, for his £50,000? At the end of two and a half years, with an army outnumbering the Boers by something like ten to one, he succeeded in bringing about peace by recommending the Government to give the Boers a grant of several millions to rebuild their farms. He was not prepared to deny that that must have been a matter of great gratification and relief to the majority of the people of this country and the Empire at large. He naturally would have liked to have seen the Boers retain their independence. He had always said that, and would repeat it; but the peace which had been concluded was not a peace won, but a peace bought. The Boers were given £3,000,000 to rebuild their homes, and they were promised what was denied to Ireland, a full measure of self-government in the future. If instead of these terms the Government had proposed to set up a sort of Dublin Castle over the Boers, they would be fighting still; but, whether the peace was good or bad, one thing was certain; that was, that no honour or glory,

1071
or no great military achievements marked the British conduct of the war. Lord Kitchener, for all he knew, did as well in the circumstances as any other general would have done, but he certainly did nothing to distinguish himself, or to show that he was possessed of any particular military genius, nor had he anything to show in the way of victories won, that would justify such a great reward. In the very last engagement of importance in the war, the British troops were defeated and overwhelmed; and how they could arrive at the conclusion that Lord Kitchener deserved £50,000 was more than he could understand. Lord Methuen, who was defeated before the war was concluded, was, he had heard, a very capable man. As a military leader, he believed he was not a success; but for hard, unremitting work in the field, without grumbling or complaining, he certainly merited a reward a great deal better than either Lord Roberts or Lord Kitchener. He fought the best he could with complaining, without coming home, and without having his family, with their baggage, sent up to him to Pretoria. But because, at the end, he happened to be overwhelmed, when, perhaps, any other general would have been equally overwhelmed, he was ignored. Then what about General Buller? He did more than Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener put together. He fought hard, and he fought long, but because he did not suit his action to the opinions of the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary for War, he was passed over and got no reward whatever. The people of Ireland regarded the whole of the matter as a piece of hypocrisy. They believed the best men were not getting the rewards. What, he might ask, was to be done for the rank and file? They could come home and go to the workhouses. It was perfectly well known that thousands of men who had given up their employment to join the Reserve, found on their return that their places had been filled up, and that no employment was open to them. It would be much better to divide the £50,000 among them than to lavish it on Lord Kitchener, who, a few years ago, received £1 a head for every unfortunate Arab he slaughtered in the Soudan.
He opposed the grant from the Irish point of view, because they objected from the first to vote any money in connection with the war. The Chancellor of the
1072
Exchequer only today acknowledged the misery and destitution of a large section of the people of Ireland; and they ought not to be expected, through their representatives, to allow Votes of this kind to be passed without a protest. How much good could not be done towards improving their condition, and promoting industries, by the amount of this grant! From the Irish point of view, both on account of the poverty of the country, and of the war, this grant of money was altogether detestable, and ought to be opposed. But what of the English point of view? Every night the streets of London were filled with men and women, who, through no fault of their own, but through sheer misfortune and the want of honest employment, were in the direst necessity. It was impossible to take up any London newspaper with-out reading accounts of the most appalling misery and destitution; and so it was in every large centre of population throughout the length and breadth of the country. There was want and destitution everywhere, and yet it was impossible to get hon. Members opposite to seriously attempt to alleviate distress, or to help men who were in straitened circumstances through no fault of their own. Whenever any proposal was made to legislate for the benefit of the masses, or to relieve those who deserved to be relieved, a deaf ear was turned to it; but the moment the Government proposed to shower tens of thousands of pounds on men who were already paid by the State for their work, it was cheerfully voted by hon. Members opposite. He renewed the protest he made in Committee against the grant. In Committee, he would not have attempted to supplement the masterly statement of the case, from the Irish point of view, made by his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, were it not for the greatest possible provocation which was given to himself and to every Irish Member, by the most unwarranted and uncalled-for attack levelled against them by the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire. If the hon. Member had not practically insulted the Irish Members by saying that they did not represent the people of Ireland, and had denied their right to speak on behalf of the Irish people, he himself would not have spoken, and the tumult and disorder which followed would not have occurred. It was all due to the

1073
uncalled for attack of the hon. Member, who never lost an opportunity of pro yoking the Irish Members. He was glad that what he had to say had been listened to, and the moral of the incident in Committee was, that hon. Gentlemen opposite should try on all occasions to keep cool, and to calmly listen even to opinions with which they did not agree. He was glad that he had been able to make his protest without interruption, and also very glad that Mr. Speaker had been spared the humiliation of being present on the previous occasion.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that in entering his protest against the grant he desired to do so without the slightest personal feeling, but simply in order to discharge his duty to his constituents. Every word he would utter would be governed by the consideration that he would be unworthy of his position in the House, if he were to vote £50,000 to Lord Kitchener when the food of the people in his constituency was being taxed for it. He might have to say things which would be distasteful to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would be a sad day for the House of Commons and its liberties when the shouts of a domineering majority would be able to drown the voice of a Member saying distasteful things. They had only to remember how many men had said distasteful things in the past which had been proved to be right. Lord Chatham spoke distastefully when he appealed for American independence; Cobden and Bright said distasteful things when they protested against the Crimean War; and the day would come when the balance of public opinion would incline to the men who had said distasteful things in connection with the war in South Africa, and who had proclaimed the faith that was in them. If he were a British Member, he would oppose the grant on the general principle that such grants were not right or proper. Although he would oppose the grant, at the same time they all felt grateful to Lord Kitchener for being the means of ending this abominable war. That was as clearly a feather in Lord Kitchener's cap, as the war itself was a feather in the Colonial Secretary's cap. He did not know from what bird the Colonial Secretary plucked that feather. He believed it must have been a moulting
1074
vulture, or something of that sort. He would also recall the fact that Lord Kitchener had nothing to do with the series of abominable and base intrigues which began the war. Further, Lord Kitchener won his spurs for himself. He was not sent out us long as the game was to be a mere march to Pretoria, Then the favourites of Society were sent out; but whatever Lord Kitchener did he did as a hard-working officer. There was another thing in Lord Kitchener's favour. He actually danced on the War Office, and he was delighted at it. He told the War Office that they were sending him men who could neither shoot nor ride; and the War Office did not venture to tell him to rewrite his despatches. He was not bullied by the War Office, and, in spite of the favouritism prevailing there, he got everything he wanted.
Having said so much, he would now say why he held that Lord Kitchener should not be voted this grant. First of all, Lord Kitchener was well paid already. He had £5,000 a year, and was Commander-in-Chief elect in India at a salary of £7,000 a year. Only three years ago he received £30,000, and in view of the fact that they did not know how much was to be given to the widows and children of the 20,000 men who had lost their lives in the war, or to the 80,000 men whose lives had been ruined, he could not understand why one man should have been selected for such a large grant. He was certain that the 80,000 men who had suffered in the war would not receive one-hundredth part of the grant to Lord Kitchener, who, he was happy to say, had not suffered physically in the war at all. He was already well paid for doing his work, and it was an outrage that he should be given a bonus in addition. There was one thing in the grant which differentiated it from every other military grant. On no occasion had a grant of public money been voted so soon after the conclusion of operations. On other occasions, grants had only been given after a full inquiry had been held into the war. On the present occasion peace was concluded on Saturday, and on the following Thursday the First Lord of the Treasury proposed this grant. That was quite unprecedented. The grant to

1075
Lord Roberts was proposed on the 31st of July, although he declared the war over on the 15th of September previously. The battle of Omdurman was fought in September, 1898, but the grant to Lord Kitchener was not proposed until the 5th of June in the following year. Why was there such haste in giving this grant to Lord Kitchener? Was it because the War Office did not want a thorough and comprehensive inquiry into the war? He would not say a word personally disparaging to Lord Kitchener, but he was responsible for every act of war, and charges in connection with very great atrocities had been made, and until they had been inquired into the grant ought not to be voted. There were in twenty-four actions fought in the war in reference to which no despatches had been published, except simply the tale of the wounded. There was an important action at Standerton in which eight men were killed and twenty-two wounded. He asked the Secretary for War for an account of what occurred in that engagement. If the right hon. Gentleman's answer was right, it did not reflect credit on Lord Kitchener, and if it were wrong it did not reflect credit on the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said that no information beyond the list of casualties had reached the War Office, and he added that if Lord Kitchener attached any importance to the engagement he would have telegraphed particulars. Lord Kitchener ought to have attached importance to loss of life. There was one thing that Lord Kitchener could not be personally acquitted of, and that was that he prevented Miss Hobhouse from visiting the concentration camps when she went to South Africa a second time. The Secretary for War told him that it was owing to Lord Kitchener's action that that benevolent lady was not allowed to investigate the condition of the camps. Then again, Lord Kitchener could not be acquitted of responsibility for the order which was given on many occasions, with a refinement of cruelty, that the friends and relatives of men sentenced to be shot should be present at their execution. He had a preliminary notice with reference to an execution at Craddock which stated that all adults were ordered to attend the market
1076
square to witness the promulgation of sentences of death. That was utterly improper and utterly wrong. There was another point which ought not to be omitted. Until Lord Kitchener furnished a full account of all the circumstances connected with the execution of Australian officers for the murder of Boer prisoners of war, the grant should not be voted. Those murders took place on the 31st of August last year, the circumstances were known to Lord Kitchener on the 16th of October, and yet in November the Secretary of State for War made speeches in which he brought charges of wholesale murder against the Boers, and stated that he had asked Lord Kitchener for specific particulars. They did not know what took place even now, but they did know that the Secretary for War had particulars of these murders in his pocket, but suppressed them from the public.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make this an opportunity of attacking the Secretary of State for War.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I was not doing it.
MR. SPEAKER: When I interrupted the hon. Gentleman he was saying that the Secretary for War had information in his pocket which he had suppressed from the public. That is an attack, not on Lord Kitchener, but on the Secretary of State for War.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that full information with reference to the murder of the Boer prisoners of war should have been given. Three of the Australian officers concerned had the Distinguished Service medal, and the defence was that they only did what they were ordered, and what others did; and it was only because one of the victims was a German missionary that the murders were inquired into. All these matters should be investigated, and not drowned in Coronation fireworks. Then, again no fewer than 600 farms had beer burned, two of them belonging to De Wet and two to Delarey; and he submitted that, until there was a proper inquiry into the war, it was utterly

1077
wrong und improper to vote £50,000 to Lord Kitchener. If an investigation was subsequently held, it would be said that all these matters were ancient history, and that they should let bygones be bygones. But they would not let bygones be bygones as long as they were asked to contribute £50,000 wrung from the vitals of a starving people. He had heard from an officer at the front that it was considered that the Australian officers were very hardly dealt with, only because one of their victims was a German missionary. The hideous system of putting the women and children on half rations in order to endeavour to strike at brave men in the field, through their families, ought also not to be forgotten. He had been listened to most patiently, and, in conclusion, would only show, by reading a few extracts, that the charges which he was bringing against Lord Kitchener had been brought by responsible persons against Lord Roberts also.
MR. SPEAKER: The question whether charges were brought against Lord Roberts, and whether they were right or wrong, has nothing to do with the Vote to Lord Kitchener.
A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Another instance of British fair-play!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make reflections upon the Chair. I have endeavoured to act with fairness to all.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I have imputed no unfairness whatever, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: I was not referring to the hon. Member for South Donegal, but to an hon. Member behind him.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLregretted the Speaker had not permitted him to read the extract, because it would have shown that exactly the same charges as were now made against Lord Kitchener were made against Lord Roberts by no less a personage than the present Colonial Secretary. If Members doubted that, they could refer to The Times of February 9th, 1880. The Irish Members had protested against the war from the beginning, and against every outrage committed in the war. If accusations of house-burning or of starving women and children were brought against the troops, similar deeds could be found to have been committed in Ireland.
A NATIONALIST MEMBER: More British fair-play!
MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to interrupt. The hon. Member in possession of the House is not in order in making this question an opportunity for discussing the events of 1798.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was referring to them merely for purposes of illustration. Every story of atrocity in connection with the war in South Africa could be matched by a similar story with regard to Ireland. The Irish Members were bound to tell the British House of Commons not only what they thought, but what the whole civilised world, outside the manufactured and mammonised opinion, thought of England. He was glad that the war was over, but as he

1079
objected to Lord Roberta getting £100,000 for ending the war for a general election, so he objected to Lord Kitchener getting £50,000 for re-ending it for the Coronation.
MR. POWERsaid it was extremely difficult to get Englishmen to take a dispassionate view of the war. He believed the majority of the House, when they expressed approval of the war, to a large extent voiced the opinion of the English people. But, at the same time, he desired to express his admiration of those brave and gallant Englishman who, in spite of mob-tyranny, held their views as against the war, and also of that brave Englishwoman who, by her own exertions, did so much to improve the wretched condition of the people imprisoned in the concentration camps. What was the position of the Irish Members? Not even their greatest enemy would say they had had one voice for the hill-Bides of Ireland and another for the House of Commons. From the beginning they had proclaimed the detestation of their people for this war.
MR. SPEAKER: The question is not as to the justice or popularity of the war, but whether or not Lord Kitchener should have this money voted to him.
MR. POWERsaid he was endeavouring to show that in opposing the war the Irish Members were speaking for the people by whom they were sent to the House of Commons.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to the question of the grant to Lord Kitchener.
MR. POWERcontended that the war had not redounded to the credit of British arms, and future generations would declare that Lord Kitchener's conduct of the war, and his action in placing hostages on trains, and so forth, did not reflect any credit upon him. Irish blood had been most lavishly spilt, but it had never been spilt in a more unworthy cause.
MR. SPEAKER: I have twice called the hon. Member to order, and must have made it quite clear to him that it is not in order to go into a discussion of the rights of the war. The only question is the conduct of the general to whom it is now proposed to vote money.
MR. POWERsaid that he voted against the grant to his own countryman, Lord Roberts, and he should certainly vote against the grant to Lord Kitchener. Although those who protested might be a small minority in this country, he believed they represented the view taken by the rest of the civilised world.
MR. KEIR HARDIEwould not like it to be said that the only voices in opposition to this grant came from Ireland, because there was in Great Britain a strong feeling of resentment amongst the thinking section of the working classes against it. He opposed the grant on principle. Lord Kitchener was paid for being a general, and when engaged in the dirty and disgraceful work of war he was simply doing that for which he was paid. He (the hon. Member) objected to the military section of the servants of the State being singled out for these special

1081
rewards. Men who made great discoveries in science or mechanics conferred much greater benefit on the race than those who headed an array engaged in slaying and burning, but they were not rewarded in this way. Moreover, in the course of a few weeks there would be returning home 100,000 men who, in the war, had done as much for king and country as had Lord Kitchener. What would be their prospect? Trade depressed, wages going down, taxes and the cost of living going up, but no grant as a reward for their services. ["Yes, there is."] There was to be given to each man a sum about sufficient to buy a suit of clothes in which to start work again. It was more an insult than a grant when compared with the Vote to the Commander-in-Chief. In Sheffield a fund bad been opened in order to feed, by charity, the working men there who were unable to find employment. Was it a proper time, when such steps were necessary, to vote this enormous sum to a man who had done no more than his duty? Some of them thought he had done that duty in such a way as not to bring credit upon the country by which he was employed; but, apart from that, the best that could be said of Lord Kitchener simply amounted to this—that he had proved to be the one fairly satisfactory general among the ruck of incapables who had been sent to South Africa.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that his objection to this Vote had nothing whatever to do with the abhorrence he had always felt for the war. Whoever was responsible for the war, Lord Kitchener was not. The House bad now to judge only of
1082
the conduct of Lord Kitchener as a soldier, and it was from that point of view he was unable to support the Vote. For a year and three-quarters he had had 300,000 or 400,000 men under his command, while the force opposed to him consisted of 30,000 or 40,000 farmers, and that fact alone suggested the question of whether this Vote was justifiable. But his chief objection was as to the methods by which Lord Kitchener had carried on the war, especially as to farm-burning, concentration camps, and the murder—he could call it nothing less—of men like Scheepers and Lotter. No other civilised army, in modern times, had been put to the work to which Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener had put the British troops in the way of farm-burning. It was not the pro-Boers alone who had denounced the practices to which he objected as making war on women and children. They had been condemned by Lord Clive and Lord Napier, and, even in connection with the present war, by the late Field Marshal Sir Neville Chamberlain. They were contrary to the usages of civilised warfare, and against the agreement of the Hague Convention. The concentration camps were the direct result of the policy of farm-burning. As to Scheepers and Lotter, they were simply charged with doing what the British army had done again and again, and it looked as though, because they were able and efficient opponents, these charges had been trumped up against them in order that they might be shot. These things were an indelible disgrace to Lord Kitchener and the honour of the British nation, and he would never vote a single farthing to an officer responsible for such deeds.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 239.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir A. F.

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

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Finch, George H.

Macdona, John Cumming

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

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

Arrol, Sir William

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Asher, Alexander

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Majendie, James A. H.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Manners, Lord Cecil

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Markham, Arthur Basil

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml's

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Sal'p

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Banbury, Frederick George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich'el Hicks

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morrell, George Herbert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sb'ry

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Bignold, Arthur

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Mount, William Arthur

Bill, Charles

Groves, James Grimble

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Muntz, Philip A.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

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

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Brookfield, Colonel Montague

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Harris, Frederick Leverton

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Butcher, John George

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Cautley, Henry Strother

Henderson, Alexander

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Hermon-Hodge, Robt, Trotter

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hogg, Lindsay

Randles, John S.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Holland, William Henry

Reid, James (Greenock)

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Charrington, Spencer

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Renwick, George

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Richards, Henry Charles

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hoult, Joseph.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Houston, Robert Paterson

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

Ropner, Col. Robert

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Round, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Russell, T. W.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cranborne, Viscount

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Kimber, Henry

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

Denny, Colonel

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lawson, John Grant

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Spear, John Ward

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Doughty, George

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Duke, Henry Edward

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lowe, Francis William

Thornton, Percy M.

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tollemache, Henry James

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'd

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Walker, Col. William Hall

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Webb, Colonel William George

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

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Str'ud

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Malley, William

Ambrose, Robert

Joicey, Sir James

O'Mara, James

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boland, John

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burke, E. Haviland-

Leamy, Edmund

Reddy, M.

Caldwell, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Levy, Maurice

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cawley, Frederick

Lundon, W.

Rickett, J. Compton

Channing, Francis Allston

Macdonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roche, John

Crean, Eugene

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cremer, William Randal

M'Kean, John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Delany, William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Dillon, John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Doogan, P. C.

Mooney, John J.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Edwards, Frank

Moss, Samuel

Sullivan, Donal

Ffrench, Peter

Murnaghan, George

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Kendal (Tippera'y Mid

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

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

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

(12.8.) Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes, 227; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 240.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Denny, Colonel

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Butcher, John George

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Caldwell, James

Dickson, Charles Scott

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Causton, Richard Knight

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Arrol, Sir William

Cautley, Henry Strother

Doughty, George

Asher, Alexander

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cawley, Frederick

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Duke, Henry Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Balcarres, Lord

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Edwards, Frank

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

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Channing, Francis Allston

Faber, George Denison (York)

Banbury, Frederick George

Charrington, Spencer

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finch, George H.

Bignold, Arthur

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bill, Charles

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fisher, William Hayes

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Brassey, Albert

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Cranborne, Viscount

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Crossley, Sir Savile

Furness, Sir Christopher

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Levy, Maurice

Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Round, James

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Russell, T. W.

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

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Lowe, Francis William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Seely, Major J. E. B. (I. of Wight

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Shaw Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G Ellison

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Groves, James Grimble

Macdona, John Cumming

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'sx

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

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Spear, John Ward

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Majendie, James A. H.

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Stevenson, Francis S.

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Helme, Norval Watson

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Henderson, Alexander

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Hogg, Lindsay

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Thornton, Percy M.

Holland, William Henry

Morrell, George Herbert

Tollemache, Henry James

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Moss, Samuel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Horniman, Frederick John

Mount, William Arthur

Valentia, Viscount

Houldsworth, Sir, Wm. Henry

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Hoult, Joseph

Muntz, Philip A.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Houston, Robert Paterson

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Webb, Colonel William George

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Parkes, Ebenezer

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Wills, Sir Frederick

Joicey, Sir James

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Kimber, Henry

Purvis, Robert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Randles, John S.

Wyndham Quin, Major W. H.

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Lawson, John Grant

Remnant, James Farquharson

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Renwick, George

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Richards, Henry Charles

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Rickett, J. Compton

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Ambrose, Robert

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

O'Malley, William

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Leamy, Edmund

O'Mara, James

Boland, John

Lundon, W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Reddy, M.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Crean, Eugene

M'Kean, John

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cremer, William Randal

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Delany, William

Mooney, John J.

Roche, John

Dillon, John

Murnaghan, George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Doogan, P. C.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Ffrench, Peter

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Flynn, James Christopher

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.